GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House bill would put new A-76 competitions on hold for one year

• 71853
  

  Obviously Gary Porter hasn't worked for the federal government. At least not the agency I work for. As a supervisor I take my work home a majority of the time. I put in, on an average 50 to 60 hours a week. And do not fully charge my employer for time spent. What you're missing is the government is NOT a for-profit business. I contractor's entire existence is based solely on profit. It's the only thing that motivates them and the only thing they understand. Federal employees, especially the ones I work with, go the distance to support the Soldier in the field. They're motivated by the knowledge that they purchased the replacement parts, supplies, food...etc..that support the soldiers and hopefully save lives. I guess the smart thing is to replace those lazy government employees (especially the ones that hold Federal Service and Patriotism in high regard) with financially motivated contractor's who demand payment to go the extra mile for the soldiers who risk their lives on foreign soil every day for their freedom.

  An American Posted March 14, 2009 10:49 AM
• 65814
  

  Name one instance where the Government did a job cheeper than the private sector. This country was built on competition and thats what private industry brings to the table. Be competative or get out of the way. When was the last time you saw a Government employee work like crazy or take the job home with them? The ones that do wind up in the private sector being competative. Inovation, creativity, job excellence. Are these words you hear being applied to government agencys and their employees? A-76 prevents Empire building within the Government. Why do you think they hobbled the comparison between the Private sector and Government with Health and Retirement exclusions? because Government employees needed the handycap. NOAA ownes an airplane, they contract it to another agency for $500.00 per hour. That agency tells the public the airplane costs the taxpayer 500 bucks an hour, period. What it realy costs the taxpayer is 3000 an hour if you tally up NOAA's Maintenance, retirement, parts aquasition, training, travel, lawn work, garbage disposal, janitorial services etc. When was the last time you saw a Small business with four poeple cleaning floors and 2 keeping the lawn cut? We do it but most of us are cross trained to do the primary work also. Oh Yea, the Small business guy charges 1500 an hour and still gets the lawn cut and the trash dumped. Without the safeguards of an A-76 system they will continue to build an inefficiant system that promotes good enough for Government work mentality. Keep the Government Honest. Keep A-76.

  Gary porter Posted January 2, 2009 3:20 PM
• 53263
  

  The federal government is the largest employeer of americans in the nation, it provides all of those employees with health insurance, life insurance, a retirement, and a upper lower class to middle class income (except for our soldiers who barely make it). The American government is the largest provider of middle income families in the nation and college educated dependants. The contractors that I hire/ outsource to do not cover their employees with these. The American government is a non-profit organization that should operate within the tax system for its operating funds, there is no company or organization that can do a better job for the American public than that. As long as there is a bottom line they can't compete. How can laying off American who have benefits and hiring americans and aliens who do not have benefits or receive middle income wages be better for the nation. That is a bottom line, throw away attitude. Anyone who thinks that doesn't understand economics.

  TW Posted June 28, 2008 12:44 PM
• 53123
  

  Folks, the issue isn't more or less (or no competitive sourcing)--the issue is the government's overreliance on contractors (many of who are illegally performing inherently governmental work). So long as Executive and Legislative branch "leadership" continues to want to reduce FTE ceilings and federal budgets, yet allow agencies to allocate funds toward contracts, the outsourcing of commercial and inherelty governmental work will continue unabated.

  Veteran Posted June 25, 2008 9:12 PM
• 53096
  

  Dan: You're correct that Halliburton was not given the job via A-76. Rather, the duties were arbitrarily outsourced to Halliburton - with disastrous results. The Bush administration is to blame for the Forest Service shortcomings and wasting money on A-76, not the green dems in congress. As for A-76 saving money, it is all via fudged numbers. A reduced head-count makes it look like the govt is saving $$. Then, after the the fact, it's concluded that the organization can't fulfill the contract because the staff has been gutted. This causes far more wasted resources in trying to right the problem. Or, a contractor underbids the government MEO, then pulls a bait & switch tactic by re-doing the contract after-the-fact as they know the government's hands are tied.

  It appears that you are the one who needs to get his facts straight instead of believing the A-76 propoganda offered by the Bush administration. You probably still believe Iraq has WMDs too, eh?

  David Posted June 25, 2008 12:08 PM
• 53015
  

  What a kick in the teeth of the average taxpayer, all this does is continue the pandering to the unions. The billions paid to Halliburton was not under A-76 it was a performance based contract, remember we can't get our CS to go there. The problem with wild fires isn't A-76 but the green libs in Congress not allowing proper forest management. Its important that if you post that you use your mental abilities to analyze the issue rather than reading from the union handbook. Every and I mean every A-76 competition I have been involved with has save the taxpayers money. Remember 80% are won by the CS but at significantly reduced head count, it removes the bloat form the payroll. A-76 is a always a WIN for the taxpayers regardless of who performs the work

  Dan ketter Posted June 24, 2008 10:26 AM
• 52960
  

  I have worked A-76 for 10 years and it is quite clear the savings are just not there. There is no way for a contractor to legitimately be cheaper than the govt workforce and still make a profit. It's time to recognize this program for what it is.... Payoffs and politcal collateral

  Dave Posted June 23, 2008 7:32 PM
• 52910
  

  SB: You're trying to pose a Strawman argument. The critics of A-76 never said that it was created by the Bush administration; that is well beside the point. Rather, the issue is that A-76 has been grossly mismanaged and abused by this administration. Dubya has used it to reward his cronies who put him in the Whitehouse. The most egregious use of outsourcing was the no-bid, heaven-only-knows-how-many-billion $$ contract he awarded to Halliburton. The Department of Energy duties were outsourced to Halliburton, which has led to hundreds of well-documented cases of price-gouging and shoddy workmanship. Even many Republicans(!) have lashed out against the Bush administration for filling Halliburton's coffers.

