[Senate Hearing 108-154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-154
COMPETITIVE SOURCING EFFORT
WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT OF THE COMPETITIVE SOURCING EFFORT WITHIN THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
__________
JULY 24, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
89-915 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma, Vice Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER. Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JON KYL, Arizona EVAN BAYH, Indiana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 2
Kleinman, Sam, Vice President for Resource Analysis, Center for
Naval Analysis Corporation..................................... 25
Mainella, Fran, Director, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior................................................... 3
McElveen, Scot, on behalf of the Association of National Park
Rangers and the Association of National Park Maintenance
Employees...................................................... 42
Segal, Geoffrey, Director of Privatization and Government Reform
Policy, The Reason Foundation.................................. 29
Styles, Angela B., Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy,
Office of Management and Budget................................ 9
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
Wade, J.W. (Bill), on behalf of the Campaign to Protect America's
Lands and a Coalition of Concerned NPS Retirees................ 35
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 51
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 57
COMPETITIVE SOURCING EFFORT
WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Welcome. We'll break the rules and start on
time. Anyway, welcome to the hearing. We're glad to have our
representatives from the Park Service and the Office of
Management and Budget as well as the others. I think today's
hearing is one that is important and timely, I believe. We have
been working, of course, at this matter of competitive
services, and the administration has been working on that. It
is not a new thing. It has been in the area for sometime, and
yet I think in a lot of ways we're not really as clear about
how it is handled, how it should be handled, what is really
going on, and I think it has caused some concerns in places
where we really didn't have the facts, so we wanted to have a
hearing and to talk about those things.
I think we all recognize that the Park Service does have
its own issues and its own operations and peculiarities, of
course, as does every agency, so we have to find something that
fits. I am personally a support of Federal Activities Reform
Act. I think there is evidence in the industry, as well as
other agencies, that there are times and places in which
competitive outsourcing is a good thing to do. It saves us
money and does the job.
On the other hand, I think we have to recognize the
peculiarities and the uniqueness of the Park Service, so we are
not here to promote or defame the issue, but rather to make it
clear as to where we are and where we need to go and how we can
make it useful for the park service as well as other agencies,
so we appreciate very much your being here, Senator, if you
have any comments.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator From Wyoming
Good afternoon. I want to welcome the representatives from the
National Park Service, the Office of Management and Budget, and other
witnesses to today's National Parks Subcommittee hearing. Our purpose
is to hear testimony on the competitive sourcing effort that is
currently underway in the National Park Service.
Today's hearing is both timely and important. The Administration
released a revised version of circular A-76 just a little over a month
ago and several news stories have been written since that time.
Information or misinformation is moving faster than a runaway horse.
The stories range from exempting Park Service positions from the A-76
process all together, to taking a close look at outsourcing archeology
positions, to an article in a Colorado Springs newspaper praising the
A-76 process. Just last week the House added language to the Interior
appropriations bill to prevent competitive sourcing of archeology
positions at two National Park Service centers.
It's time to settle down this runaway horse, catch our breath, take
a close look at what has happened, and discuss where this process is
actually headed.
We all know that the Park Service faces many challenges while
making America's treasures available for millions of U.S. and foreign
visitors each year. Limited funds are available for maintenance,
security, safety, and a variety of other activities. We called this
hearing today to discuss the use of competitive sourcing as a tool for
improving fiscal and operational efficiency at a time when the Park
Service is facing a tremendous funding shortfall for maintenance at
almost every park. I would like to remind my colleagues on the
Committee that in the past the Park Service has been instructed to
reduce its number of commercial activities. Competitive sourcing is
part of that effort.
As the sponsor of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, I am
all for improving effectiveness and efficiency in government. At the
same time, I realize that we need to go about it the right way. We need
to have a clear process with a reasonable time line and people need to
be kept informed. It's also important that any competition involves a
level playing field--private sector contractors and the government
should be judged on the same requirements.
Again, let me thank all of the witnesses for coming today. I look
forward to hearing the testimony and the opportunity to discuss an
issue which I have spent a great deal of time working on and is a
priority of this Administration.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding
this very timely hearing. It happens that this is the second
hearing today on competitive sourcing in the Federal
Government. I also sit on the Committee on Government Affairs,
and we conducted a similar hearing earlier this morning looking
at Federal contracting on a Government-wide basis. Before I
continue, I want to welcome Fran Mainella. It is so good to see
you again. It's always good to see you, and I also want to
welcome Ms. Styles. I have seen her this morning, and it is
good to see you again, Ms. Styles, and she was very helpful
this morning.
As I stated, Mr. Chairman, at the earlier hearing no one
disputes the importance of a government that is both cost-
effective and accountable. Like any other entity, Federal
agencies need to have the appropriate management tools and
personnel skills to meet their mission, and it is in that light
that we should examine what works best, is best performed by
government employees, and which could be better performed by
the private sector.
I know you were instrumental, Mr. Chairman, in creating the
FAIR Act, and I would like to compliment you on your hard work
on that law. I agree that we must encourage cost-effective
government programs and activities. I also agree that
outsourcing, when used appropriately, can be a useful tool, but
we just need to be careful in the manner in which it is
undertaken.
I am not yet convinced that outsourcing is appropriate for
the National Park Service. From what I have read and from what
my office has heard from career Park Service employees, the
outsourcing proposal is taking a considerable amount of park
managers' time, the cost of required studies coming at the
expense of other operational needs, and I believe the program
is having a significant negative effect on the morale of
current National Park Service employees and may serve as a
detrimental factor in recruiting future employees, but this is
what we are hearing.
Most importantly, I am not convinced that this program, if
fully implemented, would improve the mission of the park
service to protect our national parks, historic sites and
monuments, and other treasured places.
I am very pleased that the Park Service Director, Fran
Mainella, is here and has done a good job in her position, and
I always tell my friend that I look forward to talking with her
about issues, and I still look forward to doing that and look
forward to hearing from you and Ms. Styles.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, and finally, I have a statement from
the National Treasury Employees' Union Chapter 296, which
represents the Washington Office of the National Park Service,
and I ask that their testimony be included in the record.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to hear
from the witnesses before we go vote, if you would like to do
that. Whatever you want to do. I will forego any opening
statement.
Senator Thomas. Why don't we get started. Our first panel,
thank you for being here, Fran Mainella, Director of the
National Park Service, and Angela Styles, Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy of the Office of Management and
Budget.
STATEMENT OF FRAN MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so pleased to
be here today. Senator Bingaman, thank you for coming, and also
I know Senator Akaka had to step out the door, but we
appreciate you being here.
It's also a great opportunity to be able to present the
views of the Department of the Interior on the President's
competitive sourcing initiative within the National Park
Service. I'm also very appreciative because I think this
hearing will give us an opportunity to clarify some issues that
have related to competitive sourcing that may have been a bit
confusing.
I think to begin with, though, I do want to emphasize that
management excellence lies at the heart of fulfilling our
mission for parks and serving our citizens. The Nation's parks
are the heart and soul of America, with some of the most
dedicated and committed employees in the Federal workforce.
Competitive sourcing, as part of the President's Federal
management agenda, helps us achieve management excellence. It
helps us to navigate the future. It gives us a tool to test
ourselves and ask, are we the best we can be.
Caring for the parks of the future generations requires
that we study our management on a regular basis to ensure we're
giving America, the American public the best value and making
sure our resources are properly taken care of. By comparing how
we currently do business with other options, competitive
sourcing helps us find new ways to add value to how we serve
the public. It's just one of those management tools being used
to address today's needs.
Some past government reforms had focused on downsizing or
actual outsourcing without regard to how it might affect all of
our employees. By contrast, though, competitive sourcing, or,
as I like to call it, competitive review, because it is
actually a review of what we are doing, allows us to be certain
to look at certain activities and organizational structures
such as, should we reorganize for greater efficiency, might a
different provider, a local government or a private business be
able to be configured to help us in our service or better
provide for that service.
One of the things that I wanted to clarify today--because
there has been many media reports that say the National Park
Service will outsource or privatize jobs, but competitive
sourcing does not equal outsourcing or privatization. Let me
help explain that a bit. Competitive sourcing is, we're looking
at it as the process for competing services between the public
and the private sector. It means our employees have a chance,
as we go through the competitive review, it looks like we want
to keep moving on, we can then do the RFP to actually have the
private sector and our employees compete, and that is one way
for us to look at that type of organization.
But on the outsourcing, on the other hand, you've already
predetermined, that is, going to the private sector, and that
is going to be not necessarily giving it to the Federal
employee. Privatization, on the other side, is actually where a
whole function or a whole entity is going into the private
sector.
In addition, the media has presented as final decisions,
certain MPS internal and draft memoranda which were prepared
for just internal agency deliberations. It gave erroneous
characterizations how that contributed to some further
misunderstandings associated with competitive review.
I personally have gone out and visited with many of our
parks that are going through the competitive sourcing, Natchez
Trace, for example, and I was just so impressed when I got out
there to see the enthusiasm of those employees, because they
believe, just as I do, that they're the best they can be, and
they were preparing and ready to be reviewed, but they were
confident in themselves that they felt they would definitely
win if it went to the RFP process.
So far, the Department of the Interior has experienced its
employees winning about 40 percent of the competitive bids. We
in the National Park Service feel anything that we do go to
full bid on, we're going to do much better than that.
Right now, our workforce, we're at a peak season. Not only
are we in fire season, as I'm about to go out to Glacier that
has major fires underway right now, but it's also our biggest
tourist season, with 1 million people a day visiting our
national parks, and I hope many of you will be able to get out
on your break and visit with many of us, but what happens is,
we are a seamless system in the national parks, but actually we
have been working for so long with the private sector, because
we're like small cities.
We have to give to our private sector the ability to do
trash removal and some of these other things that are very
important to us. I don't know if everyone realizes, though,
that if you went out today in the parks you probably would run
into about 48,000 people but only 20,000 of those people are
our employees, because the other 28,000 are already partners,
business partners like concessionaires, cooperating
associations that are also nonprofits.
Also, in addition to the 48,000 you've got 125,000
volunteers that are out there working with us, not every day,
of course, but we do average--we will average a little over
2,000 FTE's per day if we were to figure out on the volunteer
efforts, and so really we have already been working in the
private sector partnerships already to such a great extent.
In fact, right now we currently do outsource, and we have
outsourced over $1 billion per year in what we do.
As you look at the FAIR Act, and I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for being able to come forth with that act, because
it does give us a planning tool for us to move forward, it does
provide us with an opportunity to look at and be able to check
interested parties and see how they can be included, or might
not be a part of our efforts, and of course our own positions
in the Park Service, we have some that are commercial entities
and some that are not. We had that evaluation done by 30
different employees working with us to evaluate that back in
the year 2000.
One of the other areas I want to make clear is there are no
ranger positions being included for consideration for
competitive sourcing. I know that's been a confusion, in that
no ranger positions being included.
Also, the National Park Service has been asked to look at
about 1,708 positions between 2003 and 2004. Already, though,
of that 1,708 we have achieved 859 direct conversions that were
done when direct conversions were being allowed, and we've been
given credit. OMB has worked with us to give us credit on
those, so now we're only looking at, out of that 1,700, another
840-plus employees that we're looking at today.
The media coverage, though, has suggested that we're
looking at 70 percent of our employees to be outsourced, and
that's just not correct. We really, if you look at our
employees, what we're looking at is about 15 percent of the
11,000 employees that are labeled commercial, and then less
than 9 percent of our total workforce is being considered.
I know diversity has been an issue that has been voiced by
many individuals, and one of the things that I've been able to
find out as I've explored this further is that the jobs
actually, whether it's our employees or not, will still stay in
that community and will be able to reflect that diversity of
that community there, so that diversity will still be obtained,
plus the economic value will be able to stay in the community.
