GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Feds see drop in jobs defended against contractors in 2005

• 16629
  

  The FAA's Lockheed Flight Service contract will not save taxpayers one dime. Lockheed has failed to meet its transition timeline and needlessly reduced service levels. The contract was poorly constructed by the FAA, allowing Lockheed to disregard many of its requirements. This is typical of government contracts. The bureaucrats have failed to protect the taxpayers' interests and should be prosecuted for gross negligence and fraud.

  Bob Posted May 9, 2006 4:24 PM
• 16075
  

  "The political parties and the incumbents are destroying the United States for future generations." This is so true a statement. Until this country comes up with a better way elect those who are supposed to represent us, "big money" will continue to control the reins of power, at the expense of the American taxpayer and the common man. It takes a lot of money to get elected in this country, and those with the big money decide who will get this needed funding, and what price they will have to pay to get it. There should be limits on the amount that can be spent on political campaigns, as well as the length of time that these campaigns can be conducted. The individual who is willing to "sell his/her soul to the highest bidder" stands the best chance of being elected, but often assumes their office with pre-selected commitments that are all too often not in the best interests of those who voted for this individual. Serious reconsideration needs to be given to the fact that once elected to political office, this individual is then guaranteed a lifetime retirement. I would love to be able to have someone give me millions of dollars to use to get elected, pass legislation that benefits this benefactor, work for 4-8 years, and then receive an annual retirement for the remainder of my life. One must only ask why Social Security has not yet been adequately addressed -- and come to the realization that legislative/judicial/executive branches do not rely on this manner of collecting payments during their retirement years.

  JD Posted April 11, 2006 6:56 AM
• 16046
  

  The entire idea of bidding out government jobs is ridiculous. The only way the private sector could win such a situation is if the payment of the employees in the private sector (usually pensions and health benefits) is less than in government. This "outsourcing" is simply a way to reduce wages and salaries of government workers! The benefit is to the taxpayer and I am grateful; however, it does me no good unless Congress reduces the federal deficit and that is not happening.

  If it can be outsourced to a private company it should not be done by government in the first place! Anything that can be bid out should be dropped from the government books -- it is not a matter of who does it for the lowest cost but who should do it in the first place. Government is not a business and should not be run as one! If the government can be run as a business there is no need for government!

  The real problem is how Congress and the President get elected. They use government programs and spending as a means to buy votes to stay in their jobs. Elected representatives should not have jobs but should represent the people that elect them and not buy their votes. This is the prime reason for term limits in Congress -- we have it for the president!

  Likewise, the president should not present a budget to Congress. The House of Representatives should prepare the budget for presentation to the vote of Congress. I believe that Hoover was the first to have the president present a budget to Congress and you see what has happened since then. Now we have a President that is interested in getting as much money in the budget as possible because that reflects his power and the money flow to his party! This has to stop! The political parties and the incumbents are destroying the United States for future generations.

  Taxpayer Posted April 10, 2006 9:24 AM
• 16010
  

  Please, no more quoting of movie-star handsome Stan Soloway. His one-line platitudes do nothing to inform us. He is the Sean Hannity of competitive sourcing.

  Connie the Contractor Posted April 7, 2006 3:13 PM
• 15978
  

  Public-private competitions are supposed to be an unbiased approach to increasing operational efficiency. It's strange that the only numbers that OMB touts are the win-loss ratios and dubious savings totals. These competitions have been going on for a number of years and yet our government is still in a budget crisis. We must question what we are really gaining when you take jobs from dedicated long-time federal workers and leave the management who caused the problems in place. Feds aren't losing the competitions because they are less efficient but because their agencies are cutting headcount and funding to the point that either people burn out or all the work can't possibly be done. This sends them into a competition handicapped to begin with. That is why more feds are losing.

  Deborah King Posted April 7, 2006 8:04 AM
• 15961
  

  Let's see, $3.1 billion in net savings (cost reductions) -- $5.6 billion to date -- and 90 percent of the competitions are being won (retained) in-house. What is the debate again -- that it cost $210 million or even if it were $500 million to find these savings? And again, the concern is about what -- that the sunk costs of all those federal managers who were not supposed to let it get this way in the first place are not fully costed against these commercial competitions? Maybe it's more about fighting the likes of AFGE in the absence of a full and open competition. So, why is Congress and the administration not pushing this program?

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 6, 2006 2:21 PM
• 15958
  

  It's funny how every single article I've ever read on competitive sourcing has always invoked "projected savings" as its justification. Of all the articles on A-76 published in Govexec.com, I don't recall a single one that said: "GAO investigated the stated savings of Agency X in the five years since A-76 and found that Agency X was correct." Nor do they ever mention anything about maintaining quality. Sure, you can replace someone making more than $20 an hour with someone making minimum wage, but you can't possibly expect the same level of work.

  Meanwhile, after contractors win A-76 competitions they play delightful games such as "re-negotiating" the contract after that fact. By then it's too late as the government's hands are tied. They can't simply turn back the clock as all the federal employees are dispersed. Contractors who turn in an absurdly low bid also have a tendency to go bankrupt in six months. The contract is then re-bid, costing millions more. Around, and around, and around we go.

  These articles would be of great service if they omitted the opinions of Stan Soloway. I'm sure he would pine for outsourcing the position of Secretary of State to Duncan Donuts, but his opinions are not worth reporting.

  David Posted April 6, 2006 12:04 PM
• 15939
  

  The more important statistic is how many competitions were conducted and how many were won by federal employee groups. As is the case with the FAA's 2,500 jobs, one competition skews the stats and doesn't tell the whole story. Federal employees have won the majority of competitions recently and this result will prevail in the future.

  I get a kick out of the management wonks cooking the stats and then running around claiming victory, when the sad fact is that these same management types are the ones who got us in this mess in the first place. They have over hired and under managed. Consequently, the federal worker gets a bad rap while the management people go about getting rewarded for fixing self-created problems.

  If you really want to fix government and save money, you would run competitive sourcing actions from the top down not the bottom up.

  John Oesterle Posted April 6, 2006 8:12 AM