GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmakers continue to pound public-private job competitions

• 80993
  

  The Corps of Engineers A-76 their information management. It is a disaster. Our network is unstable, most people get the blue screen of death 2-3 times a week. My boss (a GS-15) dials the help line every morning before she turns on her computer. She puts them on hold until her system comes up successfully. Our "new" computers have less features than the "old" computers - ACE-IT decided we didn't need what we asked for. So now -as an add on to the contract $ - we have to buy everyone more memory and DVD RW drives (why would a computer come with a RW drive? The old ones did.) It is really handy having nothing - since DoD cannot use thumb drives anymore. ACE-IT is also in charge of our secure communications. It took 6 months for us to be able to hold a secure VTC. It's not like we are at WAR or anything! Prior to A-76 we were able to function (as a business would) with our own internal IT personnel. They acutally had pride in their job and were trying to help the organization fulfill it's mission. Hire back the govt IT employees so the rest of the govt workers have the tools to do their jobs.

  mj Posted June 23, 2009 9:13 AM
• 80977
  

  I would like to see the Obama Administration rewrite A-76 so that agencies could fold competitions won by Federal employees back into the "regular" system. The reports we have to prepare and the monitoring of performance are a waste of time and money. And the MEOs suffer from turnover and low morale.

  MS Posted June 23, 2009 7:13 AM
• 80741
  

  Look we just added $3 trillion to the national debt with this guy so what;s another 50-100 billion its chump change. besides if the taxpayers got to keep this $$ they would just waste it

  dan m ketter Posted June 18, 2009 10:00 PM
• 80717
  

  Like TS, I'm also a federal retiree as well as a military reitree. I have to agree that the competition should be a much more cost effective method of getting the work done. It's interesting that it is the Democrats, owned lock, stock and barrel by the unions, that would try to undo this process at the expense of taxpayers. Yes, we do need bigger, more expensive government, don't we?

  david irons Posted June 18, 2009 3:39 PM
• 80619
  

  Wait a minute and take a deep breath before marching yourself into a tizzy. I am a 20+ year Federal employee/supervisor working in the Acq career field. The Gov't stopped hiring COLD in the late 80's and early 90's which has came back in droves to bite us. We now have a workforce that's either on the cusp of retiring any time, have retired or are new (via the recent hiring binge). Does it make sense to let these Federal employees retire onlt to turn around and rehire them as civil servants again within a matter of days/months OR should we simply become much more SELECTIVE in the hiring and retainment of CRITICAL skillset people offered by some contracting firms? I'd venture to say that the taxpayer is better served by the latter.

  TS Posted June 18, 2009 9:51 AM
• 80604
  

  It took long enough for Congress to conclude there is no cost savings hiring contractors at Government facilities. As time goes on, many aspects of programs incepted by President Bush will prove to be groundless and not in the best interests of taxpayers but, those who received innumerable incentives due to their political contributions and for no other reason. Any Congressman supporting and/or introducing legislation to retain outsourcing should be voted out of office the next election, since their purpose for doing so is not in the best interest of their constituents, since it's the taxpayer who is being bamboozled and being led down the primrose path leading to further deficits and augmentation to the public debt.

  CAE Posted June 18, 2009 9:05 AM
• 80602
  

  Congrats to Rep. John Duncan Jr. and Sen. John Thune for introducing the bill. At least that side of the argument is getting some play. The only level playing field for competitions is one which the government does not play. This is recognized by the fact that government wins such a large percentage of the competitions dispite adding a purely arbitrary 12% overhead factor to the government's bid when overhead is not a variable cost and is unaffected regardless of the decision. I am convinced though that the definition of a true level playing field for these competitions is one which both sides complain equally. How about flipping a coin. Too controversial? OK 3 out of 5.

  MK Posted June 18, 2009 8:59 AM
• 80592
  

  Socialism and big government are on a full role, with no restraints on anything the unions want. Why should anyone be surprized by this. This is only the beginning.

  Jon Posted June 18, 2009 8:08 AM