We are also very excited about one of the things that
happened in Florida, having been my own home State. A minority
contractor there has provided for workers for lifeguard and
maintenance worker positions. The winning contractor hired all
of our former temporary and seasonal employees who were
interested in being rehired, and those employees report they
are now working more hours for the contractor and making higher
income.
In Harper's Ferry, in West Virginia, and also Denver,
Colorado, contractors have been helping us with providing jobs
for the severely handicapped. Again, most of these were done
through outsourcing opportunities, but again they have been a
success story.
The funding is another confusion area. I want to make sure
we're clear on the funding sources. The National Park Service
has never spent over the $500,000 limit for reprogramming to
address our competitive sourcing. Also, as we look to the
reprogramming letter that we have just sent up for $1.1
million, there is no funds that are coming from accounts for
maintenance backlog to do this study, and this includes--I know
this is a lot of discussion about Mount Rainier. Mount Rainier
is not being considered in the 2003 and 2004, and no
maintenance backlog dollars are going to be used to do any of
those assessments.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the National Park Service
fully supports the competitive sourcing initiative of the
President's management agenda. We have the finest, most
dedicated employees in the Federal workforce, and we are
working with them to find innovative ways to accomplish this
initiative. We are doing our best to ensure fairness and
effectiveness and efficiency in this review process.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I'll be open for questions at
the appropriate time. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fran Mainella, Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior
(Department) on the President's competitive sourcing initiative within
the National Park Service (Park Service).
Management excellence lies at the heart of fulfilling our mission
and serving citizens. Competitive sourcing, as part of the President's
Management Agenda, helps us achieve management excellence. It gives us
a tool to test ourselves and ask: ``Are we the best that we can be?''
Every organization in society needs to periodically ask if there is
a better way to organize itself to accomplish its mission. By comparing
how we currently do business with other options, competitive sourcing
helps us find new ways to add value to how we serve the public. It is a
tool all federal agencies are using to accomplish this self-
examination. The goal of competitive sourcing is to ensure that we
provide the public maximum quality services at the best possible value.
Some past government reforms have focused specifically on
downsizing or outsourcing, without regard for the overall effects of
those choices on performance. By contrast, competitive sourcing is a
review process. Through this competitive review, as I like to call it,
we look at certain activities and organization structures and ask: 1)
should we reorganize for greater efficiency; 2) might a different
provider a local government or a private business, for example, be
better configured to provide a service? This process assures that we
maintain management vigilance. Even if competitive sourcing were not a
Presidential initiative, it would be important for the Park Service to
periodically check our efficiency and effectiveness by comparing
ourselves to others who provide similar services.
OMB Circular A-76, revised May 29, 2003, provides a mechanism with
which to test the results of public/private competitions for commercial
services routinely provided by both the federal government and private
industry. But the recent revision to the Circular does not tell the
entire story about the care, efficiency, and transparency with which
the Park Service is undertaking its competitive reviews.
The media has paid significant attention to the competitive
sourcing issue. In their reporting, they presented as final decisions
certain Park Service internal and draft memoranda, which were prepared
for agency deliberations only. The erroneous characterization of these
draft documents has contributed to some misunderstandings currently
associated with the Park Service competitive sourcing initiative.
I would like to correct these misunderstandings for the Committee
today. I have personally visited and interviewed employees from some of
the parks being studied and want to reiterate that the National Park
Service has the finest employees in the federal service who have the
highest dedication to our mission. So far, the Department has
experienced its employees winning about 40 percent of the bids. We
believe that the Park Service will do better than that. We believe that
through a competitive review process, we can win many of these
competitions and, through that process, we will find ways to enhance
our own effectiveness. Our employees know that we are behind them and
support their efforts to succeed in providing outstanding service to
the public. I have reinforced this message to the National Park Service
workforce in several memoranda to employees.
The National Park Service manages 388 parks units, seven regional
offices, a central office, and two service centers. Our parks offer a
seamless operation of visitor services, resource and visitor
protection. The Park Service, with its many locations, facilities, and
infrastructure, is like a small city. Just like any small city, we have
many business partners to help us prepare food, maintain our buildings,
repair our vehicles, and do the many other activities associated with
managing lots of buildings and infrastructure.
Though we have an average of 20,000 federal government employees,
over 48,000 individuals participate in these services, helping maintain
our facilities, and greeting and interacting with the public. In
addition to our 20,000 federal employees, private-sector employees,
contractors, volunteers and partners provide concession operations,
design, and countless service contracts such as sanitation, trash
pickup, lifeguards, professional and administrative services. In
addition, several thousand construction workers engaged in all types of
projects throughout the park system.
Most of the existing contracts are the result of outsourcing the
process of contracting certain services without competing them between
the private sector and Park Service employees. Over the years, the Park
Service has outsourced many functions realizing that such services can
be performed by contractors in support of the National Park Service
mission. These contractors are readily available in the private sector
to perform services that the Park Service has chosen not to accomplish
in-house with the federal workforce. The Park Service currently
outsources well over one billion dollars annually.
An important distinction needs to be made between these traditional
outsourcing efforts and competitive sourcing.
Competitive sourcing is the process of competing services between
the public and private sector, utilizing the fair, transparent
processes outlined in OMB Circular A-76. Under this process, both the
public and private sector have an opportunity to realign their
organizations to provide the most cost-effective, efficient
organization possible. The competition is conducted in accordance with
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and prescribed procedures
outlined in Circular A-76. Either low price or best value (low price
and most technically qualified) is established at the outset of a
competition as the criterion for award. The current Park Service
competitive sourcing plan, which allows for the competition of
approximately 1,700 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, is being
accomplished under these competitive sourcing rules.
Outsourcing involves the process of announcing a competition
between private sector contractors utilizing only Federal Acquisition
Regulation. It does not include competing with established public
sector (federal) providers. Federal employees do not have a chance to
compete under outsourcing procedures or re-engineer their services to
enhance their prospects of prevailing in a competitive sourcing review.
As described above, the Park Service currently contracts on average
28,000 jobs to private industry using outsourcing procedures under
Federal Acquisition Regulation and competitions between concessionaires
as outlined in 36 CFR, Part 51, Concession Contracts.
Privatization is a broader concept, encompassing transfers in the
production of goods and services from the public sector to the private
sector, and can include asset sales, long-term leases, and other
public-private transactions. The Park Service has no intention of
privatizing assets in this way.
The Park Service, like all civilian agencies, has been working on
competitive sourcing issues in compliance with OMB Circular A-76 for
many years. During the 1980's, the Park Service engaged in several A-76
competitions. From 1987 through 1997, the Park Service turned in an
inventory of commercial positions, but did not actively engage in
public/private competitions. The enactment by Congress in 1998 of the
Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act signaled an increased
emphasis on the A-76 program.
Through your diligence and leadership, Mr. Chairman, the FAIR Act
turned from a bureaucratic exercise to a valuable planning tool for
agencies to use. The FAIR Act assists agencies in monitoring their
inventories in a systematic way and identifies potential study areas.
The FAIR Act requires all agencies to submit an annual inventory of
commercial and inherently governmental FTE positions to OMB for release
to Congress and the public. The Act provides a process wherein
interested parties may challenge the inclusion or non-inclusion of
positions on either side of the inventory to the agency. The Act also
provides for an appeals process if the challenger is not satisfied with
the agency response.
To comply with the FAIR Act, the Park Service conducted a survey of
all positions utilizing the Federal Personnel Payroll System (FPPS) to
establish a benchmark for inherently governmental and commercial
activities.
Seeing the growing interest and emphasis on the initiative, the
Park Service convened a panel of 30 subject matter experts in March
2000 to do an in-depth review of all 237 job series in the Park Service
to determine which were inherently governmental and which were
commercial. The 2002 inventory contains 11,525 FTEs on the commercial
inventory and 8,220 FTEs on the inherently governmental inventory for a
total of 19,745 FTEs. This represents all employees, including
permanent and temporary, on the payroll as of September 30, 2002. This
differs slightly from numbers cited in the budget, because the
inventory is a snapshot at one particular time while the budget shows
the number of FTEs funded over the entire year. It is important to note
that all ranger positions (0025 job classification series) are included
on the inherently governmental inventory. None are considered
commercial and none have or will be competed.
Prior to the cutoff date of May 29, 2003, when the revised OMB
Circular stipulated that no further direct conversions should occur,
the Park Service successfully converted 859 positions to contract
positions. All 859 positions were either vacant or involved new work
where the positions contracted out were unencumbered. Not one permanent
Park Service employee lost his or her job due to these direct
conversions. In addition, the Park Service conducted all direct
conversions and express studies without the use of consultants.
Therefore, no appropriated dollars were spent on consultants to
accomplish the 859 direct conversions over half of the goal established
for Park Service competitions.
There has also been confusing media coverage concerning the number
of Park Service positions or FTEs being studied under the competitive
sourcing initiative. Some media coverage has suggested that the Park
Service is subjecting as many as 70 percent of its employees to study
under competitive sourcing. This is not correct. The Department has
asked the Park Service to study approximately 1,700 FTEs by the end of
FY 2004. This represents approximately 15 percent of the 11,525
commercial FTEs. We can only conclude that the 70 percent figure in
some press reports came from an erroneous calculation of potential
studies if the Park Service was to review all or a majority of the
11,525 FTEs identified on the commercial inventory.
The Park Service funded 20,505 FTEs in FY 2002. To clarify, one FTE
amounts to 2,087 hours of work in a year, as opposed to a position
which is generally encumbered by one individual and could be anywhere
from a seasonal--who might work 2 or 3 months during the summer season
(.25 FTE)--to a permanent full-time position, which would equate to 1.0
FTE. The Park Service employs approximately 26,000 funded positions,
including year-round and seasonal jobs. In a given year, at the height
of the summer season, that translates into approximately 19,000 FTEs.
One concern relating to competitive sourcing that has been raised
by some observers is its potential impact on diversity. We are proud of
our accomplishments in promoting equal employment opportunities for all
Americans. We are equally proud to announce that we are working with
the communities where competitive reviews are underway and are
confident that the same diverse workforce living in those communities
will continue to get those jobs. Whether a community provides a diverse
pool of workers for the federal government or a similarly diverse
workforce for the private sector, we take pride in the community
retaining the jobs.
For example, in Florida, a minority contractor has provided workers
for lifeguard and maintenance worker positions. In addition, the
winning contractor hired all of our former temporary and seasonal
employees who were interested in being rehired, and these employees
report they are now working more hours for the contractor than they did
previously with the Department (taking into account work performed both
for the government and private sector clients), resulting in higher
incomes. In Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, and Denver, Colorado,
contractors associated with the Javits-Wagner O'Day Act (providing jobs
for the severely handicapped and the blind) have been contracted to
provide file and mail services. These contractors and service
organizations deal directly with minority and small businesses to
provide workers from the local communities that truly benefit from
these contracts. In the majority of instances, local contractors have
won the competitions for Park Service work.
The Park Service has also been criticized for spending many
millions of dollars on competitive sourcing. Let me set the record
straight. The Park Service has never spent over the $500,000
reprogramming threshold in any given fiscal year since the competitive
sourcing initiative began. We do have a reprogramming request now
pending before the appropriations committee to spend another $1.1
million on these studies in FY 2003.
It has been reported, for example, that the Park Service used
monies designated for the maintenance backlog at Mount Rainier National
Park to fund competitive sourcing studies. This is not true. No
maintenance backlog funds have been or will be used on competitive
sourcing at any location. Mount Rainier is not currently on the Park
Service competitive sourcing plan for FYs 2003 and 2004.
In conclusion, the National Park Service fully supports the
competitive sourcing initiative of the President's Management Agenda.
The competitive review that this initiative fosters is an important
tool used to ensure we are giving the American public the very best
service for their tax dollars. We have the finest, most dedicated
employees in the federal service, and we are working with them to find
innovative ways to accomplish this initiative. We are doing our best to
ensure fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency as we fulfill our grand
mission of ensuring Americans can enjoy this Nation's outstanding
historic, cultural, and natural heritage now and into the future.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared statement and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other Committee members might have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. I guess we had better
recess for just a few minutes, and we'll be right back.
