YETMO

”Pay & Contracting” (Week of October 2 – 6, 2006)

There’s a definite pattern regarding the topics of greatest interest to “Forum” readers: pay and use of contractors.

At first blush, there would appear to be little correlation between the two. One involves employees’ individual levels of compensation and the other encompasses the philosophical question of how and whether contractors should be hired to perform what many feel are inherently governmental duties. Of course, defining what tasks are or are not inherently governmental can spark spirited debate.

A closer look may suggest an elastic relationship between employee pay and use of outside resources to supplement executive branch staff. The more contractors are on-the-job, so to speak, the more employees may be concerned about their pay versus the outsiders’ compensation. Are their salaries commensurate with the contractors’? Are contractors overpaid and government folks underpaid? And so goes that dialogue.

How much of this hub-bub is attributed to downright jealously and how much is related to scandalous out-sourcing practices?

I’ve lost count of the number of recent stories about apparent contractor malfeasance. Does this constitute a real scandal, or is it imagined? What percent of all contracts and federal dollars are considered suspicious? Is it 5% or 50%? If such statistics were available, I’d love to see them and share them with you.

I’m sending this article to Paul Denett, OMB’s new Chief of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, asking that his staff help “The Forum” better understand the magnitude of this matter.

One sure way of dealing with contractor abuse is to hire and train adequate numbers of procurement workers and managers who can effectively oversee all contracts and ensure that requested goods and services are delivered. It’s clear that we desperately need more employees to assiduously track, measure, and evaluate contractor adherence to the provisions of their contracts. This is rather basic, of course, and I’m confident that all agencies are pursuing this now as quickly as they possibly can.

It will take time for the government to build up its staff to effectively monitor contractor performance and delivery. Highly-skilled employees aren’t developed overnight, which leads to another aspect of this issue that all must understand. Experience evolves over time.

There is one of two ways to secure that workforce and skill: 1) hire staff and train and develop them over many years, or 2) “buy” that experience from contractors who have 30+-year veterans on their payrolls. If the government can procure such expertise and these individuals can provide products commensurate with their skill levels and overall experience, the outcome will likely be very positive for all parties involved: the government, the contractors, and the contractors’ company.

Many factors come into play when we examine use of contractors. Good or ill can come of it. The best way to ensure the former and reduce the likelihood of the latter is to build a competent cadre of government procurement workers who can closely and critically monitor that the government is getting its money worth. If that can be achieved, then all we’ll have to discuss is the philosophical question of whether employees performing the work of the U.S. government should be government employees first, last, and only.