  A few years ago, the Forest Service spent $25 million on A-76 in hopes of saving $5 million. There were wildfires blazing out of control in the SW U.S. partly because the Forest Service had so much $$ tied up in A-76 that they could not respond to forest fires adequately. All this because the FS was trying to "please" the Bush administration.

  The Bush administration has also tried to jury-rig the process in favor of contractors by such practices as having government employees' health insurance count "against" them in the so-called competitions. This allows contractors with no health insurance or subpar health insurance plans to under-cut the government's bid. This sort of thing is certainly not what the Eisenhower administration had in mind.

  In summary: the issue is not how long A-76 has been around, but rather how it is employed / mis-used and abused.

  David Posted June 23, 2008 10:54 AM
• 52865
  

  Competitive Sourcing is 50 years old - it did not originate with this administration. The program's origins trace to 1955, with President Eisenhower's (R) policy requiring federal agencies to determine if their commercial activities could be more efficiently performed by the private sector.

  In 1966, President Johnson (D) formalized OMB Circular A-76. In 1979, President Carter (D) issued the first Supplemental Handbook to the circular. President Clinton (D) introduced the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act in 1998, with Vice President Gore including A-76 as a major element of Reinventing Government and the National Performance Review.

  Finally in 2001, President Bush (R) requested agencies submit a separate inventory identifying all inherently governmental positions within agencies.

  sb Posted June 21, 2008 11:15 PM
• 52812
  

  I am currently a contractor. I used to be active duty. I personnally went through an A-76 competition and now I am running a contract for the Navy. Through contracting, the Navy has been able to save 15 million dollars. Employees here have excellent benefits and are paid very well. Also, efficiencies have gone through the roof from the previous GS work force. I see both sides and a contract will save money if managed properly.

  Nathan Posted June 20, 2008 1:37 PM
• 52808
  

  How is contracting saving money? The contracting firm needs to make a profit, so how do they do it? Pay the contract employee less? shave benefits? is the training and security clearance of the employee kept up? How about the quality of the goods? Are we getting Cisco products or Chinese knock-offs? When something is cheaper it's best to ask why, you usually get what you pay for. The myth that a government employee can't be fired is only true if you have a supervisor who is too lazy to counsel and document.

  Ann Posted June 20, 2008 12:48 PM
• 52777
  

  i have worked in Civil Service for over 24 years in all of that time I have witnessed many many contractors come and go doing work for the government and NOT A SINGLE TIME have I witnessed a success from contractors. MR. Bushes hatred for Civil Servants is apparent and has been from the start of his administration. I am a Republican and voted for Mr. Bush both elections but on this issue either he is totaly in the dark on it or is getting biased information from LOBBIEST. Either way outsourcing federal jobs will not and has never saved money for the govt, I dont care how many pencil whipped surveys they come up with.

  Tom Finley Posted June 20, 2008 10:08 AM
• 52772
  

  I have competed in one A-76 competition as a private contractor but never again. The rules are complex and favor the government employees. To us, it was a waste of time, money and effort.

  Beto Posted June 20, 2008 9:35 AM
• 52771
  

  A-76 was a costly farce. All claimed savings were smoke-and-mirror.

  Wise Old Owl Posted June 20, 2008 9:35 AM
• 52757
  

  This House action is to be applauded. The Bush OMB cost savings from these competitions are simply not credible. They are prepared by people with motives to inflate them. The purported cost savings do not take into account all costs associated with scoping, conducting, and implementing the competitions. The cost savings further completely exclude all of the intangible but highly significant costs to the government such as the flight of the high quality employees in "winning" MEOs, future recruitment and retention issues in gutted organizations (again, the "winning" MEOs), and lower employee morale all around with its attendant negative effect on productivity.

  Been There, Done That Posted June 20, 2008 8:23 AM
• 52756
  

  Its about time the American taxpayer saw some action to cease the A-76 waste. Be prepared though, if there are no more competitive sourcing studies, there will be no more fat federal A-76 contracts, which will mean our streets will be teeming with packs of hungry, desperate A-76 consultants armed with MBA's.

  Don Posted June 20, 2008 8:19 AM
• 52753
  

  Thank goodness. Its about time the Congress put an end to this and simply treated Federal employees as a special class of citizens. Other countries have done it. Recurring competition for commercial/industrial work is for those other idiots that built this country through hard work, risk and through FAR based competitions. My job and my family's security is clearly not as important. I just know that Mr. Serrano put economy, efficiency, good government, fairness and national security over his own personal ambition when he supported this bill. Is this the Obama style change I should expect?

  Angry Citizen Posted June 20, 2008 7:51 AM
• 52727
  

  This bill makes a great deal of sense. We need time to review the actual results of A-76.

  Contractors routinely promise the world under A-76 and then proceed to run up the tab on the American taxpayer once all of the federal employees are gone. This is called "buying-in".

  Buying-in happens quite frequently. Use of the cost plus contract contributes to the overruns while cost growth runs rampant over the 5-year term of the contract.

  Let the next Administration decide whether to continue this program. We need to take a closer look.

  KO Posted June 19, 2008 6:54 PM
• 52724
  

  A-76 was just another complete failure by the Bush administration to break unions and cut federal workers pay. Since he took office the Govt. workforce has grown not gotten any smaller. Look at DHS, it is a complete mess. If you want more of the same then vote for McCain.

  Retired Air traffic Controller Posted June 19, 2008 6:22 PM