[Recess.]
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. We'll come back to
order. I might tell you that at 3:40 there is going to be a
moment of silence on the floor to recognize the Capitol Police
officers that were killed, so we will take a moment of silence
here too at 3:40. Ms. Styles, why don't you go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA B. STYLES, ADMINISTRATOR FOR FEDERAL
PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Styles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the administration's competitive sourcing initiative. 2
years ago, we unveiled the President's management agenda, a
bold strategy for improving the management and performance of
the Federal Government. Opening commercial activities performed
by the Government to the dynamics of competition is a major
component of this agenda and the President's vision for a
market-based government.
Since the 1950's, successive administrations have
encouraged agencies to consider whether commercial activities
performed by the Government could be provided by the private
sector in a more cost-effective manner. Competition has been
encouraged through memoranda, a circular, a government-wide
handbook, and even an executive order. Like us, past
administrations recognized that public and private competition
improves service delivery and decreases cost to the taxpayer
irrespective of which sector wins the competition.
In many ways, however, this administration's cost-cutting
efforts can be distinguished from those of the past both in
terms of the priority of the initiative and the tailored
approach being taken to ensure the competition is applied in a
reasoned and responsible manner for each agency, but I can tell
you that the most challenging part of my job in this initiative
is effective communication.
I spend the vast majority of my day explaining to people
that competitive sourcing is about a commitment to management
excellence. It is a commitment to ensuring that our citizens
are receiving the highest quality service from their government
without regard to whether that job is being done by dedicated
Federal employees or the private sector. In spite of our
extensive effort, this information and confusion abounds. We
are constantly fighting a flurry of intentionally deceptive
propaganda.
Contrary to the self-serving information, competitive
sourcing is not about outsourcing, privatization, or reducing
the Federal workforce. As Ms. Mainella pointed out very
effectively in her testimony, competitive sourcing is a review
process that asks two very important questions: one, should we
reorganize for greater efficiency; and two, might a different
provider, a local government, a nonprofit organization that
employees disabled members of our society or a private business
be better able to provide the service at a lower cost?
The competitive sourcing initiative asks people to make
very hard management choices, choices that affect very real
jobs and help our dedicated and loyal career civil servants,
but the fact that private competition and our initiative
require hard choices and a lot of hard work make it one that
can and is effecting fundamental real and lasting changes to
the way we manage the Federal Government.
Both the private and public sectors have conducted
independent studies to document the effects of public-private
competition. Each has reached the same conclusion. Subjecting
in-house operation to competition consistently generates cost
savings anywhere from 20 to 30 percent on average, regardless
of whether the competition is won by a private contractor or
the Government.
The Department of Defense alone projects savings of more
than $6 billion from A-76 competitions completed from 2000 to
2003. DOD estimates that long run savings are about $85,000 per
position over 5 years.
One of my favorite recent examples is a graphics function
of the Department of Energy. Before the competition,
Headquarter Graphics was a 13-person operation. Through the
competitive process, the in-house government employees
determined that they could do the exact same jobs with 6
people. In other words, the same graphics service could be
delivered by half the number of people. By sharpening their
pencils, benchmarking the private sector, and reorganizing the
function, the Federal employees won the graphics function
competition against the private sector head to head.
Though small in number, this competition exemplifies the
benefits of the competitive sourcing initiative. From this
small, 13-person competition, DOD is estimating $635,000 in
savings every year. The employees won, but through competition
and the competitive process were able to save $635,000 a year.
I'm not sure how anyone can make a rational argument that we
should not do everything in our power to replicate this type of
result throughout the Federal Government.
While there is a certain level of comfort in maintaining
the status quo, our taxpayers cannot afford, nor should they be
asked to support a system that operates at an unnecessarily
high cost, because so many of our commercial activities are
performed by agencies without the benefit of competition. For
this reason, the administration has called upon our agencies to
transform their business practices. We have provided the tools
for meeting this objective in a responsible, reasoned, and fair
manner.
This concludes my prepared statement, but I am pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Styles follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angela B. Styles, Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget
Chairman Thomas, Vice Chairman Nickles, Senator Akaka, and Members
of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Administration's Competitive Sourcing initiative.
Two years ago, the Administration unveiled the President's Management
Agenda (PMA), a bold strategy for improving the management and
performance of the federal government. Opening commercial activities
performed by the government to the dynamics of competition--i.e.,
competitive sourcing--is a major component of the PMA and the
Administration's vision for a market-based government.
A number of Administrations have encouraged the use of competitive
sourcing--through memoranda, a Circular, a government-wide handbook,
and even an Executive Order. Like us, past Administrations recognized
that public-private competition improves service delivery and decreases
costs to taxpayers, irrespective of which sector wins the competition.
Various studies have found savings of anywhere from 10-40%, on average,
regardless of the sector that wins the competition. In fact, savings
can be even higher. For example:
Federal employees won a public-private competition in 1994
to perform base operations support at Goodfellow Air Force
Base. The competition has resulted in an effective savings of
46%.
Private sector performance of aircraft maintenance at
McChord Air Force Base, work previously performed by the
government, has resulted in an effective savings of 66%
following a public-private competition in the early 1990s.
Despite these positive results, use of public-private competition
has not taken hold outside of the Department of Defense. Our
competitive sourcing initiative seeks to institutionalize public-
private competition by providing an infrastructure and management
blueprint for its considered application.
Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is providing a
report to Congress describing the steps we have been and are taking to
implement competitive sourcing. A copy of the report is attached to
this statement.* I would like to summarize that report for you this
afternoon. I think you will find that the report provides important
insight regarding our reasoned and responsible approach for ensuring
the fair and effective application of this important management tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The report has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am pleased that Fran Mainella is here to discuss the Park
Services' efforts to use competitive sourcing. I will focus my
discussion on government-wide efforts and defer to Ms. Mainella to
address the specific steps being taken at the Park Service.
the strategy for implementing competitive sourcing
The Administration's strategy for institutionalizing public-private
competition has three features:
1. Agency-specific competition plans that are customized,
based on considered research and sound analysis, to address the
agency's mission and workforce mix;
2. A dedicated infrastructure within each agency to promote
sound and accountable decision making; and
3. Improved processes for the fair and efficient conduct of
public-private competition.
Let me briefly describe how each of these features of our strategy
reinforces careful planning and well informed decision making.
Customized competition plans. The preparation of competition plans
begins with the development of workforce inventories, as required by
OMB guidance and the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act.
Agencies first differentiate inherently governmental activities from
commercial activities. Inherently governmental activities are
immediately excluded from performance by the private sector. The focus
is strictly on commercial functions, whether they be computer support
or landscaping and lawn mowing. Functions that are intimately related
to the public interest must be performed by public employees. Our
revisions to Circular A-76, the document which sets forth the
guidelines for conducting public-private competitions, make no real
substantive change to long-standing principles addressing what
functions are appropriately considered to be inherently governmental.
We will continue to depend on our able workforce to execute these
important responsibilities on behalf of our citizens. OMB estimates
that approximately 47% of the workforce from agencies being tracked
under the PMA are inherently governmental.
Once agencies have separated out inherently governmental
activities, agencies then must differentiate commercial activities that
are available for competition from those that are not. In deciding
whether a commercial activity is inappropriate for potential
performance by the private sector, agencies take various factors into
consideration, such as the unavailability of private sector expertise,
preservation of core competencies, or the need for confidentiality in
support of senior level decision making. About 26 percent of the
workforce is engaged in commercial activities available for
competition. Individual agency determinations, however, vary from under
20 percent to over 60 percent: no two agencies are alike.
After an agency has identified commercial activities available for
competition, it considers, in a disciplined way, which ones might
benefit most from comparison with the private sector. Agencies are
generally focusing use of public-private competition on commonly
available, routine commercial services where there are likely to be
numerous capable and highly competitive private sector contractors
worthy of comparison to agency providers. They also consider factors
such as workforce mix, attrition rates, capacity to conduct reviews,
the percentage of service contracts, and the strength of the agency's
contract management capabilities.
For our part, OMB has created scorecards to measure agency progress
in implementing competition plans. We also have committed to meet with
agencies on a quarterly basis to provide assistance in the use of
competitive sourcing as a management tool.
OMB has moved away from mandated numerical goals and uniform
baselines that were introduced at the beginning of the initiative to
ensure a level of commitment that would institutionalize use of the
tool within each agency. Instead, we have negotiated tailored baselines
based on mission needs and conditions unique to the agency. As an
additional step to reinforce our customized approach to competitive
sourcing, OMB has revised the criteria that will be used to grade
agency progress. The revised criteria, which are set forth in section
III of our report, contain no government-wide numerical goals that
would require an agency to compete a portion of the commercial
activities performed by the government. However, the scorecard still
includes the types of incentives that should facilitate the application
of competitive sourcing in a sound manner.
Agency management infrastructure. OMB requires that agencies
designate a Competitive Sourcing Official (CSO) to be accountable for
competitive sourcing actions in the agency. The organizational
placement of the CSO is left to each individual agency. OMB further
requires that agencies centralize oversight responsibility to help
facilitate a wide range of activities, including:
the development of inventories of commercial and inherently
governmental activities;
the determination of whether commercial activities are
suitable for competition;
the scheduling and preliminary planning of competitions,
including the coordination of resources to support the agency
provider;
the tracking of results; and
information sharing within the agency so past experiences
can inform future actions.
Improved processes for conducting public-private competitions. For
a long time, the acquisition community has argued that the benefit
derived from public-private competitions could be much greater if
performance decisions were made within more reasonable timeframes,
processes were more accommodating to agency needs, and greater
attention was given to holding sources accountable for their
performance. To address these and other shortcomings, OMB has revised
Circular A-76 to provide a number of results-driven features.
Of particular importance, the revised processes concentrate on
results--not the sector that provides the service--so that agencies and
the taxpayer may reap the full benefit of competition. The processes
are intended to place an equal degree of pressure on each sector to
devise the most effective means to provide needed services. Here are a
few of the new features of A-76.
Focus on selecting the best available source. Because OMB
seeks to emphasize selection of the best service provider, as
determined through competition, the revised Circular deletes a
long-standing statement that the government should not compete
with its citizens. Deletion of the ``reliance'' statement is
not intended to denigrate the critical contribution the private
sector plays in facilitating the effective operation of
government. Without the private sector, the government would
not be able to meet the many needs of our taxpayers. The
deletion is simply meant to avoid a presumption that the
government should not compete for work to meet its own needs.
Current government incumbents should have the opportunity to
demonstrate their ability to provide better value to the
taxpayer.
Better planning. The revised Circular emphasizes the
importance of preliminary planning as a prerequisite for sound
sourcing decisions. Before announcing the commencement of a
competition, agencies must complete a series of actions
including:
determining the scope of activities and positions to be
competed;
conducting preliminary research to determine the appropriate
grouping of activities as business units; and
determining the baseline cost of the activity as performed by
the incumbent service provider.
Time limits for completing competitions. Timeframe standards
have been incorporated into the revised Circular to instill
greater confidence that agencies will follow through on their
plans and to ensure the benefits of competition are realized.
Under the revised Circular, a standard competition must
generally be conducted within a 12-month period, beginning on
the date the competition is publicly announced and ending on
the date a performance decision is made. A ``standard
competition'' is the general competitive process required by
the revised Circular when an agency selects a provider based on
formal offers or tenders submitted in response to an agency
solicitation. An agency may extend the 12-month period by 6
months with notification to OMB. Streamlined competitions,
which I will discuss in a moment, must generally be completed
within a 90-day period.
Agencies will be required to publicly announce, through FedBizOpps,
the beginning of competitions, performance decisions made at the end of
a competition, and any cancellation of an announced competition.
Announcements of competition and performance decisions also must be
publicized locally.
