GovernmentExecutive.com

He is probably advocating it so he can eventually put his hand in the cookie jar, too! Current contracting is the worst I've seen in over 25 years. Our mostly minority & women IT staff has been replaced with part time non-citizens, our travel system is so bad you have to falsify enties to get the correct total on a voucher(can you say GovTrip!), staff are so busy cleaning up messes they can't get the mission of the agency completed. This saves money at what cost?

Rgar  | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 |  09:53 AM

---

Lets, for goodness sake, yell this guy down for advocating that the Federal government work with its citizens and private capital markets to meet public needs. Unless they are fully co-opted by federal managers (who have no self interests) and tied to the federal retirement system how can we can trust these private sector unpatriotic liers, cheats, and profit mongers? Look, for the all the concern about what is inherently governmental and could otherwise be contracted for, under the FAIR Act, about 30 percent of federal employees are inherently governmental. Another 50 percent - 50 percent - are performing commercial work that has been excluded from competition for many of the (good) reasons cited in this Blog. Of the remaining 20 percent that are commercial, competable and contractible, only 1.7 percent of the contractible work was competed in 2006 (a grand total of 3 percent of total employment since 2003) and 80 percent of that was "won" in-house under OMB's new streamlined competition system that does not allow for a private sector offer. We are not seeing the end of government, we are seeing the rise of the new soviet system of service performance. But, hey, it worked well for everybody the first time.

Credulous  | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 |  09:49 AM

---

1000's of administrative, financial and printing jobs could be eliminated and shipped to 3rd world countries to perform saving loads of tax dollars. You can't ask the taxpayers to pay premium wages for jobs that demand 1-2 dollars an hour.

dan ketter  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  05:35 PM

---

In consideration of "Can contractors supply a better product?" one key factor seems to be left out of the equation -- trust -- particularly when the product is information, or the outcome is regulatory policy. Can the consumer trust the source of the information? In the agencies I've worked at, research jobs, which often involve providing non-biased information to guide the development of regulations, are generally rightly classified as inherently governmental. However, technician-level jobs generally aren't, and this poses a problem. Remember the dust-up over the contractor who got fired for making maps of caribou calving grounds in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) at the time of the debate about whether oil/gas drilling should take place there? While the technician didn't exactly work for Greenpeace or EarthFirst, the media did portray him as an activist, which probably caused many to doubt the non-biased nature of the federal research on this issue. Technicians don't function at a level high enough to be considered inherently governmental under current definitions, but I think that definition should be changed. Anybody who might have control over how data is gathered, processed or displayed, including everybody from technicians to typists -- ought to be federal. You don't want folks with vested interests mucking around with data. I say: when in doubt, DON'T contract it out.

anon  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  05:34 PM

---

I have seen Congressional earmarks directly targeted at particular contractors who knew a guy who knew a guy, so to speak. Our facility was directed to have a particular contractor do some particular work even though we did not need said work and are required to have full and open competition.

Mark  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  04:38 PM

---

It's hard to disagree with Goldsmith on one level, but it's a rather narrow technocratic argument he's making -- efficiency and economy are the principal, even sole determinants of where a function should be performed. If we can project cost savings from outsourcing, then we should take that path of least (or lesser) resistance. No doubt it'll be faster and easier than tackling the intractible problems and deep dysfunctions of many public sector organizations. Privatizers pay homage to effectiveness and results, of course, but one suspects that's convenient cover for a "smaller government" agenda, and an abiding faith in the power of markets.

All of this begs the larger and arguably more important question of values: e.g., do we really want the incarceration of fellow citizens to be conducted for profit? Should the pursuit of public objectives provide a vehicle for generating private gain? The answer to these questions may well turn out to be yes: the ends may justify the means, etc. And it could also be that genuinely reforming public sector institutions isn't worth all the time, effort, and lawsuits that would involve. But it's a bit disingenuous to sidestep these core issues with glib promises of a brave new world of public-private "partnership".

Instead, why not call this approach what it actually is: the end of government. That seems to be the direction in which we're heading, by default. Again, that might be the right answer -- times change, technology marches onward, progress can't and shouldn't be stopped, etc. But if that's where we're going at least let's go there wittingly, and deliberately, based on public discussion and debate.

