The Foreign Service Journal, April 2004

separate its full-time employee posi- tions into two broad categories: those that are commercial in nature and those that are “inherently governmen- tal.” Out of USAID’s approximately 2,400 FTE in 2002, about 2,000 made it onto the FAIR inventory, and of that number, 1,370 were deemed “inher- ently governmental,” while the remaining 599 FTE were categorized as “commercial.” Among the 1,370 FTE placed off-limits to contracting, the chief reason given for why they were viewed as inherently governmental is that they are involved in “supervisory” positions. Lest one think this implies an agency that is top-heavy, with a ratio of two bosses per worker, many of these supervisory positions are at the core of USAID’s work; namely, overseeing the many contrac- tors working for USAID, both in the U.S. and in the field. Other reasons for this protected designation include work related to policy-making, strategy, con- gressional relations, contract oversight, and foreign relations. For the positions included in the commercial cate- gory, the jobs so identified are then subcategorized by the extent to which they can be subject to competitive contracting. The three subcategories are: commercial, but protected by supervisor (core function); commer- cial and eligible for formal study and competition; and commercial, outsourceable without a formal study. In 2002, that latter designation usually applied to func- tions with 10 or fewer FTE, although a 2003 revision in the program substantially tightened up that provision by requiring more justification and some analysis, a “streamlined study” instead of a “complete study.” Among the types of positions at USAID in the third subcategory described above were 23 FTE in legal ser- vices, 26 in personnel, 10 in general accounting, and 11 in administrative support. Among the commercial-type positions that were exempted from any contracting were five budget programmers, 11 program planners, 26 in programmanagement, and 79 in training. These are posi- tions typical of an entity largely involved in administrative duties. But however routine they may seem to outsiders, there is, apparently, a fair degree of resistance to making any changes in the status quo, an objective USAID man- agement shares with most other agen- cies and departments. State maintains what it calls an “Inventory of Commercial Activity Work Years” in compliance with the FAIR Act. This inventory is limited to identifying “commercial” activities in the department, and does not iden- tify those staff positions that are “inherently governmental” — pre- sumably the balance of the depart- ment’s approximately 29,000 posi- tions. Of the total 2,288.3 man-years of work identified as “commercial” in 2002, 1,263 — or 55 percent — are “agency exempted,” i.e. shielded from competitive contracting under A-76 guidelines that allow protection of core capabilities. Another 201.1 FTE work years are exempted for other reasons. That leaves just 824.2 positions — or barely 3 percent of the State Department work force — exposed to the possibility of competitive contracting. What About Quality? Some critics of contracting claim that in the quest for monetary savings, quality of work is sacrificed. For example, opponents of the FAA’s tower contracting program argue that DOT has sacrificed safety for sav- ings. But the DOT inspector general’s 2000 study revealed that there was “little difference in the quality or safety of services provided by Level 1 towers, whether they were operated by the FAA or by contrac- tors.” In fact, the contracted towers were actually slightly more error-free (.05 errors per 100,000 opera- tions) than comparable FAA towers (.06 errors per 100,000 operations). Behind the prejudice that some members of Congress exhibit toward private companies and their workers is the misperception that the contractors will not perform as well as government workers do. To the extent that these legislators are prepared to permit any federal competitive contracting at all, they believe it should be limited to simple, unskilled tasks such as jan- itorial work, minor repairs and other such routine ser- vices. In sharp contrast to this view, the civilian and uni- formed leaders of our defense programs have aggres- sively embraced competitive contracting for a variety of F O C U S 44 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 Of all the competitive contracting done since the effort began in the 1950s, as much as 98 percent of it has been done by DOD.