I want to emphasize that the new competition timeframes are not
intended to truncate planning. OMB deliberately structured the Circular
so that timeframes, for either standard or streamlined competitions,
will not begin to run until preliminary planning has been completed.
Expanded opportunities to consider best value. Under the
revised Circular, agencies have more leeway to take non-cost
factors into account during source selection. For example, an
agency may conduct a phased evaluation source selection process
to consider alternative performance levels that sources may
wish to propose. If non-cost factors are likely to play a
significant role in the selection decision, an agency may,
within certain parameters, conduct a tradeoff source selection
process similar to that authorized by the Federal Acquisition
Regulation. The Circular limits use of tradeoffs to: (1)
information technology activities, (2) contracted commercial
activities, (3) new requirements, (4) segregable expansions, or
(5) activities approved by the CSO before public announcement,
with notification to OMB.
Elimination of ``direct conversions.'' During the
development of Circular revisions, some public commenters
complained that the traditional authority to convert functions
with l0 or fewer positions directly to private sector
performance was encouraging agencies to ignore consideration of
the agency provider, even where a more efficient, cost-
effective government organization could offer the better
alternative. The revised Circular eliminates direct conversions
and instead provides a versatile streamlined competition
process for agencies to efficiently capture the benefits of
public-private competition for activities performed by 65 or
fewer full-time-equivalent employees.
While providing added flexibility, the Circular also incorporates
mechanisms to ensure that agencies act as responsible stewards. For
example, agencies must publicly announce both the start of a
streamlined competition and the performance decision made by the
agency. The notice announcing the initiation of a competition must
include, among other things, the activity being competed, incumbent
service providers, number of government personnel performing the
activity, names of certain competition officials, and the projected end
date of the competition. In addition, agencies must document cost
calculations and comparisons on a standardized streamlined competition
form. The official who documents the cost estimate for agency
performance must be different from the one who documents the cost
estimates for performance by either the private sector or a public
reimbursable source. Finally, the agency must certify that the
performance decision is cost-effective.
Consideration of innovative alternative practices. OMB
recognizes that the nature of service delivery is constantly
changing and our processes must be able to meet taxpayer needs
in this dynamic environment. We must always be on the lookout
for better ways of carrying out federal missions. To encourage
innovation and continual improvement, the revised Circular
provides a process by which agencies, with OMB's prior written
approval, may deviate from the processes prescribed in the
Circular.
While we must be forward thinking, we must also ensure that
deviations are used only when there is good reason to believe
significant benefit may be offered and when alternative processes are
transparent and impartial. OMB believes the new standard and
streamlined competition processes should effectively accommodate agency
needs for the vast majority of public-private competitions and will
carefully review deviation requests to determine if they are justified.
Establishment of firewalls. The revised Circular seeks to
improve public trust in sourcing decisions by reinforcing
mechanisms of transparency, fairness, and integrity. Among
other things, the revised Circular establishes new rules to
avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. The revised
Circular separates the team formed to write the performance
work statement from the team formed to develop the most
efficient organization (MEO)--i.e., the staffing plan that will
form the foundation of the agency's tender. In addition, the
MEO team, directly affected personnel and their
representatives, and any individual with knowledge of the MEO
or agency cost estimate in the agency tender will not be
permitted to be advisors to, or members of, the source
selection evaluation board.
Post-competition accountability. During the revision
process, we heard numerous complaints regarding weaknesses in
post-competition oversight. Among other things, the old
Circular required post-competition reviews only for 20 percent
of the functions performed by the government following a cost
comparison. As a result, even where competition has been used
to transform a public provider into a high-value service
provider, insufficient steps have been taken to ensure this
potential translates into positive results.
Under the revised Circular, agencies will be expected to implement
a quality assurance surveillance plan and track execution of
competitions in a government management information system.
Irrespective of whether the service provider is from the public or
private sector, agencies will be expected to record the actual cost of
performance and collect performance information that may be considered
in future competitions.
OMB intends to work with the agencies to review costs and results
achieved. This information will be used to evaluate the effectiveness
of competitive sourcing at each agency and devise additional strategies
to address agency-unique implementation issues. We will also work with
the agencies to ensure they provide the Congress with the information
it needs to ensure sufficient oversight of these activities and their
associated costs.
Finally, with the assistance of the Federal Acquisition Council,
agencies will share lessons learned and best practices for addressing
common issues. Using past experiences to inform future decision making
will further ensure that competitive sourcing is a fair and effective
tool for improving the delivery of services to our citizens.
COMPETITIVE SOURCING AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
Clearly, competitive sourcing poses a challenge for government
personnel who perform commercial activities that are available for
competition. These providers must critically examine their current
processes and determine how they can improve the delivery of services.
Answers may not come easily, but they are ones which our taxpayers are
owed.
Historically, the government wins over 50% of public-private
competitions. This high success rate should give employees confidence
that they can and do compete effectively head-to-head with the private
sector. As I described a moment ago, the revised Circular has a number
of specific features to ensure that competition is applied in an even-
handed manner. Equally important, the revised Circular recognizes the
talents of the federal workforce, the conditions under which the
workforce operates, and the importance of providing the workforce with
adequate training and technical support during the competition process
to ensure they are able to compete effectively. In particular, the
revised Circular seeks to ensure that the agency provider has the
available resources (e.g., skilled manpower, funding) necessary to
develop a competitive agency tender.
As an example, the Department of Energy (DOE) recently competed the
graphics function at DOE headquarters. Before the competition, this was
a 13-person operation at DOE. Through the competitive process, the
incumbent government provider determined that it could do the same job
with 6 people. In other words, the same graphics service could be
delivered by half the number of people. By sharpening their pencils,
benchmarking the private sector, and reorganizing the function, the
federal employees won the graphics function competition against the
private sector. Importantly, however, through managed attrition, no
involuntary separations are anticipated. Though small in number, this
competition exemplifies the benefits of the competitive sourcing
initiative. As a result of the competitive process, this organization
determined how to become more efficient. The competition at DOE is a
significant win for the taxpayer.
Even when the commercial sector is chosen to perform the activity,
there generally are only a small number of involuntary separations of
federal employees--8% according to one study; 3.4% according to
another. The percentage of involuntary separations should remain small.
Nearly 40% of all federal workers will be eligible to retire by 2005,
creating many new job opportunities across government. The
Administration's human capital initiative is already helping agencies
better train and retain a capable workforce.
CONCLUSION
While there is a certain comfort level in maintaining the status
quo, our taxpayers simply cannot afford--nor should they be asked to
support--a system that operates at an unnecessarily high cost because
many of its commercial activities are performed by agencies without the
benefit of competition. For this reason, the Administration has called
upon agencies to transform their business practices and embrace the
benefits brought to bear by competition, innovation, and choice.
Competitive sourcing is not about arbitrary numbers. This
initiative is about reasoned plans, accountable infrastructures, and
balanced processes that facilitate the application of public-private
competition where it benefits mission objectives and the needs of our
citizens. We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in our Competitive
Sourcing initiative. We look forward to working with you and the other
members of Congress as we strive to bring lasting improvements to the
performance of government through the sensible application of
competition.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Ms. Mainella, in the Park Service do you have persons
working who are not Federal employees at this time?
Ms. Mainella. We certainly do. As we mentioned earlier,
there is actually 48,000 people out there that work that serve
you as you come into the parks, and only 20,000 of them are
Federal employees.
Of course, one of our big groups, of course, are
volunteers, but also we have our concessionaires, we have our
cooperating associations, so many others that work along with
us, so the Park Service for a very long time has been involved
in working with the private sector, and I think in a very
successful way.
Senator Thomas. We had a hearing a while back on
maintenance backlog and I understand the Department of the
Interior put together a workforce plan. Is that the case in the
Park Service?
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir. We are working on a workforce plan,
and it will focus again, addressing actually one of the issues
that I think affects all Federal Government. A lot of retirees
developing, with those that are the baby boomers and others,
and of course that will be taken into consideration as we look
through our competitive sourcing.
Senator Thomas. Ms. Styles, what is the difference in what
you're talking about now as to what people were thinking about
2 years ago in terms of outsourcing?
Ms. Styles. I think we have learned a lot over the past 2
years with our initiative. I think we have tried today in a
report that we issued to Congress and throughout this process
to make sure that we are doing this in a reasoned, rational
manner that helps agencies meet their missions, it helps
improve service to the taxpayers, it isn't taking money away
from important functions while we're trying to do this, and I
think that our approach to this has been cautious and
thoughtful and it's constantly evolving, it's constantly
changing as we learn more about private competition and how it
works at our departments and agencies.
Senator Thomas. You mentioned the notion that in preparing
for competition the Federal employees were able to do with
about half the number what they had done before with twice that
number. What happened to the others?
Ms. Styles. There were actually no involuntary separations.
They either retired before the end of the competition or they
moved to other places within the Department of Energy.
Senator Thomas. Are there examples of this kind of
outsourcing in the private sector that you have examined or
made available?
Ms. Styles. Absolutely. We have looked at outsourcing and
competitive sourcing in private sector companies. If you look
even at the information technology industry you had a model of
IBM that I think over a series of years really transformed in a
model that Dell uses successfully now.
IBM did everything in-house with their own people, and over
a period of time I think they've learned that to be competitive
you really have to focus on what you are doing, have the people
within your company focus on that, determine what is best to be
done by another company or what needs to be done by your
employees.
Your focus generally at an information technology company
is the next generation of technology, not shrink-wrapping the
software that you have right now with your own employees. The
same concept applies in the Federal Government. We want to take
what the private sector has done in becoming more efficient
over the past few years. We want to take that model and apply
it in the Federal Government in a rational manner that allows
our employees to compete.
And I will add, a lot of private sector companies allow
their employees to compete, too. They don't just make an
outsourcing decision alone. They allow their employees
oftentimes to compete for it as well, so we took that model and
we tried to replicate that in the Federal Government, to the
extent we can.
Senator Thomas. Do you think there was an impression of
higher numbers, as the conversation began about this as to how
many jobs would be reviewed, and is practically the issue now?
Ms. Styles. I think there was a lot of confusion about our
percentages and our targets. People were very concerned that a
single government-wide percentage and a strict deadline was
arbitrary. I think we learned over time that that percentage
and those deadlines weren't appropriate for every agency, and
we didn't want those percentages any longer to be distracting
from what we were really trying to achieve, which is, the
adoption of public-private competition as accepted management
practice at our departments and agencies.
We're making a lot of progress, but we felt that the
numbers and percentages were becoming distracting. They were
becoming a focus where they really shouldn't have been a focus,
because there were more exceptions to the rule in terms of
member agencies and when they were going to get to certain
percentages in the time frame than there were agencies that
were really going to meet that.
Senator Thomas. Percentages in the Department of Defense
might be different than the Department of the Interior.
Ms. Styles. Absolutely. The percentages are very different
at each Department and agency, and I think we made changes, we
announced changes today to our management scorecard and how we
evaluate departments and agencies that recognizes that each
agency is different. Each competition plan for each agency
needs to be different, and a single government-wide goal is not
appropriate right now.
Senator Thomas. Fran, following the competition, if there
were dollars saved, as hopefully the outcome, what happens to
those dollars?
Ms. Mainella. The dollars are to come back to the Park
Service to again put into our resources, into our visitors'
services, and I know we will be working with Angela and others
to make sure that happens, but that is, it comes right back.
Anything we save is supposed to come back to the Park Service.
Ms. Styles. I would also note that is very different than
the way this was implemented by previous administrations. When
this was implemented before, the savings were assumed and taken
out of those agencies' budgets. We're allowing those agencies
to keep the savings they achieve and reallocate those resources
where they believe they're most effective.
Senator Thomas. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, it's almost 3:40.
