crossposted from
unbossed
Last week, GAO issued a report of "highlights" from a forum on privatizing government. So what's the scoop?
The report is
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Federal Acquisition Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century,
GAO-07-45SP, October 6, 2006.
So last things first. Who was involved in the forum?
The Participants are listed at the end of the report. Who is missing?
Frank J. Anderson, Jr. President, Defense Acquisition University
Robert A. Burton Associate Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Alan Chvotkin Senior Vice President and Counsel, Professional Services Council
William D. Eggers Global Director, Deloitte Research--Public Sector
Mark W. Everson Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service
James I. Finley Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense
Daniel I. Gordon Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics Counselor, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Sallyanne Harper Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Clay Johnson III Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget
Ronald T. Kadish Vice President and Partner, Aerospace Marketing Group, Booz-Allen Hamilton, Inc.
Steven Kelman Weatherhead Professor of Public Management, Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government
Deidre A. Lee Deputy Director of Operations, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Harry Q. Lee Corporate Director of Contracts, Northrop Grumman Corporation
Bruce Leinster Consultant to IBM
Tom Luedtke Assistant Administrator for Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Marcia G. Madsen Partner, Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw, LLP
Frank P. Pugliese, Jr. Managing Director, Government Solutions, DuPont Corporation
Katherine Schinasi Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Steven L. Schooner Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Government Procurement Law Program, George Washington University Law School
Keith Strange Associate Partner, IBM Business Consulting
G. Martin Wagner Acting Deputy Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, U.S. General Services Administration
Bill Woods Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Who Was Left Out of the Party?
When I look at the crowd, what I see is a few GAO representatives, contractor and contractor organizations, consultants for contractor organizations, and administrators of agencies who are big, big cheerleaders for privatization. In other words, a range of views from A through B. That leaves our many interested parties, including unions that represent public sector workers and important scholars of privatization. It also did not include some groups that never saw a privatization they didn't like, such as CATO and Reason.
Before you decide it's not worth looking at the report because with so much garbage in how can there be anything but garbage out, let me suggest we at least look at the abstract.
I think you will find some useful information, and information that is interesting considering the source.
I'm going to break the abstract up for readability and highlight a few parts.
Acquisition of products and services from contractors consumes about a quarter of discretionary spending governmentwide and is a key function in many federal agencies.
In fiscal year 2005 alone, federal government contracting involved over $388 billion.
The work of the government is increasingly being performed by contractors, including in emergency and large-scale logistics operations such as hurricane response and recovery and the war in Iraq.
Many agencies rely extensively on contractors to carry out their basic missions.
The magnitude of the government's spending and dependence on contractors make it imperative that this function be performed as efficiently and effectively as possible. Yet, acquisition issues are heavily represented on GAO's list of government high-risk areas.
It is stunning to see how contractorized our government has become.
When you read on in the abstract, what really stands out is a concept that a US government that "of the people, by the people, for the people" has perished from the earth. In its place is government as a conduit to direct taxpayer's money into the pockets of private contractors.
Think that's extreme? The next part of the abstract makes this absolutely clear.
Forum participants offered a range of examples, insights, views, and concerns that framed three broad challenges confronting the federal acquisition community.
1.) Determining who should perform the business of government in a constantly changing environment: Participants engaged in a wide-ranging discussion of the appropriate role of contractors, the difficulties of identifying what government functions may be contracted out, and the formal and informal means by which these decisions are made. Several participants contrasted the high-level attention given in private sector organizations to identify their core versus noncore functions.
2.) Ensuring the federal workforce has the capacity and capability to manage contractor operations effectively: Participants highlighted that policy makers do not have a clear understanding of what constitutes the acquisition workforce. Agency leaders have not recognized or elevated the importance of the acquisition profession within their organizations. Further, a strategic approach has not been taken across government or within agencies to focus on workforce challenges, such as creating a positive image essential to successfully recruit and retain a new generation of talented acquisition professionals.
3.) Managing for results and accountability in a contractor-dependent environment: Participants noted the importance of early identification of realistic requirements, a step that can decrease the government's risk of achieving undesirable outcomes.
Participants cited the frequent mismatch among wants, needs, affordability, and sustainability, as well as unrealistic and often changing requirements.
Further, participants highlighted the challenges when managing amidst burdensome governmental acquisition processes and budget pressures.
The burdensome acquisition processes include requiring proof that contractors are competent or that they treat their workforces fairly.
You can find more details on these views in the report itself plus some union bashing in the form of complaints that unions try to protect their members.
What can I say? What else would you expect from these folks who have shamelessly used their power to funnel money to their cronies, to destroy the collection of information, and to distort all the honorable processes of democratic governance.