Outsourcing has been pushed by many business associations and by small business in general. Of note is the National Defense Industrial Association, the US Chamber of Commerce, Business Executives for National Security and other industry lobbyists like the Contract Services Association. It has also split the unions with the government unions like AFGE railing against it, but most unions staying out since they could theoretically gain.

The Freedom from Government Competition Act (which I don't believe ever got past hearings as yet) expressed a "founding Fathers" argument that our Nation was based on private enterprise. (Unstated was that private industry only works well in a competitive environment!)

The common wisdom is that the issues are simply pork barrel and jobs related, with an icing of waste rhetoric on top for public consumption. See John McCain’s web site and speeches.

There are however other forces at work here. The Clinton Administration has taken on dismantling "business" in government through reinvention and reforms. But these reforms are predicated on a Republican rhetoric as opposed to classic Democratic thought. Government is bad - private industry is good, government is inefficient and industry has a sharp pencil, government is riddled with legislative attempts to keep inefficient bases, functions and thus jobs. The premise is that "civil service" is tantamount to lazy incompetents and "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. Comedians and news media amplify the message.

So what does the government do? Reform by letting contractors support their systems for life, whether Information Technology, weapons or vehicles. Bundling assures that only the few giants in an industry can win. Denigration of standards or specifications, eliminating interface specifications and using "commercial contracts" which do not allow the economic acquisition of data rights ensure that real competition is impossible.

So who gains? Well the industry who dominates each category of supply or service has the hunting rights. They control all the industry organizations, have the lobbyists and apply political pressure. These large business dominated associations even have the power to put a lobbyist, with no contracting background into the position of chief reformer of the DoD acquisition system! Yes Stan Soloway was a lobbyist whose job was to encourage outsourcing, to hobble government production and to lead the forces against government accomplishment!

Soloway authored letters, met with DoD officials, coordinated letter writiung against government accomplishment and was backed by Bill Perry, Dr. White and now Gansler. Wow what power these large contractors have! So check out where Elanor Spector is working, where Darleen Druyun will work after her stint in government, where General John Phillips (late of OSD Logistics) is now working! All the rhetoric is driving all government support, with sole source strings attached, to the largest of the large.

Are you contributing to this?

By Susan Marie Paolini on Wednesday, March 1, 2000 - 12:34 pm:

Can you provide sources of information relating to Government/commercial partnering in submitting proposal to A-76 competition?

I have heard it can be done, but wondered:

a) How can Government pick partner for competition? Via competed contract?

b) Does anyone have any experience with this?

c) Can Government be subcontractor to commercial firm wanting to propose?

By Ramon on Monday, January 17, 2000 - 10:44 am:

The Washington Post had an interesting article on January 16th touching on something we'd touched on in the old WC in connection with outsourcing, who was an employee and who was a contractor or consultant. The article, Revenge of the Temps, deals with a ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concerning Microsoft that may ripple through industry. It is (at least for now) on-line at:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-01/16/116l-011600-idx.html

In connection with that other thread I noted one comment in the article as particularly applicable: "'Independent contractors,' they say, work for many different clients, on their own schedules, with their own equipment. They also set their own prices, in accordance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines that determine who needs to pay payroll taxes and who doesn't."

By Michael Love on Tuesday, January 11, 2000 - 02:59 pm:

Two recent books from the Brookings Institute by Paul Light well address the issue of outsourcing. To grossly over simplify Mr. Light's thesis, tax payers want less Government but ever increasing service. Elected officials meet both demands by cutting people employed by the Federal government but demanding more from state and local governments and also forcing agencies to contract out for more and more. Thus the "shadow government " is born and nutured.

The other really interesting thing about the outsourcing legislation is that dispite what it started out to be, and what many interpet it as, the bottom line statutory mandate seems to be get the supply or service from private sources if its cheaper.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, January 11, 2000 - 01:12 pm:

Some people in Congress and in the Executive Branch feel that too many government employees are performing services that can be purchased from the private sector. Aside from questions about whether or not its cheaper to contract with the private sector, some in Congress feel that it's fundamentally wrong for the government to compete with its own citizens who own companies. That was the rationale behind the bill introduced in the Senate in the 105th Congress, the "Freedom from Government Competition Act," S.314. See Senate Hearing 105-171, June 18, 1997. S.314 did not become law. But a weakened version of it, the "Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act" did become law in late 1998.

Here's a quote from the Senate hearing:

"Recently the private sector contracting community was outraged to discover that the Department of Agriculture won a contract with the Federal Aviation Administration for data processing services. In addition to private companies bidding on the contract, the Department of Transportation also submitted a bid.

"These events raise fundamental questions about the proper role of the Federal Government and the core missions of our departments. Are we to believe that their core missions have been fully satisfied, thereby freeing up management and staff for entrepreneurial activities that replicate services widely available in the private sector? If that is the case, then
perhaps further savings from these agencies are in order."

Here's another quote:

"Today there are an estimated 1.4 million Federal employees engaged in functions that are generally known as commercial activities, goods and services that often could be obtained more cost effectively from the private sector. The Federal Government performs many of these functions, from the mundane to the high tech, from laundry services to informational technology. Congress should question the practice of taxing private enterprise in order to maintain a similar, but often less efficient capability within the government. The bottom line is that government competition with the private sector costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually, stifles economic growth, kills private sector jobs, erodes the tax base and siphons off resources, as the Chairman mentioned, for the core mission of the government."

If commercial contractors that take government jobs cannot prove they are delivering better service at less cost, why the continuing trend of outsourcing thousands of federal jobs? My understanding is that contractors usually low-ball the bid and then raise the price during contract modifications and renewals. Shouldn't contract-out work be subjected to the same A-76 process once a contractor is hired?