Senator Thomas. We're not quite there yet.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My first questions are to Fran Mainella. Your testimony
indicates that the National Park Service plans to conduct
competitive sourcing studies on approximately 1,700 positions
by the end of fiscal year 2004. I understand from the Park
Service's own estimate that costs the Park Service about $3,000
per FTE to conduct the studies needed to determine if
outsourcing is appropriate. If my math is right, that amounts
to about $5 million in competitive sourcing studies just for
this year.
As far as I know, there is not a line item in the
appropriations bill for this purpose. My question is, can you
tell me how much money the Park Service has spent on
competitive source studies for 2002 and 2003, and where the
money is coming from, but before you answer that, I know in
your statement you had that you haven't spent more than
$500,000 for that purpose, and so with that, I'm asking how
much money the Park Service has spent on competitive sourcing
studies in 2002 and 2003, and where the money is coming from?
Senator Thomas. Would you hold for just a moment, please?
Five years ago at this time, two Capitol police officers
were killed in the line of duty, Jacob Chestnut and John
Gibson. The entire Senate is observing a minute of silence in
their memory, and so I wonder, please, if you would join me in
a moment of silence.
[A moment of silence was observed.]
Senator Thomas. Thank you so much. I guess we're all
particularly sensitive to the sacrifices people are making now,
so you can go right ahead.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir.
Senator Akaka, as I think I mentioned in my comments, and
you may have stepped out at that point, but we, instead of
looking--we're looking at 1,708 positions, but because of the
cooperation with OMB we have received 859 positions credit for
what we had done prior to, in our years for direct conversion,
and so at this point we're really looking at about 849,
something of that nature, to be reviewed.
Not all of them also will be actual full studies. Some of
them that we're doing are going to be what they call the
streamlined program, which is for 65 employees or less. We're
doing that, which is also much less expensive to do. Some of
the areas, though, we will continue do full studies.
The answer to the question on money, we have to this date
spent under the $500,000. We have spent in, though, a
reprogramming letter requesting $1.1 additional, which means
that for doing all the studies in 2002 and 2003 we'd be looking
at $1.6 million having been spent, and again we're looking for
the reprogramming letter addresses, that we'd be using LAPS
dollars, because we're in a fiscal year, and as you know the
dollars came late, so we do think we have some dollars left
that will help us address those, anything we do, sourcing or
streamlining, but again, we're stressing the review part and
not all will go out to a final proposal.
Senator Akaka. A part of that question is, where is the
money coming from, and you had that in your testimony also.
Ms. Mainella. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka. You stated there is some concern with the
effect competitive sourcing may have on workforce diversity. I
have seen a memo prepared under your name that notes that
almost 90 percent of the Park Service jobs being studied here
in the Washington area may affect the diversity of the services
workforce, with similar results in other large cities. Can you
tell us and assure us that your concerns relating to diversity
have now been fully addressed?
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, sir. First of all, that memo was
an internal opportunity for us to have discussions inside the
Department of the Interior on the area to make sure--and again,
we're trying to be the best we can be and during the review
process you ask certain questions and you want to make sure--
and again, we're trying to be the best we can be. In doing the
review process you ask certain questions, and you want to make
sure we are considering all aspects.
What I indicated, I think, in some of my comments has been
that the diversity issue is very important. We work very hard,
again we have the best employees and we continue to want to
increase our diversity, but if somehow our employees go all the
way and are not the winner of the competitive sourcing, the
jobs, though, come from that same diverse workforce from which
those employees are living, so that diversity should stay in
place even if it's coming from the private sector.
Also, I gave that story about in Florida where we had a
minority contractor who actually brought on our employees. It
was an outsourcing experience with lifeguarding, which we do
contract out, and not only did our employees stay employed
through the private sector, they actually were able to achieve
a full-time position, which we were only offering part-time,
and also achieve better salaries than what we were able to do.
Senator Akaka. Our concern, and yours also, is the effect
competitive sourcing may have on the employees, and I just want
to ask, what are your expectations about the morale, about
recruitment in regard to competitive sourcing?
Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Senator. Again, one of the reasons
I appreciate this hearing is, part of the issues, there may be
some morale concerns here because there's been a lot of
misinformation. Again, every article it seems like you see jobs
are going to be outsourced or privatized, when actually you're
doing a competitive review, and again it doesn't mean that the
private sector would ever achieve those positions.
So I have been able to get this communication--I've tried
inside our own Park Service sending memos out to our employees
trying to clarify that, but it does help having this hearing to
be able to further emphasize that I think a lot of the concerns
employees may have are due to confusion of what is actually
happening here.
Senator Thomas. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much. Let me just be clear
that I understand how we're paying for these competitive
sourcing studies. They're being paid for out of the operating
funds of the various units, isn't that right?
Ms. Mainella. It is operating--or, as we said, lapse fees,
as I said, I don't think we're going beyond that. I look to
anyone who can clarify that for me, but at this point it is
just what dollars are going to be left at the end of the year
to help pay for this.
Senator Bingaman. Yes, but there's no additional money
being asked for?
Ms. Mainella. No. Well, I did put in $1.1 million
reprogramming request, but it comes from those LAPS fees.
Senator Bingaman. They're funds that would otherwise be
used for the general operation of the Park Service.
Ms. Mainella. General operations or other programs that we
have, yes, sir.
Senator Bingaman. We've had a lot of concern expressed by
former Park Service personnel, and one of those, the former
Associate Director Jerry Rogers, who you're probably acquainted
with, who lives out in my State, he wrote a very good article,
I thought, in the Santa Fe New Mexican, which is our largest
newspaper in Santa Fe, and I would just like to read a couple
of sentences here and get your reaction.
He says, administrators have taken a grossly simplistic
approach to the acts, speaking here about this Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act, I guess, to the act's
encouragement to outsource jobs that are not inherently
governmental.
If a job title such as archaeologist can be found in the
commercial world it has been put up for grabs. Private firms
contract with Federal agencies to do archaeology, drug
companies employ biologists, and some historians write and
publish their own work, so three professions, these three
professions that are central to the National Park Service
mission have been placed at risk.
I guess the question is--he goes on to say, in Through the
Looking Glass logic, the Government has concluded that high
level people with little understanding of natural and cultural
resources are inherently governmental, while specialists needed
to preserve the resources and provide preservation leadership
are not.
I guess what seems to me to be right is that there are
people who make a career decision to devote themselves to the
expertise that is needed by the National Park Service in
archaeology, in biology, in some particular area, and they hire
on to do that, and now they're being told, you know, your jobs
are going to be competed.
That causes a morale problem, I think understandably so,
because they did not--I think many of them thought they were
making some career sacrifices and deciding to stay with the
Government and pursue their career that way, and now they're
told down the road, we're going to compete these jobs and you
may be out on the street trying to build a career in the
private sector, so how do you respond to people like that?
Ms. Mainella. Well, Jerry's a wonderful man, and we've
worked closely with him. He's contributed so much to the Park
Service, but also, again if you remember what you read a minute
ago, Jerry talked about our outsourcing versus competitive
review, which is what we're trying to be doing, or reviewing
these positions.
Archaeologists are wonderful assets to us in the Park
Service, but as we were asked to through the President's
management agenda, to look at different areas, I take right
here in the Capital region, for example, our region right here,
approximately 70 percent of the positions that the projects
that are archaeological are already done through an outsourcing
contract, because many times it was with our own employees.
We're not looking at the archaeologists that are in the
parks. We were looking at the archaeologists that are in the
centers that also do a lot of projects in different areas.
Senator Bingaman. But you're saying 70 percent of the
archaeological work being done for the Park Service in the
capital region is already being done by outsourced, and you're
looking at the remaining 30 percent to see if that should be
outsourced?
Ms. Mainella. Well, actually it's 70 percent of this
Washington area. You remember, we've got three other centers
that do also, and you kind of take each center doing about 25
percent of the whole Park Service archaeological projects, 70
percent of the capital region's 25 percent is being done.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I guess what I'm questioning is the
whole notion that because there are private archaeologists who
can be hired, therefore that is an area in which we do not need
to maintain a government--that is not an inherent government
responsibility, and therefore we should look to the private
sector first to accomplish that. I just have real questions
about that whole basic concept, but that is the basis upon
which we're doing this review, right?
Ms. Styles. Can I add a little bit about the archaeologists
in the Park Service? When people talk about archaeologists, I
think you're thinking particularly after a Washington Post
story that came out last week you were thinking of
archaeologists that are in our parks and that are on site.
These are archaeologists in a building in downtown Lincoln,
Nebraska who actually went to their web site yesterday and
looked at, they're managing a data base, they are using,
running a library with 2,800 documents, they are acquiring and
maintaining global positioning equipment, they are writing
newsletters. This is not an inherently governmental
archaeological function.
Senator Bingaman. No, but it is a function that requires
building up expertise over a period of time, presumably, I
mean, if you're going to do the function well, and I would
think that for purposes of maintaining morale within the Park
Service as well as stability of the services provided, and
quality of the expertise developed, there is some value in
having a core of people that aren't having to compete every
couple of years to see whether or not they're doing this or
bagging groceries down on the corner.
Ms. Styles. They will have an opportunity to compete, and
it is not to rid ourselves of all of the archaeologists. I
think in order to manage the archaeological contract you do
need people that understand that, but that doesn't mean that
you necessarily are providing the taxpayer the best value at
the lowest cost if you have archaeologists running a data base
or running global positioning equipment.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I can see how as part of your job
as an archaeologist you might have to buy some global
positioning equipment or run a data base, but I would think
that there is also a lot of expertise that you develop in the
course of a career as an archaeologist that I would like to see
people be able to maintain and develop and not think, okay, I
may be in a career move here, I'd better look over my shoulder
and plan to be doing something else in a couple of years.
My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Well, we've taken quite a bit of time. Are
there more questions for this panel?
Senator Akaka. Yes. I have one more question of Ms. Styles.
As you know, many National Park Service employees often perform
a number of different tasks in addition to the primary job
description. For example, the maintenance employee may help
fight fires or provide emergency and rescue services and help
with basic interpretation needs for park visitors. The
responsibilities are often done as needed.
Contractors on the other hand are responsible for
performing specific job functions according to the terms of the
contract with the Government. How will the Park Service become
more effective by replacing Federal employees who can perform a
number of different functions with contractors who perform a
specific task?
Ms. Styles. I think you're assuming you would be replacing
those employees. We can write, in terms of the contract,
anything we want to. If you want to see if the private sector
has the capacity to do both maintenance work and fight fires,
you can put out the solicitation that way.
But what I think is most important about this, before you
ever go forward with the competition, is that we're asking the
Park Service is this really the most efficient way to be
organized? Is this the most efficient way within the
Government? Is this effective, having people doing these
different functions?
I mean, there are real and important fundamental, necessary
management questions that frankly I don't think we've ever
asked, and it's so important that the first step in this
process is to ask that question, is this the right way to be
organized, is this the way the private sector would organize,
how can we be more efficient within the Park Service or any of
our other agencies?
Senator Akaka. Assuming the competitive sourcing initiative
saves money, what assurance does the Park Service have that it
will realize those savings, rather than have its operational
budget adjusted accordingly in the next budget request? What
kind of accounting or data base will be used to track such
savings over time?
Ms. Styles. We're in the process of putting together a
government-wide data base for tracking those. We've asked
agencies in our A-11 guidance for the 2005 budget to very
specifically identify the money that will be spent here. I
think we're trying to make every effort to make sure that
everyone understands what the costs are and that they
understand what the savings are and that we provide all of that
information to you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just ask a couple more questions,
Mr. Chairman.
I have a memo here dated May 7 from the chief of the Budget
Office for the Pacific West region to the superintendents in
the Pacific West region, and it says, as a number of parks are
aware, our region recently received a $4,617,000 assessment to
the regional repair rehab program to fund law enforcement costs
for anti-terrorism activities and for competitive sourcing
studies, so there are funds being used for competitive sourcing
studies which are coming out of the regional repair rehab
program. Is that right, or is he wrong?
