Letters

In "No Man's Land" (Homeland Security, July), Katherine McIntire Peters neglects to mention the federal agencies that must manage the lands along the U.S.-Mexico border in southern Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management, Coronado National Monument, Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Monument and Coronado National Forest all are pushed beyond their legitimate missions. At the Coronado National Forest, which accounts for a 60-mile stretch, employees are working alone and unarmed. Only three law enforcement officers are assigned to the two most affected districts, Nogales and Sierra Vista.

While the Customs Service and the INS' Border Patrol are worried about the impossible task of halting illegal immigration, Forest Service law enforcement officers have the added responsibility of managing the damage it causes to natural resources. Illegal immigrants have left a trail of trash, abandoned vehicles, downed fences, even forest and brush fires (including five major ones this year in Oversite, Merritt, Ryan, Walker and Community). Agencies trying to apprehend illegal immigrants also have left their mark. Roads, ATV trails and surveillance equipment, for example, all overwhelm the landscape-a landscape that no longer fits the mission of any of the land management agencies involved.

Keith L. Graves
Sahuarita, Ariz.

As a federal fire chief in Ventura County, Calif., I found "Battered Defenses" (August) right on the mark. The shore-based facilities here are in poor shape. It is amazing that we have not killed or injured any of our own firefighters, let alone the base personnel we protect.

Our fire chiefs and union representatives have continually pointed out the dilapidated conditions of the buildings, fire protection systems, and inadequate funding of fire protection programs. We are driving fire trucks that are more than 14 years old and in need of serious repair. Plus we need training to handle new threats, such as weapons of mass destruction and mass casualties.

But the Navy and Defense come back with the same bureaucratic lines: Do more with less, we need the money for our ships and planes, etc. The way Defense and the Navy manage their facilities and their life safety programs is downright criminal. Defense regulations set fire protection standards that must be met, but the Navy and its lawyers cleverly pass "waivers" to avoid enforcing them.

No one is arguing that a majority of the budget must go to the warfighting effort. However, do our troops deserve to come home to broken houses and dysfunctional garrison facilities? What impact does this have on them while they are on deployment?

I thought that after Sept. 11, things would change, but no real steps have been taken to protect our facilities or personnel. The bureaucrats are more concerned about the next BRAC and saving their own fiefdoms. Our fire department has lost more than 25 firefighters and chief officers, and a fire engine over the last four years, due to these misguided "cost saving" measures. They have literally cut through the fat and gone right into the muscle.

It is time for the Defense Department and the Navy to give us the manpower and equipment to do our job right the first time, because there will be no second time. Some things need to be cut from the budget, but life safety should be paramount in the decision-making process.

Patrick Amott
Captain
Federal Fire Department
Naval Base Ventura County, Calif.

"Marshal Draw" (August) neglects to mention that one group cannot benefit from the bonanza of higher salaries for air marshals. Retired military law enforcement officers cannot apply for most of these jobs, as they carry a special age limit.

If a soldier, Marine, sailor, or airman enters the service at 17, stays the minimum 20 years to retire, then attempts to get a federal law enforcement job, he or she will be told, "Sorry, you're too old."

I spent 25 years in the Army as a military policeman, military police investigator and special agent in the Criminal Investigation Command, from which I retired as the senior enlisted law enforcement officer. Yet I can't get an investigations job with any federal agency because I'm too old. My own agency offers civilian investigator jobs, but it won't hire me because of my age.

I got into the Veterans Affairs Department only because its officers aren't recognized as police and therefore aren't subject to this onerous retirement provision. That raises another issue: Who determines who is a police officer? We carry firearms, conduct investigations, write tickets-and some of our officers get shot in the line of duty. But we aren't considered police officers. Nor is our military training recognized, although colleges give college credit for it.

W.C. Heinold Sr.
Burlington, N.J.

The Veterans Affairs police force has had six deaths in the line of duty since 1986, yet its officers are among the most poorly paid in government. By contrast, VA inspector general agents, who, thankfully, have never had a death in the line of duty, are granted additional law enforcement availability pay, law enforcement overtime pay and take-home cars. It doesn't take a genius to see who the government thinks is important.

Last year, I called the local VA inspector general's office to request an armed police officer at the gates of the VA Medical Center in New Jersey, but the request was denied. I suspect that standing post was deemed to be too dangerous-or too much like police work.

Francis X. McCarthy
Criminal Investigator
VA Police
East Orange, N.J.

On several tables in our August Procurement Preview issue, KPMG Consulting was incorrectly listed as KPMG Peat Marwick.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

"Housing Renovation" (August) says some people wonder whether Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez has the "political traction" or "bold solutions" needed to alleviate "the very visible problems of inner-city decay, homelessness and high housing costs." More to the point, since when is "smoothing out program operations and reducing abuses" all that's expected of a Cabinet secretary?

Those could be indicators-if you believe that bold pronouncements and political traction are important. If HUD can't even operate its existing programs well, why would anyone expect any better results from a new and improved initiative, a bold initiative even?

Henry Erbes
Frederick, Md.

Allan Burman rolled out an old, inaccurate saw about GSA Multiple Award Schedule contracts in his column, "Big Plans for Small Business" (Marketplace, August). The record must be clarified: The General Services Administration's schedules program is one of the best procurement methods going for small businesses. Those who state otherwise don't see or understand the true story.

Burman's comments on schedules seem to parrot statements by some in the small business community who don't fully understand how to do business with the government. He implies that GSA makes it impossible for small businesses to obtain schedule contracts.

This is pure bunk. Two-thirds of schedule contractors-thousands of firms-are small businesses. These companies figured out that selling to the federal government takes more than just the desire to do so. You have to know what your customers like and be responsive to their needs. Government buyers like using schedules because they offer great values from a wide array of companies.

There's no reason small firms without a schedule contract can't submit an offer for one. In fact, small firms do so just about every day. The contracts show customers that these companies are serious about serving their customers and understand the benefits of schedule business. While not every firm that seeks a contract gets one, the process is open and fair to all companies, regardless of size.

The GSA schedules program has one of the best small business usage records around. One-third of schedule dollars go directly to small business schedule holders. Last year, those contracts amounted to nearly $7 billion. The firms that hold these contracts are busy taking orders, not whining about "unfair" government acquisition practices.

Moreover, thousands of small firms benefit from schedule business by participating on schedule contracts held by larger firms. In the furniture industry, for example, not one manufacturer would be successful in the government market if it weren't for its small business dealer network that sells products and services to federal buyers. These dealers do millions of dollars in business with the government.

In addition, every schedule contract with an estimated value of more than $500,000 awarded to a large firm must have a small business subcontracting plan. These plans ensure that small businesses benefit from the award of a contract to a large firm. Large firms that fail to achieve their subcontracting goals risk cancellation of their contracts or other adverse consequences.

The true story is that the Multiple Award Schedules program is a great deal for small firms. They can and do hold their own contracts. They can and do win in a very competitive schedules atmosphere. They can and do benefit in other ways. GSA goes out of its way to ensure that small firms that want to participate in the program can, so long as they offer the government a good deal.

If every federal acquisition program had as good a small business story to tell as GSA's schedules program, there would be no need for all the roundtable discussions, ombudsmen and other oversight suggested by lawmakers. Other programs may need to get their small business act together, but GSA's schedule contracts program doesn't.

Let's hope this puts the old saw back in the shed for good.

Edward L. Allen
Executive Vice President
Coalition for Government
Procurement
Washington