Skepticus  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  04:28 PM

---

I suggest Mr. Goldsmith travel to SWA and ascertain what our military's perception of the contractor workforce. I've had to correct erroneous mistakes to equipment and/or assisted service members troubleshooting equipment since the supposedly efficient contractors down range failed in their fumble-fudge it attempts to rectify problems. Contractors have specific items of equipment to work with, while the Government worker has numerous line items to support from M1s to HMMWVs and everything in between. Privatization of Government jobs was/is ludicrous and if we continue in this downward spiral, the Government will become as inefficient as the contractors in place thus far.

CAE  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  02:57 PM

---

Is operating a DOD University inherently governmental? I think not. However it does ensure that everyone 1. is accepted, and 2. everyone gets A and B's. Isn't that special!

Trust me they exist the AF, Army, and Navy have them. I worked at one of them. There was a half billion dollars flushed thru the place every year.

rooster  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  02:18 PM

---

A contractor's first and only responsibility is to the Bottom Line... and, no, NOT to the mission of the agency, or in this case, the state (Indiana) where they bill their lucrative consulting hours.

Yes, they may like their country (and/or state) and all that, but they are there not out of any sense of patriotism (duty, honor, country), but rather, they are only around to make their company lots and lots of MONEY.

MG  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  02:07 PM

---

I wonder if anyone will ever look at all the shoddy work performed by contractors and finally realize that government employees are often much better than private companies in performing a variety of work. I can count the number of times I have had to send someone back to a job after only a few short weeks since the contractor got thier money, chnaged the company name and refused to honor warranties. All of that cost to redo the contractor work falls on the government to pay and the government employee to fix. It also takes valuable time away from the activities that the government employees are scheduled to do. Watch the contractors in the trenches sometime and you will realize that the majority want their money and want to move on to the next contract. They have no pride in workmanship and oversight is so far underfunded they can do what they want. Of course that is the way Bush and his buddies want it.

CH  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  12:04 PM

---

My conclusion as a former government employee and former consultant, is that when government functions are handed over to those with a profit motive, the only innovations that occur are those that result in more revenue for the contractor. Government executives need to lose their don't-rock-the-boat mentality to encourage new ideas and evaluations from the front line workers who see mission first hand, but I still trust career civil servants to behave in the public interest more consistently than contractors.

Ted Bean  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  11:37 AM

---

Inherently Government work can be accomplished with the help of contractors, as long as there is strong Government advocacy and control at all crucial levels. Problems may arise when Government allows contractors to make decisions, that should be made only by those representing the people or the constituion. Contractors provide good people and good support in most cases; however, they represent their profit oriented corporation. This is not bad, its simply a reaity. Unfrotunately, contrator corporations who are embattled, such as Halliburton, tend to tarnish the reputation of all opther firms.

US  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  11:04 AM

---

Underlying this line of thought is the notion of people in this country as "customers" and "clients" rather than as citizens. This is ultimately destructive of the basic foundation of a democracy, in which citizens, through representatives, determine what the government should (and shoult not) do.

RUS Fed  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  11:01 AM

---

It is certainly a provocative question. While I totally agree that some Federal employees (and some offices) are totally incompetent, I've also seen some contractors who are incompetent. What happens when a function is deemed to be inherently governmental, but is performed competently in one agency and dismally at another agency?

Technically, there are already Federal agencies that contract out functions that are considered inherently governmental at other agencies.

The whole thing is a red herring anyway - the government is just as bad about managing contracts as it is at managing employees - no one wants to scrutinize the work and request improvements or be the "bad guy" when improvements are not made.

Charleen  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  10:27 AM

---

The bigger question is "What happens when Government contractors aren't very good at the work that has been contracted out? It's a lot easier to fix failures within the Government than it is to get non-performing contractors to perform. Many of the Government's Contracting Officers often don't have the technical knowledge to know when/if non-performance is even happening - or their workload prevents proper oversight. One example is the broker contracts.

Diana George  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  10:02 AM

---

Per usual, a mayor of the 12th largest city in the nation(WOW) who's efforts have been held as a national model(well if it worked there it will work here, right?) is suddenly the know it all when it comes to FEDERAL Government? I don't think so. All these Goldsmith's conviently forget that if it wasn't for what the Feds provide their areas to begin with, their innovations would never have worked. AND what works in one area, doesn't neccesarily mean it will work in other areas. More fodder

iggy  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  09:52 AM

---

Yes, but.... This guy is bragging that he outsourced: a jail, airport and utility — "with good results." (If he does say so himself.)