Ms. Mainella. No, Mr. Chairman, it's not correct. What had
happened is, the region doing, trying to get ahead and work
along with us, because we thought we were going to be in Code
Orange all year, combined with the fact that we were
anticipating--we were still functioning off of 1,708 positions
versus having the credit for the 859 direct conversions, there
was consideration at one point just to have our regions start
to think, where would they get the funding for that in order to
address that if it was in those conditions, and I think they
were anticipating that they might have to use those funds.
We are not using those funds, so we're not moving forward
in that at all. That was a staff person who was trying to do
good work that was trying to position a case somehow we were in
those positions. As you know we have not been in Code Orange
for the whole year, and that we also have been able to get the
credit for the 859 positions, so that has made a major
difference in our ability to only use LAPS funds instead of
having to go into any other kind of funding.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just ask also about this Mount
Rainier National Park. I think you said in your testimony there
is not going to be any outsourcing there.
Ms. Mainella. We're not considering it in 2003-04. I can't
say it will never be, but in 2003 and 2004 it's not in the
plan.
Senator Bingaman. Congressman Dix gave a statement on the
House floor where he said the reason--he essentially took
credit for having persuaded you to exclude Mount Rainier from
the outsourcing study. Is that the way it came about?
Ms. Mainella. I love Congressman Dix.
Senator Bingaman. If that is so, then I need to come see
you about a couple of places in New Mexico, if that's the way
the system is working.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Mainella. No, sir. Actually, what made the difference,
I go back to the fact that originally we were functioning off
of 1,708 positions, and at that point we still were using
those, but we had not received permission from OMB to receive
credit for the 859 direct conversions.
As a result, once we got that credit, when the regions--
Mount Rainier was in consideration, as were many other parks in
the very beginning. Because of the fact that it would be so
broad, we would have to pick up another 859 positions. When we
were able to get the direct conversions we were then able to go
back and narrow down that list, and the regions, or each of our
regions were asked to go back and revisit that list.
Mount Rainier was taken off that list as a result of the
fact that many of those positions are in a little more remote
territory. We do kind of try to, as we look at our competitive
sourcing reviews, we are trying to look at where there are good
opportunities to maybe find a private sector partner to look at
that might actually work with us on one of these projects, so
Mount Rainier came off the list.
And again, as much as I love Congressman Dix, it was due to
the fact that it's a more remote location, and the fact that we
received the 859 direct conversion values, so it came off.
Senator Bingaman. So he cannot legitimately claim credit
for persuading you?
Ms. Mainella. Congress can take credit for anything they
would like to.
Senator Bingaman. So if he runs a 30-second spot in his
next campaign, here I saved these jobs----
Senator Thomas. This doesn't apply to New Mexico, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bingaman. I'm afraid the exclusion of Mount Rainier
doesn't apply to New Mexico.
Let me just ask one other question and then I will desist,
or just make a comment, Mr. Chairman. We have a lot of people
in my State who are current employees and former employees of
the Park Service who are very proud of the public service that
they have rendered, and committed their entire careers to being
in the park service, and to a person they are strongly opposed
to this outsourcing initiative, and they believe this will do
irreparable damage to the Park Service and to its ability to
continue with this proud tradition of people who have committed
themselves and their full careers to this important work.
How do you respond to that? How do we avoid turning the
Park Service into a sort of a revolving door where we sign a
contract with this firm for a couple of years to do a project,
we sign a contract with this firm to do something for a few
years, and you eventually don't have that same tradition and
that same pride in the career Civil Service that I think is
very valuable?
Ms. Mainella. Again, as you probably heard me say earlier,
we have the best employees. I am so proud of our employees, and
that is why I also believe that our employees, as they go
through the competitive review, again not outsourcing but a
competitive review, where they can tell the story about what
they do, as I tell them, this is the time not to be humble.
Make sure everyone knows what you do in your positions, and be
able to have that reviewed and analyzed so that if we decide to
go forth with an RFP to have the private sector also look at
it, then at least we're looking at a fair comparison.
Our point, though, is again, no rangers are being
considered. The key people that have interaction on a regular
basis with the public will be, again, continuing. We do not
anticipate putting those folks up for any kind of
consideration. Keep in mind, even those that are listed that
are commercial categories we can choose not to go forward with
that, and again you heard Angela talk about the fact that we'll
be working on a case by case basis with each agency to make
sure that we're looking at what positions really could be
considered and go forth from there, but I would never want to
lose that pride, and I never want to have that kind of impact
on our employees, as you've indicated.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. You know, it is interesting, as we observe
this you go out and talk to people generally and you say, hey,
we're trying to find a way to make government more efficient,
to be able to use tax dollars better. Everyone would say, hey,
great, but somehow when this comes along, and you said in one
of your statements that the competitive sourcing will focus on
positions where the projected retirements, high attrition
positions that are difficult to recruit and retain, and
furthermore there's going to be not more than 8 or 9 percent of
the total, I think we get the idea that you're talking about
everybody in the Department. Is that right?
Ms. Mainella. Again, why I appreciate this hearing is to
try to get the correct information out there, because there's
been so much misinformation, I think like Angela talked about
communications, so much of what you hear and what you see
written to you as congressional leadership is, they say we're
going to outsource these things, and we're not. That isn't the
direction we're heading. We are looking at review, and I would
think we always ought to be reviewing what we do.
I've been in management a long time from State parks to
others, and we review and address those issues on a regular
basis, and I think our employees, once they understand that,
feel a lot better about it. Sure, there's still anxiety, but
when they understand the decision to outsource, remember,
that's where you've actually decided to go out to the private
sector. That isn't what we're doing here. We instead are
reviewing, and then deciding if we're going to allow the
private sector even to bid, in addition to our own employees.
Senator Thomas. Well, thank both of you. I know it's a
difficult area, and we appreciate very much your being here.
Ms. Mainella. Thank you so much.
Senator Thomas. On the next panel, we're going to have Mr.
Sam Kleinman, vice president for resource analysis, Alexandria,
Virginia, Geoffrey Segal, director of privatization and
Government reform policy, Arlington, Virginia, Bill Wade,
former Superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, Tucson, and
Mr. Scot McElveen, board member for special concerns,
Association of National Park Rangers, Harpers Ferry.
Gentlemen, if you will, please. We thank you for being
here. Obviously, this is an interesting topic and there are
different points of view on it. Your full statements will be
put in the record, so if you could keep your comments to about
5 minutes we would appreciate it. Why don't we just start--
let's see, we'll just start and go right down the line.
STATEMENT OF SAM KLEINMAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
RESOURCE ANALYSIS, CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSIS CORPORATION
Mr. Kleinman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. I am Sam
Kleinman from the CNA Corporation. We're a private nonprofit
research organization here in Alexandria. We've studied public-
private competitions for over a decade, and I'm going to
briefly present our findings on the Defense Department's
competitions under the A-76 circular.
The Defense Department is the biggest user of the program
and is the greatest source of lessons learned over the last 25
years. The rationale for the program is very clear. Some argue
to outsource all work that is not inherently governmental,
others argue that we should keep all current government work
in-house. The A-76 program is a compromise between those
positions. For those jobs that are not inherently governmental,
it allows for either solution.
Potential providers of services to the Government, both
public and private, are given the opportunity to demonstrate
that for a specific service they provide the best value. A-76
is properly seen as a competition program and not an
outsourcing program and, in fact, in the Department of Defense,
roughly half of the winners were in-house teams.
Does the competition save money? The evidence is
overwhelming and compelling. The public-private competitions
have saved money for the Government. In the 1980's, there were
over 2,000 competitions in DOD and they saved approximately 30
percent. Since 1995 there have been several hundred, and
they've saved on average 40 percent.
The competitions save money whether they're won in-house or
whether they're won by a private firm. We see that
restrictions, restricting competitions to small businesses who
are often concerned about these issues, about competing, that
restricting them does not cut into the savings. Most of the DOD
competitions were set aside for small businesses, and we found
that those set-asides were producing bigger savings and had
more bidders from the private sector than the unrestricted
competitions, and in fact many of the small businesses were
actually winning the unrestricted ones also. For the concerns
about long-term savings, detailed follow-up studies, private
winners show that savings persist years later.
We also looked at some Army and Air Force competitions
where they recompeted it 3 to 5 years later and found that they
got even more savings beyond the original 30 to 40 percent.
Does performance suffer? We find that performance has not
been degraded. We have surveyed customers, managers, and
contract officers, and in their view performance may dip
slightly in the first year during a transition, and that often
happens whether a private firm or a government firm wins, but
after that we often find that they come back to pre-competition
levels and they often exceed those levels.
In one particular study we looked in in depth, aircraft
maintenance by contractors, we found that they were able to
keep the aircraft up at higher levels than previously so they
get more aircraft into the air, even as the aircraft were
aging.
There is a cost to these competitions, as noted. The data
isn't good, in that most times they don't keep data on that,
but it does appear to be about 5 to 10 percent of the annual
cost of the original activities, and that includes performance
work statements and developing what they call the MEO's.
For the average saving, it's 30 percent, and that means
that the agency recoups that investment in 4 months, so
whatever you give up this year you've got three times more next
year.
We should agree that facing competition is a difficult
process for current employees, especially since they haven't
done this before. The data is not complete either, but the
evidence is that long-term effects are not as dramatic as many
feared. Very few are separated involuntarily. Many transfer to
other Government positions, or take advantage of early
retirement. Others join the private firms that will do the
work. Employees have the right of first refusal with the
contractor, when the private firms are often eager to hire the
workers.
Does this carry over to the Interior, National Park
Service? I think the evidence is fairly consistent across
organizations and functions within DOD. You will find they have
competed both the operations and maintenance facilities,
utilities, roads, vehicles, equipment. DOD has competed
administrative functions, and these functions have been
competed individually and jointly with other functions.
Together, these functions I just mentioned appear to
represent over half the positions listed by the National Park
Service in their inventory. It would be hard to argue that they
shouldn't at least be evaluated through the process. Our
results show the value of competition. This is about leveraging
our entire national workforce, public and private, in support
of public objectives. This is about looking at all alternatives
and not limiting our choices in performing public missions.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the
debate today in this important issue. I'll be glad to provide
any other detailed analysis to your staff or to the Department.
Again, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kleinman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sam Kleinman, Vice President for
Resource Analysis, Center for Naval Analysis Corporation
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for inviting me to speak
before the subcommittee. My name is Sam Kleinman and I am a Vice
President at The CNA Corporation, a nonprofit research and analysis
organization in Alexandria. We have studied public-private competitions
for over a decade. I will briefly present our findings on the Defense
Department's competitions under circular A-76. The Defense Department,
as the biggest user of the program, is the greatest source of lessons
learned from the A-76 program. It has conducted public-private
competitions for many of the functions that the Department of the
Interior is considering for its competitions.
WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR AN A-76 PROGRAM?
Some argue that we should outsource all work that is not inherently
governmental; others argue that we should keep current government work
in-house. The A-76 program is a compromise between those two positions.
For those jobs that are not inherently governmental, it allows for
either solution.
It represents a policy in which all potential providers of services
to the government, whether they are public or private providers, are
given the opportunity to demonstrate that, for a specific service, they
provide the best value. The A-76 program provides a mechanism to
compare the current services with alternative approaches and teams,
both public and private.
Given its structure and procedures, A-76 is properly seen as a
competition program and not an outsourcing program. In fact, in the
Department of Defense, roughly half of the winners have been in-house
government teams.
DO THE COMPETITIONS SAVE MONEY?
The evidence is overwhelming that public-private competitions have
saved money. In the 1980s, over 2,000 competitions saved an average of
30%; since 1995, several hundred competitions have saved, on average,
40%. In total, DoD has competed over 100,000 positions in 2,300
competitions. We see savings whether an in-house team or a private firm
wins the competition.
These findings have not been limited to the Defense Department. We
saw 30% savings at the GSA in the 1980s. Others have found savings in
state and local competitions ranging from 20% to 60% and savings of 20%
in a comparable program in Great Britain.
