GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: OMB touts savings potential of 'best value' contracting

• 16590
  

  If cost saving were the true goal of competitive sourcing, the competition should work both ways, not just federal job becoming contract jobs. Contract jobs tend to stay contract jobs, with the contract tending to become more and more expensive every year.

  Set that aside for now, and take a look at measuring performance. Having been both a contract employee and a federal employee, I can honestly say that my performance has been much, much better as a federal employee. I am much more efficient at my job, knowing that I have health and dental insurance, paid time off, and am saving for retirement. As a contract employee -- and doing essentially the same job -- I had no insurance, a paltry 24 hours time off, no way to save for retirement, and the knowledge that every year my job would go out to be bid on (to the lowest bidder no less).

  As a federal employee I feel committed to my agency's goals and mission, and pride in being a civil servant and in doing good works to benefit all citizens of the nation. I honestly don't mind that I could be paid more if I worked outside of government. As a contract employee, I never felt part of the team (occasionally feeling deliberately excluded), and had to be looking out for number one just to survive. I often wondered if my agency, which was primarily engaged in scientific research, ever thought about whether I could be trusted to perform the research objectively and without bias because of my employment with a for-profit company.

  Sometimes, in the case of employee benefits, you get what you pay for. Sometimes, in the case of padding the profit margin of industry, you don't.

  Embedded in all contracts is some amount of profit for the company that wins the contract, otherwise the company wouldn't be interested in obtaining it. Imagine for a moment, that the government isn't tethered to the federal pay schedule or required to provide a standard package of benefits, and is able to provide the employee the same pay and benefits as the contract company. Up for grabs, then, is the profit embedded in the contract. Which is better, to recruit a better and more efficient worker with that extra money, to give it back to the hardworking taxpayers, or to give it to a corporation? This, I think, is the invisible elephant in the middle of the room.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 5, 2006 11:52 AM
• 16358
  

  This latest OMB report leaves one wondering if their acronym really means Office of Magic Budgets and statistics.

  This is another case of the Bush administration massaging statistics to support to its ideological agenda. The conclusions of the OMB report are highly skewed by the outsourcing of DOT Flight Services. Most of the claimed savings are based solely on the flight services competition. Yet, this competition was economically complex and the actual savings are probably much lower when evaluated properly. Somehow OMB has taken a questionable, if not meaningless, statistic and leaped to a conclusion that supports the Bush administration's position. Amazingly, the report doesn't even offer a cautionary footnote to the interpretation.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 25, 2006 5:07 PM
• 16353
  

  In A-76 studies or contracting out work, the bottom line is to get rid of government workers and not pay for retirement in the out years. The major cost in all the bids is labor. The majority of the other costs are considered sunk cost since the government will have to pay for these cost no matter who wins. The government personnel cost is fixed at a high dollar/hour level because the present government workforce is old due to government cutbacks. The contractor pay is somewhat limited to the pay like jobs within the geographical area. In addition, the contractor benefits are considerably less than government's.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 25, 2006 1:33 PM
• 16351
  

  Next time Stan Soloway has something to say, could you please ignore him? He is a broken record who has not said anything intelligent in his entire life.

  DSR

  David Posted April 25, 2006 12:17 PM
• 16350
  

  "Best Value" contracting is BS; the cost of the A-76 (competitive sourcing initiative) is far more than any money saved over a 10-year period by outsourcing government jobs. An even bigger problem is the little tasks that manage to get left out of the bid and that the contractor refuses to do, so now it doesn't get done or the contractor goes back for more money, and now we are far more than the cost of the government employee we lost. Wake up America, and George Bush, we are saving so much money we can't afford it!

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 25, 2006 11:31 AM