I'm sure any former big city mayor is going to have nothing but positive things to say about his tenure in office! (Even former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry I’m sure looks back fondly on the "good old days" when he was in charge.)

Sure, let the fox guard the hen house. Er, didn't we just go through this with Blackwater in Iraq? (Zero oversight)

Bottom line: If you can outsource it to contractor, you can outsource it to India. Hey, I know -- let's outsource the job of Mayor of Indianapolis off-shore!

MG  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  09:48 AM

---

Opined fatalists, i.e., those who say “outsource everything because it’s only a matter of time before the proverbial “they” own it anyway” and veiled supporters of outsourcing should stop and look at what’s really going on. Critical government services are being outsourced in nearly every agency in the Executive Branch. The process should be to look inward first (your agency or another agency in the federal government to provide the service), then select the best performer that provides the maximum security for federal efforts. Only if none exists, look outward to hire a contractor to do what the federal service CANNOT do. Even in hiring contractors for federal work, the federal manager should do her/his best to surround that effort with as much security as the project warrants. There are other governmental concerns besides security. They should be well considered also, especially potential and exhibited integrity of the performing contractor. Lastly, the threat is eventual takeover. If the federal manager doesn’t have the experience of digging for the answers that provide the bases for advice (such as that given by some contractors), how can he/she know the quality of the advice given? To learn after a mistake has been made is costly. If the federal government wants to maximize its expertise, its pool of candidates will come from those contractors doing the research and providing the advice. Hire a former contractor and the company that individual came from may have a “wink and nod” “leg” up on the competition in the industry. Just my thoughts; I’m sure you have yours.

FedOne  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  09:24 AM

---

There's just no end in sight is there when it comes to greed. There are no money saved for the government when jobs are outsourced. The whole idea of contracting out work is misrepresented giving the illusion that savings actually occur. For example, there are contractors at my agency that have been here longer than one third of the federal employees in our division. What's wrong with this picture. You hire the contractors to get the specialized tasks completed and get them the heck out of there. You don't keep them around forever. Follow the money folks and for some of you in the dark, check out on youtube "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

Maryland Fed  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  08:57 AM

---

I was involved in an Agency's FAIR Act Inventory submission, and quite frankly, many of the reasons for declaring positions inherently governmental didn't pass the "laugh test."

OK  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  08:00 AM

---

Outsourcing has already gone way overboard and the catestrophic affect on critical federal missions is evident. Tax-payers now feed more contractors and consultants than career federal employees. Its definitely been a windfall for "beltway bandits", Haliburton and other war-profiteers (many foreign owned).

It has been significantly less beneficial to career federal employees who have taken the oath (all American citizens) and those Americans wearing the uniform.

If this terrible outsourcing trend continues, America as we know it will soon resemble a third world country, policed by keystone cops.

Don  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  07:57 AM

---

While I agree that outsourcing makes a lot of sense and that the government at all levels needs to look at outcomes, the approach Goldsmith proposes doesn't seem very smart. The proposal seems to be "try it and see how well it works". I think you need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of doing a task with a government employee to see what is smart. Strengths: long-term commitment, independent. Weaknesses: hiring, firing, and pay scale is too high for clerical work. You could probably also find some weaknesses in certain narrow technical areas. It seems to me that the best solution for most situations then is a blend of private and public employees. Having government employees scanning forms is inefficient. Using those same employees to solve problems is very efficient. This public/private debate gets silly when it becomes either/or.

Will  | Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |  07:51 AM

---

I doubt that Goldsmith would ever confuse current contracting levels with the outsourcing of government functions. Innovation in the absence of competition is rare and those who have acted to stiffle competition in the performance of commercial services, as Goldsmith notes, do not serve legitimate program recipients or the taxpayer. Congressional earmarks have served only one constituent - the Federal employee unions.

DC Fed.  | Monday, January 07, 2008 |  04:26 PM

---

We should outsource all government work of every kind to Asian and European countries. It will only be a matter of time before they own everything in this country anyway.

J C  | Monday, January 07, 2008 |  01:48 PM

---