We also know what contributes to more savings and what seems to be
unrelated to savings. The type of service competed seems unrelated to
the size of savings: almost all reduce costs. Competitions for large
activities produce a higher percentage of savings than competitions for
smaller activities. Competitions that attract many bidders produce
greater savings than competitions that attract only a few bidders.
We see that restricting competitions to small businesses does not
reduce the savings. Sixty-eight percent of the DoD competitions,
accounting for 40% of the positions competed, were restricted to under-
represented groups in businesses. Most were small-business set-asides.
For larger competitions, with over 100 positions, 23% were restricted.
We looked at these restricted competitions and compared them with those
that were unrestricted. The set-asides produced greater savings and
attracted more bidders. We also found that 15% of the unrestricted
competitions were won by small businesses.
These are real long-term savings. Detailed follow-up studies of
private winners show that savings persist years later. We also looked
at some Army and Air Force competitions. When they were recompeted 3 to
5 years later, we found further savings beyond the initial 30%. We
looked at how private firms performed under aircraft maintenance
contracts. We saw fewer maintenance hours per flying hour, and this
persisted 10 years after the initial competition. In all the cases,
these are not one-time savings to the government.
DOES PERFORMANCE SUFFER?
Performance has not been degraded. We have surveyed customers,
managers, and contracting officers to get their input. In their view,
performance may dip slightly during the first year of performance,
whether the winner is a private firm or the government's newly
structured workforce. However, performance quickly improves to the pre-
competition level and, with private winners, frequently exceeds the
pre-competition level in later years. In our analysis of aircraft
maintained by contractors, we found more aircraft available for
flights, even as the aircraft were aging.
ARE COMPETITIONS COSTLY TO PERFORM?
The data are limited on the costs to run these competitions. Where
we have the data, it looks like it cost 5% to 10% of an activity's
annual cost to run a competition. That includes creating a performance
work statement, developing the government team's Most Efficient
Organization, and completing the solicitation. But, with the average
savings of 30%, the agency recoups that investment within 4 months.
Some of those costs reflect legacy problems with how we manage
federal support activities. For example, the costs include the time and
resources needed to determine what the organization really spends to do
its job. With a good accounting system, determining this shouldn't cost
a lot--but in many public activities it does. Also, the agency has to
develop a performance work statement around performance criteria and
performance standards. Again, it appears that there aren't performance
criteria and standards for work performed in-house at many activities.
The fact that an activity cannot easily identify its costs and
performance requirements is not an argument against evaluating
alternative management structures.
HOW DO WE PROTECT PUBLIC WORKERS?
Facing competition is a difficult process for current government
employees. The data on employees are not as complete as we'd like, but
the evidence suggests that the long-term economic effects on most
employees are not as dramatic as many feared. Very few are separated
involuntarily. Many transfer to other government positions or take
advantage of opportunities for early retirement. Others join the
private firm that will do the work. Employees have a right of first
refusal with the contractor when contracting out the activity. Private-
sector firms are eager to take advantage of the skills that these
employees possess and are required to provide wages and benefits that
are comparable to government levels. In practice, contractors want to
hire more of the affected workers than they can.
ARE THERE PROBLEMS MANAGING THE COMPETITIONS?
Without doubt, these public-private competitions have had problems.
Some examples follow:
The competition process is too long. Average time is over 2
years. This can be very disruptive, in part because permanent
workers leave and are either not replaced or are replaced with
temporary workers. Services degrade before the winner is
selected.
There is poor follow-on monitoring, particularly of in-house
winners.
Statements of work are often too restrictive and limit the
competitors' ability to make significant improvements or
innovations
The government does not adequately plan for transition.
CAN WE FIX THESE PROBLEMS?
The problems are not inherent to the program. They can be addressed
with a reasonable set of practices. Here are a few suggestions:
Headquarters should fund the competitions. Don't require
local units to pay for the competitions out of their operations
budgets.
Use a centralized management team to help conduct the
competitions. This could be very effective if the team works
with the local personnel. This allows competitions to be
conducted by people with experience in A-76 while incorporating
the expertise associated with a specific activity.
Let the organizations keep some of the savings. Put the
money back into the programs. For example, the Department of
the Interior can use the savings from this program to reduce
the maintenance backlogs within the National Park Service
(NPS).
Develop a cost and performance tracking system early. This
should be part of the contract or, for in-house winners, part
of a Memorandum of Understanding.
Separation pay should be improved. Offer generous separation
packages to affected workers and relaxed rules on reentry into
the federal workforce. A core staff should receive special
compensation for seeing the activity through a transition.
DO THESE FINDINGS CARRY OVER TO INTERIOR AND NPS?
These findings are fairly consistent across organizations and
support functions. Within DoD, you will find they have competed both
the operations and maintenance of facilities, grounds, utilities,
roads, vehicles, and equipment. DoD also competed administrative
functions. These functions have been competed both individually and
jointly with other functions. Together these functions appear to
represent over half of the positions listed in the National Park
Service inventory. It is hard to argue that they shouldn't at least be
evaluated through a competitive process.
Our results demonstrate, more than anything else, the value of
competition, and this is what the government has gained from the A-76
program.
I don't know if public workers will demonstrate that they are the
best value to the department for all the current in-house work, as some
say. Odds are they will prove themselves right in many instances. I do
know that the process forces a comparison of alternatives. It will lead
to the public workers identifying better ways to do their job and lead
to private firms also offering better ways to do the job. The
department will be in the position of choosing the best of these
alternatives, using a process that forces a comparison with common
performance standards and standardized costs.
This is about leveraging our entire national workforce, public and
private, in support of public objectives. This is about looking at all
alternatives and not limiting our choices in performing public
missions. We should do these competitions because they are part of good
government.
Again, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the debate
on this important issue. We will be glad to provide any of the detailed
analysis to your staff or to the department. Thank you.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Segal.
STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY SEGAL, DIRECTOR OF PRIVATIZATION AND
GOVERNMENT REFORM POLICY, THE REASON FOUNDATION
Mr. Segal. Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, thank you again for
inviting me today. It's a pleasure to be in front of you today.
I am with the Reason Foundation. We're also a nonprofit
research organization. We will be celebrating our 35th year
anniversary in November, and we have been studying competitive
sourcing, privatization, and government reform that entire
time. I would like to provide a little perspective specifically
to the national parks on what competitive sourcing means and
could potentially mean to national parks.
We just heard Mr. Kleinman say that 30 percent savings can
be achieved and should be expected, but let's just assume that
that margin is off, or that estimate is off by a margin of 50
percent, and that parks, NPS would only achieve 15 percent
savings. There are currently 2,200, or 1,700 positions of a
commercial nature within national parks as deemed by the FAIR
Act, and we did hear Director Mainella suggest to us that not
all of those positions will be put up to competition.
In fact, they're only looking at 850, but I suggest to you
if we only look at 20 percent of those positions NPS could
achieve savings well over $6 million, in fact $6.6 million,
according to my calculations, assuming that NPS spends
approximately $100,000 per position, which is NPS spending on a
per-FTE basis. These savings seem small. However, this again
only is relative to NPS, and if you incorporate the Department
of the Interior and efforts Federal Government-wide, savings
are much higher.
Looking at this figure, though, $6.6 million, these
translate into the treatment of over 40,000 additional acres of
public lands deemed in danger of catastrophic wildfire, the
same wild fires that we see at Glacier, in New Mexico, in
Arizona and other national parks. We could also reprogram this
money towards additional maintenance, or towards the additional
cleaning of wetlands or degraded national parks, or possibly,
and this is just an alternative, allow for free or reduced
admission prices to some of our most popular national parks,
Yellowstone Yosemite, Glacier, the Everglades, or perhaps the
Statute of Liberty.
If this committee wants to assume that direct Federal
provision is the most efficient, they must fully understand
what the tradeoff is and the cost associated with it. In this
case, it is the opportunity for the national parks to better
achieve its agency's mission and goals. Those are: one, to
enhance and ensure environmental protection can be achieved
through the provision of additional resources dedicated to
wetland and degraded land cleanup; two, the public enjoyment of
recreational facilities, again achieving this through
additional work on the maintenance backlog; and three, public
safety through the wildland fire program.
And again, this is saying we may be wrong with the 30
percent. Let's just assume 15 percent, but it clearly is better
for the American taxpayer. The taxpayer and park visitors
deserve the best service possible. Competitive sourcing gives
national parks an opportunity to improve its efficiency, tackle
its massive maintenance backlog, and focus its resources and
energy on core functions, enhancing environmental protection,
ensuring the availability and enjoyment of recreational
facilities, and providing for public safety. Ultimately,
competitive sourcing or competitive review can improve the
quality and efficiency of our National Park System, in many
regards the crown jewel of America.
While there are associated up-front costs, and we heard
Director Mainella discuss them, the demonstrated savings are
significant, and competitions pay for themselves many times
over. With that said, we also heard from Director Mainella that
competitive sourcing and outsourcing in general is not new to
national parks. I'll provide additional evidence that in 1998
NPS was actually ordered to contract with private architectural
and engineering firms for 90 percent of its design work and
required that all construction oversight be handled by private
firms.
Additionally, House Report 105-163 directed the NPS to,
quote, continue to increase its contracting of commercial
activities with the goal of divesting itself of such activities
by the end of fiscal year 1999. Furthermore, the report states,
when services or products of equal quality and cost are
available from the private sector, NPS should use the private
sector.
Competitive sourcing is an opportunity for NPS to look at
its workforce, how to transition people, how to move people,
how to make sure that they have the right mix of people,
skills, and assets for the workforce they need today and the
workforce they need in the future.
Finally, NPS can learn a lot from its parent organization,
the Department of Interior. They have developed a very
systematic and effective competitive sourcing plan. There is a
lot that can be learned from there, and what Interior has done
can address many concerns that members of this committee and
others would have.
That is the end of my prepared testimony. I would be happy
to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Segal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Geoffrey Segal, Director of Privatization and
Government Reform Policy, The Reason Foundation
Recently, the management of the National Parks Service (NPS) has
been under a microscope. A series of financial lapses and a multi-
billion dollar backlog of maintenance and other work signal weak
standards and general mismanagement. For example, ``in 1997, the NPS
inspector general reported that officials at Yosemite used taxpayer
money to build 19 staff homes for $584,000 each and in 2001, the
General Accounting Office (GAO) acknowledged recent NPS efforts to
overcome this troubled legacy but concluded that efforts had fallen
short in several significant areas.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ronald D. Utt, ``House Appropriators Undermine the President's
Competitive Contracting Program,'' Heritage Foundation, Executive
Memorandum No. 890, July 7, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, park users themselves have noticed the poor condition
of many of our national parks. In a recent Q&A with Interior Secretary
Gale Norton \2\ two separate questions were posed regarding the
condition national parks or the facilities that service the parks were
in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Webcast on WashingtonPost.com
Washington, D.C.: The last time I visited several well-known
national parks in the west, the roads were in very poor shape
with potholes, no shoulders for bicyclists, hard to read signs
and inadequate places to pull over to see park features. Is
fixing the roads in the parks part of the backlog your report
talks about?
New York, N.Y.: Our national parks are in a bad state, with
backlogs and dilapidated facilities.
These reports and observations cannot go unnoticed. Our national
parks are the hallmark of what makes America a great nation. For too
long, however, they have suffered from mismanagement as maintenance and
much-needed upgrades and additions have gone unfinished. The
President's Management Agenda (PMA) is a set of initiatives designed to
improve the management of federal agencies by adopting performance-
based criteria for decision-making and action. Competition or
competitive sourcing is a major component of the PMA, which simply
means a systematic effort to have commercial activities in the federal
government periodically go through a process of competition.
