Pendulum swings
With the tide turning against competitive sourcing, it was just a matter of time until proponents of the private-public competitions got organized and got active. A coalition along those lines was launched yesterday. Called the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, the group aims to counter efforts by federal, state and local government agencies to provide products and services which are available from the private sector. BCFC accuses public agencies and organizations of engaging in unfair competition with private, for-profit companies.
"It is time the 'Yellow Pages Test' became national policy," said John M. Palatiello, president of the coalition. "If an activity is being performed by government or a non-profit that can otherwise be found from a business listed in the Yellow Pages, that activity should be reviewed for performance by a tax-paying, for-profit company, not a government-sponsored or subsidized entity."
Sens. John Thune, R-SD, and John Duncan, Jr., R-Tenn., speaking at the same Heritage Foundation session where Palatiello announced the launch of the coalition, said they have introduced legislation -- the Freedom from Government Competition Act -- to establish statutory process for evaluation government performance of commercially-available activities.
In a press release, Thune said the legislation would codify the "Yellow Pages Test" to ensure that products and services available in the commercial market are subject to competition. Thune then cited studies which show that taxpayers save as much as $28 billion annually as a result of these competitions.
Anndddd we're back to the debate again. People on both sides of this issue present numbers that "prove" their way saves taxpayers money. Until someone can come up with concrete, verifiable, unchallengeable numbers, the pendulum will continue to swing on competitive sourcing.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
How can there not be a quantifiable measure for public private competation?? Both activities bid on the work and in EVERY instance the low bidder wins and its a substantially less cost than when it was done inhouse. For anyone to say it doesn't save money is just smoke and mirrors
dan m ketter Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 8:46 AMI don't care about the Yellow Pages test, and whether Government employees or contractor employees should be performing tasks which are commercial in nature. What I care about is the widespread use of contractor employees performing inherently governmental functions, tasks which should be performed by Government workers.
I used to counsel military and civilian people leaving Federal service. I cannot tell you how many times that person was going to be hired by a contractor to perform the same exact job (perhaps without supervisory responsibilities), because the position was not going to be backfilled and the services were still needed. On paper this became reducing the size of the Federal workforce, for which Republicans and Democrats alike to undeserved credit. In practice this became offices being run by contractors with little or no meaningful supervision by the Government.
wallyp Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 10:03 AMPower to the (small business) People!
Ray Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 11:08 AMI think that in order to see what would happen to taxpayers under the suggested system, one need only to look at the economy. Take a second look at Wall Street, GM, Chrysler. Now, take another good look at your retirement funds, the value of your homes, savings. On and on - Do we really want a Government that runs like the private sector?
US Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 11:22 AMOMB Circular and the fights over its implementation and impacts have always fascinated me. No one seems to ask basic questions about the process of evaluation and certainly the A-76 formula is highly defective. Disclosure--I am a retired second generation civil servant--my father never retired but died in the traces!
Okay so here goes. First a comprehensive review should be made of various legal doctrines buried in the US Code that impact contracting out. For example, starting with the expansion of local government in the 30's state court systems started to distinguish between the sovereign immunity of governmental activites that were inherently governmental and those that were in the nature of a propritary business. Sound familiar? Yes indeed. Some of the worst government programs are protected from money damage claims because of no waiver of sovereign immunity-- a doctrine that should have been overthrown in US common law when we overthrew allegiance to a king. And some of the most badly administered programs in the federal government are protected by this lack of waiver--e.g. the federal government disaster relief activity under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707) amending in part, revoking in part the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-288); and another example the USACOE flood control program insulated by 33 USC Section 302! These are just some of many examples. If there was a general waiver of soverign immunity for all federal government programs, functions, and activities the true costs of these programs and their administration could be identified. Sometimes the immunity is extended to federal contractors--e.g. the so-called FERES Doctrine-- for activity duty personnel injured by defective equipment supplied to them by the government but contractor produced. The true costs of these weapons again is not knowable because of that doctrine. Just as the IRS decides tax issues based on definitions of property and interests in property under STATE law, federal common law, created as a truly legal fiction should be abolished and each federal program, function, and activity should have a standard provision determining how litigation arising under that statute should be determined by looking to local (STATE) law and in its absence asking for legislative guidance or advisory opinions from the highest court of each state reviewable by the appropriate Circuit court or a new court established by the feds for this purpose. Interestingly, the new Associate Justice nominee's most interesting case to me is where she in fact adopted the policy above. Wasn't she smart?
My point is simple, litigation costs and damage awards are completely outside the A-76 review process and no good reason why?
Let's truly measure the full costs of federal government programs, functions, and activities and not just look at direct salary, pensions, taxes, etc. A-76 is a highly defective document. As part of the review the developers of any A-76 report should have as part a review of the availability and capacity of the SIC [Standard Industrial Classification ]code sector of the economy to do the job and include an minority views as to that analysis.
William R. Cumming Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 11:31 AM