The Quiet Battle for Federal Competitive Sourcing
Although it’s not garnering significant attention in the market, a significant battle has been brewing for the rights of Federal Competitive Sourcing.
Historically, federal agencies who desire to contract out the work of greater than 10 employees enter what’s known as an OMB Circular A-76 competition. In this process, the MEO - Most Efficient Organization - is deemed the victor, typically pitting an the Fed’s current workers against their commercial counterparts. Not surprisingly, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has been unhappy with this process from its inception. The administration, however, feels that competition helps improve government regardless of the victor, and sees AFGE’s push for legislative modification as counter productive. On the commercial side we see contractors and consultants who have built business units on how to conduct A-76 competitions and the cost reductions associated with these public-private partnerships.
You now know the backdrop for the cagematch. Let’s meet the players:
1) The Bush Administration - The authors of A-76, the administration was quite unhappy to find that the House intended to make significant modifications to this process in the HR 2829. Their response?
“The Administration strongly opposes language in section 738 that unnecessarily delays, complicates, and undermines the use of public-private competition in determining the most efficient performance of commercial activities. Section 738 undercuts the level playing field for public-private competition by creating uneven protest rights. It also imposes intrusive data requirements concerning the provision of fringe benefits that fail to recognize the various ways contractors effectively provide benefits to their employees and marginalizes the consideration of quality in determining the best provider for the taxpayer. On a government-wide basis, competitions conducted over the last four years are expected to produce nearly $7 billion in savings, with the majority of savings to be achieved in the next 5-7 years. The House is urged to strike this language.”
Throw against the mesh-wire with a wimper, the administration was quickly sprawled out, unconscious, as the bill overwhelmingly passed the House.
2) AFGE - Turning it’s attention to the Senate, AFGE pulled out all the stops. And as of last Friday the 13th, AFGE declared themselves victorious by issuing the following statement.
“The Senate FY08 Financial Services Appropriations Bill, like the House bill, would provide federal employees in all federal agencies with the same appeal rights long enjoyed by contractors to have botched and biased privatization decisions reviewed by independent third-parties…..[and] would also eliminate the ability of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to tell federal agency career managers how many employees and which employees to review for privatization, and when to do so. It would also require that any decision by a federal career manager to conduct an OMB Circular A-76 review be made wholly independently of OMB.”
3) The Contractors - A no show in the public eye. Although one can imagine concerted efforts behind the scenes, neither the Contract Services Association nor the National Contract Management Association issued public statements.
So, it appears that more federal jobs will remain federal jobs, and more competitions will end in protest, likely protracting the process for competitive sourcing while shrinking interest from the commercial sector. Just another day here in Washington, DC.
Let’s keep the conversation going.