Inherently Governmental Redefinition Coming Soon

Maybe even by the end of the month, says Office of Federal Procurement Policy administrator Dan Gordon. Gordon doesn't appear to be dropping a lot of hints about what the draft definition will look like, only that he's focusing on "specific matters" rather than broad changes. I'm curious about what he'll come up with, and also how it'll interact with other changes in personnel policy the administration might also be pursuing. If the definition of "inherently governmental" makes it harder to outsource federal jobs, would the unions be more likely to accept pay and personnel reform? Would overall job security be worth trading for slightly more uncertainty in pay? I'll also be curious in general to see if the planning and conversations of last year translate into a lot of action on personnel and management policy this year. And if that action proceeds, where interest groups make their stands, and where they back down.