GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Weighing In

• 1836
  

  Resistance to A-76 is bad for federal employees. It is bad because it perpetuates the myth of the coddled federal employee--one who is not subject to the competitive environment that made this country great and applies to every other American worker. Resistance to A-76 serves to support the idea that federal workers have not justified their right to competitive wages. The resistance is bad for the government, as managers and workers are told that they are not responsible for performance.

  The congressional message to the Forest Service is clear: you are not responsible for seeking the best mix of in-house and contract resources. It is a message that continues to perpetuate the sense that government is inefficient. Resistance to A-76 is bad for the taxpayer, as services decline and budgets are made tighter. It also suggests that public employees are not interested in best value.

  Aren't you tired of having the terms "fraud, waste and abuse" connected to federal employees? Why else do Americans feel they are not getting their money's worth? And finally, the resistance to A-76 is bad for the government's customers, who often rely on needed services provided on a monopoly basis, where quality, and customer satisfaction mean little.

  A-76 is not, should not, be about reducing the number of federal employees or jobs in general. Streamlining is a side effect-an embarrassing one, particularly since the most efficient organization wins over 60 percent of competitions. The sad irony is that most of the highly skilled and technical work (defense and national security) is already outsourced-and not because of A-76. Like it or not, service contracts are competed every three to five years. Until that day, when competition is truly embraced, federal employees will never be treated as equals.

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 15, 2003 9:02 AM
• 1802
  

  As a DoD employee of 20 plus years, the main focus should be on supporting the warfighter. Do you want a contractor who may not go the extra mile because it's not in their contract, or do you want the federal employee who does what it takes to support the mission? Often I think the fact that government employees have loyalty to the mission versus loyalty to a profit is lost.

  In many instances you're losing the prime knowledge base as many of the career federal folks do not want to work for a contractor and many start bailing out as soon as they know they've been sold down the river by A-76. Our command underwent an A76 and many people left. The cost difference was less then $300K a year in a multi-million dollar contract. Many months of poor service (to this day) because of poorly trained contractor employees, a work statement that was outdated, and now modifications that bring the costs above the MEO cost. What did we save? Nothing, our customers suffer and our employees suffer.....all in the name of outsourcing. Why not look at those who are supposed to be managing and hold them accountable?

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 7, 2003 8:38 AM
• 1797
  

  The first sentence in the article perpetuates the myth that the president is trying to streamline government through contracting out. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is playing politics with real people's lives and livelihoods. Any way he can find to shift tax dollars from dedicated federal employees to his cronies' pockets is fair game as far as he is concerned. If he was truly interested in finding ways to streamline government he would start looking at the poorly managed 6 million plus contract employees the government finances instead of the ever decreasing 1.7 million hard working civil servants.

  I agree we can reduce some aspects of government, and I can think of about 6 million places to start.

  Mike H. Posted October 6, 2003 12:48 PM
• 1790
  

  The President is way off the mark. Any government job that is worth competing is not worth doing from a government point of view. Therefore, rather than compete the jobs they should eliminate them. Them they can contract private interests to perform the functions until they decide they are not worth doing.

  Contracting out government jobs simply admits that the federal government is way too big and must be reduced. Do that by eliminating the jobs - not contracting them out!

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 6, 2003 6:55 AM