The Foreign Service Journal, April 2004

Aviation Administration. Both versions of the bill included provi- sions to prohibit the application of competitive contracting to con- trollers and flight service station personnel who work for FAA’s air traffic control system. The provi- sions proposed to accomplish this prohibition by reclassifying these FAA jobs from commercial to inherently governmental, thereby putting them off-limits to any competitive contracting. A congressional declaration that these jobs are inherently gov- ernmental would come as a surprise to the hundreds of private sector controllers at work at the 218 U.S. con- trol towers already contracted out to private business with considerable success and savings. It would also come as a surprise to the thousands of controllers now at work in the privatized and/or commercialized air traffic control systems in the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Germany and more than a dozen other countries. To protect its competitive contracting plans, the White House issued a statement of administration pol- icy threatening a veto of any bill that includes such prohibitions on the executive’s ability to effectively manage the federal work force on behalf of taxpayers and service users. Congress blinked, a relatively clean bill was produced, and shortly after it was signed into law the FAA announced a major competition for the flight service station components of the air traffic con- trol system in 2004. However much the proponents of unionized air traffic controllers argue that the proposed FAA prohibition reflects a special situation, it is, in fact, just one of many legislative efforts attempted over the past year to pre- serve the status quo and shelter government workers from the competitive forces with which most Americans comfortably exist. One notable example is last year’s effort to preserve the Government Printing Office’s printing monopoly. When OMB put the contract to print the federal budget up for auction, and allowed the GPO to bid for the work too, the GPO dropped the cost of its bid 24 percent from what it charged OMB a year earlier in order to keep the business. An effort was also initiated in Congress to restrict competitive contracting at the National Park Service, where much of the work force is involved in routine main- tenance, lawn care and janitorial work. Despite DOD’s proven contracting success with sophisti- cated services, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., argued that contracting will “put many of our great national treasures in the hands of private contractors who may put their profits above national inter- ests.” Other congressional prohibition efforts included attempts to derail the U.S. Army’s ambitious effort to compete 200,000 jobs, and the proposed amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., to forbid the White House from spending any money to manage its com- petitive contracting program. None of these recent attempts have yet succeeded, although an earlier effort in the Senate to protect the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers from complying with the program was successful, as was an effort to prohibit the use of funds to execute the Department of Veterans Affairs’ ambitious contracting program. Final Thoughts Although opposition to competitive contracting in all levels of government is intense, and sometimes suc- cessful, the potential benefits in cost savings and pro- gram performance can be large. For many agencies strapped for funds and receiving appropriations they believe fall short of needs, savings from competitive contracting can be used to fill the gaps. As noted, DOD generally averages savings of 30 percent over previous costs, and the chief reason it uses the program is to free up resources for more pressing needs. Money saved by contracting out the lawn main- tenance at a military base is money that can be used to repair the barracks roof, and by contracting out food service and maintenance, the military is better able to devote its highly trained personnel to tasks more directly related to national security. Surely similar opportunities to enhance performance exist within the Department of State and USAID. F O C U S 46 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 4 Although opposition to competitive contracting in all levels of government is intense, the potential benefits in cost savings and program performance can be large.