[here's the AFGE press release...]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 14, 2002
 Contact:     Diane S. Witiak
(202) 639-6419


AFGE STATEMENT ON OMB RELEASE OF DRAFT PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION PROCESS

(Washington, D.C.)-AFGE believes contractors and their allies in the Bush
Administration have insisted on rewriting the OMB Circular A-76, which
governs the public-private competition process, because it doesn't allow
contractors to take federal employee jobs often enough or fast enough.

Bush Administration officials are at war with reliable and experienced
rank-and-file federal employees; they are systematically conspiring to bust
their unions, gut their civil service protections, and hand over their jobs
to politically well-connected contractors. AFGE approaches the Bush
Administration's rewrite of OMB Circular A-76 with considerable skepticism.
However, until experts both inside and outside of AFGE have had an
opportunity to carefully review the rewrite, we will reserve judgment.

During AFGE's review of the new process, it will keep these ten important
considerations in mind:

1. Does it ensure the government-wide establishment of a reliable and
comprehensive system to track the cost, size, and responsibilities of the
massive federal contractor workforce, which some observers have estimated to
be twice the size of the federal workforce, both generally as well as for
specific contracts?

2. Does it eliminate the pernicious practice of contracting out work
performed by federal employees without public-private competition, whether
direct conversions promoted by the infamous Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) quotas or the Army's "Third Wave" wholesale privatization initiative?

3. Does it protect the interests of taxpayers by ensuring that any use of
the controversial and subjective "best value" approach is limited to a
genuine pilot project that would allow for a careful and objective review of
the results?

4. Does it ensure that taxpayers will receive the level of services they
need at the lowest possible prices, or will it allow agency managers to
charge taxpayers for unneeded "bells and whistles"? Given that the
"revolving door" problem-senior officials awarding contracts to firms for
which they intend to work once their federal careers are over-will be
significantly exacerbated by the introduction of any subjective "best value"
process, what steps does the rewrite take with respect to eliminating
conflicts of interest?

-more-
5. Is it being introduced as part of a broader effort to ensure that federal
employees and their union representatives have the same legal standing
currently enjoyed by contractors?

6. Does it reduce the impact of wages and benefits on award decisions, so
that privatization no longer results in significantly reduced living
standards for those who do government work?

7. Does it ensure that agencies will finally begin to subject new government
work and government work performed by contractors to real public-private
competition, as they do with respect to work performed by federal employees?

8. Does it repudiate the use of numerical or functional privatization
quotas, which are even more foolish and ill-advised when agencies are
attempting to adapt to a wholly new and unprecedented public-private
competition process?

9. Does it err on the side of caution with respect to protecting and
preserving robust in-house capabilities, especially given the
acknowledgement by Bush Administration officials that at least two major
agencies have privatized inherently governmental work?

10. Does it envision the reestablishment of real labor-management
partnerships that are necessary if in-house employees are to be given fair
chances to prevail?

Although the relentlessly pro-contractor Bush Administration's record offers
little encouragement, AFGE will carefully review the rewritten
public-private competition process to determine how it stacks up in relation
to the factors discussed above. Given the impact and complexity of this
effort, it is deeply regrettable that little more than four weeks are
allowed for affected groups to provide their comments.



Reply via email to