The competitive sourcing initiative forces agencies to put their
fingers on their own pulse. It provides a framework by which agencies
examine whether they have the right skill sets, technologies and
organization structure to provide Americans the best possible service--
service that is effective and efficient. Through the initiative,
agencies review certain tasks and activities, evaluating whether they
can re-engineer the work to improve service quality. Contrasting the
status quo and the re-engineered option with what a private firm, or,
potentially, even what a state or local government might charge to
perform the same work. The bottom line is that these evaluations are
used to determine and provide the best value to citizens.
Competitive sourcing has two oft-overlooked related benefits.
First, it allows agencies to refocus on core functions and mission-
critical activities. Secondly, it helps them address their human
capital management. Essentially, it enables federal managers to rethink
the structure of their workforce.
The federal government human capital management challenges have
been well documented--while not as severe as originally thought, the
problem continues to persist. Competitive sourcing provides a unique
opportunity to agencies in managing the structure of the workforce. Put
simply, incorporating competitive sourcing into the broader context of
human capital challenges creates linkages and improves flexibility.
Agencies could move existing staff between agencies or within the
agency to activities considered core or mission-critical as needed.
Competitive sourcing is a means of tapping new sources of human capital
to meet current service needs. Indeed, competitive sourcing is
fundamentally about accessing new pools of talent.
Essentially competitive sourcing is a tool that redeploys human
capital. A common misconception about competitive sourcing is that it
leads to layoffs and to loss of pay and benefits for workers. But a
long line of research shows that in fact the majority of employees are
hired by contractors or shift to other jobs in government while only 5-
7 percent are laid off.\3\ In fact, competition leads one portion of
existing human capital to join with the new human capital the
contractor brings to the table, and either or both may be utilized in
new ways to meet the goals of the government agency. Private
contractors are more able to cross-train and develop workers to meet
human capital needs.\4\ At the same time, the government agency can
redeploy many workers who did not switch employment to the private
contractor and can retrain and reposition them to meet other human
capital challenges. Agencies already do have tools that have assisted
them with human capital issues in the past, and these remain promising
tools for the future--especially with moving resources and personnel
around. The Office of Personnel Management mandates that agencies
prepare both a Career Transition Assistance Plan (CTAP) and Interagency
Career Transition Assistance Plan (ICTAP) when a reduction in force
(RIF) is expected or when an activity is being competitively sourced.
These programs give managers an additional tool to fill needs and
strategically focus on service delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Robin Johnson, Privatization and Layoffs: The Real Story,
Reason Public Policy Institute E-brief 112, (Los Angeles: Reason
Foundation, 2001), http://www.Mpi.org/ebriefl12.html. Moreover,
research by the GAO shows that as many employees saw increases in pay
and benefits as saw cuts in pay and benefits after going to work for
contractors General Accounting Office, DoD Competitive Sourcing:
Effects of A-76 Studies on Federal Employees' Employment, Pay, and
Benefits Vary, GAO 01-388 (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 2001).
\4\ Research shows that privatization tends to lead to more
investment in education and human capital development in workers. See
Mike Wright, Robert E. Hoskisson, Igor Filatotchev, and Trevor Buck,
``Revitalizing Privatized Russian Enterprises'' Academy of Management
Executive, v.12, No. 2, 1998, pp. 74-85, and Yuming Fu and Stuart
Gabriel, ``Location, Market Segmentation, and Returns to Human Capital:
The Privatization of China's Labor Markets,'' Paper presented at the
Annual Meetings of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics
Association, Boston, January 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive sourcing creates three opportunities for meeting human
capital challenges: a) it is a means of bringing in private sector
human capital to meet government service needs, b) if competitive
sourcing displaces some government workers, they can be redeployed and
retrained to meet yet other human capital challenges, and c) it changes
the way existing human capital is utilized.
With this said, competitive sourcing is not new to NPS. In fact, in
1998 NPS was ordered to contract with private architectural-engineering
firms for 90 percent of its design work and required that all
construction oversight be handled by private firms. Additionally, House
report 105-163 directed the NPS ``to continue to increase its
contracting of commercial activities, with a goal of divesting itself
of such activities by the end of fiscal year 1999.'' Furthermore, the
report stated that ``when services or products of equal quality and
cost are available from the private sector, the [NPS] should use the
private sector.''
Additionally, the NPS parent department has used competitive
sourcing very systematically and effectively. NPS can learn and use
this approach. For example, from the start, Interior worked with the
unions and has kept costs down. Furthermore, transition strategies were
identified for affected employees. And while more than 1,800 positions
have been competed, not a single employee was left without a job. In
fact, the employee bid has won more times than the private bidder.
Additionally, in an effort to mitigate impact in one area, competitions
have been balanced; competitions have been targeted in different
locations and different pay grades.
So what does all this mean? How can NPS benefit from implementing a
competitive sourcing plan? There is overwhelming evidence that
competitive sourcing saves significant money.\5\ While studies show
that the average savings are 30 percent--assuming that this is off by a
margin of 50 percent and that savings are truly only 15 percent--of
16,000 NPS employees only 2,200 positions have been identified as
commercial in nature. Competing only 20 percent of those would result
in savings of $6.6 million in the first year alone (assuming that NPS
spends $100,000 on the average position, which is total NPS spending on
a per FTE basis). These savings may seem small, but this represents
only NPS competitive sourcing efforts. The savings are much, much
higher if you incorporate the entire Department of Interior competitive
sourcing plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The General Accounting Office and the Center for Naval Analysis
have found significant savings from competitive sourcing. Savings
average 30 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that said though, these savings translate into the treatment
of over 40,000 additional acres of public lands deemed in danger of
catastrophic wildfire; or $6.6 million dollars of additional
maintenance, reducing the backlog plaguing our national parks; or
allowing for more funds to be transferred into cleaning additional
acres of wetlands or degraded lands in our nation's parks; or best yet,
allowing for free admission to popular national parks like Yellowstone,
Yosemite, Glacier, the Everglades, or the Statue of Liberty.
If this committee wants to assume that direct federal provision is
the most efficient, it must fully understand what the tradeoff is, and
the costs associated with it. In this case, competitive sourcing
provides the opportunity for NPS to better achieve its agency's mission
and goals:
1. Enhance and ensure environmental protection (wetland and
degraded land cleanup);
2. Public enjoyment of recreational facilities (maintenance
of facilities); and
3. Public safety (wildland fire program)
Again, even if we're wrong about the 30 percent and savings are
only 15 percent, this is better for the American taxpayer.
Some opponents of competitive sourcing insist that our national
parks are special, and that they should be shielded from competition.
However, several states and provinces in Canada have long used
competitive sourcing and the private sector to provide services in
their respective park systems. In fact, according to the Council of
State Governments, parks departments that were surveyed ``were more
likely than other [executive] agencies to expand [competitive sourcing]
in the past five years.'' \6\ Reasons for seeking competitive sourcing
were reduced costs, additional personnel and greater expertise.
Respondents also expect the trend to continue for the next five years,
with almost three quarters of the respondents stating that they expect
to use competitive sourcing ``more frequently in the coming years, and
most others will maintain current levels.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Keon Chi and Cindy Jasper, Private Practices: A Review of
Privatization in State Government (Lexington, Ky.,: Council of State
Governments, 1998) p. 40-1.
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of those agencies that had competed services, ``a large portion of
parks agencies are saving more than 15 percent of their budgets through
competitive sourcing.'' \8\ This evidence further justifies the claims
of at least 15 percent savings from competitive sourcing. Many services
that would be competed by NPS were also competed by the states. Those
services include: construction, maintenance and janitorial services,
operation of individual parks, custodial services, security services,
vehicle maintenance, recreational programs and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While several states and many cities in the United States have
successfully used competitive sourcing and privatization at state and
local parks, some of the most interesting examples are efforts of
Canadian provincial park systems. Note that Canada's park systems have
faced budget pressures even more severe than those plaguing park
systems in the United States.
Alaska
Beginning in the 1990s Alaska State Parks began contracting out the
operation of a small number of campgrounds.\9\ Currently the department
contracts out seven small and isolated parks. Because of their
isolation, the parks were costly (relative to revenues) for the
department to maintain. Contract lengths are short, running from one to
five years. In return for meeting maintenance standards, operators keep
the camping fees and have their commercial use permit fee waived.
Indicative of the department's satisfaction with contracting out,
Alaska Parks is currently proceeding with a plan to contract out the
operation of a ``top-flight'' park, Eagle River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The information that follows is from Pete Panarese, Chief of
Operations, Alaska State Parks, phone conversation with Jeff Hanson,
Washington Policy Center, September 7, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newfoundland
The experience of Newfoundland is significant because of the
magnitude of its competitive sourcing efforts. In 1997, faced with a
$1.8 million \10\ cut in its small budget of $3.2 million,
Newfoundland's Parks and Natural Areas Division competitively sourced
21 of its 34 provincial parks.\11\ The 21 parks were rural, primitive
parks, with low usage. All parks remain public land (Crown Land); some
agreements are leases of duration of up to 50 years, while others are
short-term ``licenses to occupy.'' Significantly, during their first
season, 13 operators at the privatized parks made capital improvements,
thus using profit incentives instead of tax dollars to mobilize
resources to upgrade park facilities.\12\ Under private management, the
parks no longer need public financing. In fact, the parks are modest
revenue producers despite the capital improvements. Bottom line is that
they now better serve the public, at no cost to taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This and all subsequent dollar figures reported in the context
of provincial park systems are in Canadian Dollars.
\11\ Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation, ``Doing Things Differently,''
departmental submission for 1998 Institute of Public Administration of
Canada (IPAC) Award for Innovative Management.
\12\ Sandra Kelly, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation,
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, ``Update on Parks
Privatization Initiative,'' news release, 18 December 1997. Available
at http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/1997/tcr/1218nO5.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia
In 1988, B.C. Parks began using private sector contractors to
operate its parks; by 1992, the department contracted out 100 percent
of park maintenance and operations. In FY 1998, visitor satisfaction
was high: 81 percent of visitors rated park facilities and services as
excellent or above average. The department has also realized
substantial savings, estimated at 20 percent on average.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Jeff Hanson, ``Privatization Opportunities for Washington
State Parks,'' Washington Policy Center, 2000, http://www.wips.org/
ConOutPrivatization/PBHansonCOStateParksPrivatize.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta
In 1997, Alberta decided to expand its already extensive use of
private sector operators of its park and recreational facilities.
During earlier budget reductions, the agency used competitive sourcing
to withstand cuts, while at the same time actually increasing the size
of its recreation and protected areas network. Utilizing a new
management strategy that is eerily similar to the NPS core goals
(preservation, heritage appreciation, outdoor recreation and tourism),
despite seeing its budget reduced by $11 million over a four year
period and another $6 million two years later, the department added 34
undeveloped sites to the network over a 25-month period beginning in
March 1995. This was primarily achieved through the use of competitive
sourcing.
The department enlisted private operators in those program areas
where they are firmly established. Doing so helps free department
resources from routine operational and maintenance duties, allowing
them to focus more on planning and managing protected landscapes and
resources inventory, delivering heritage appreciation and environmental
education, managing contracts and partnerships, and coordinating
volunteer efforts.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service,
``Completing the Puzzle: Building a Recreation and Protected Areas
Network. for the Next Century,'' executive summary, May 1997. Available
at http://www.gov.ab.ca/env/parks/strategy/summary.html. p.14-15. See
Jeff Hanson, ``Privatization Opportunities for Washington State
Parks,'' Washington Policy Center, 2000, http://www.wips.org/
ConOutPrivatization/PBHansonCOStateParksPrivatize.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the benefits of competitive sourcing there remains
skepticism and objections to the initiatives. Some of the more common
objections include:
NPS is inherently governmental, and should be shielded from
competition.
Ultimately, NPS will determine what activities within the agency
are commercial in nature, what could be competed, and what actually
will be competed. It will determine this based upon the FAIR act and an
analysis of its workforce without compromising the core mission of
agency. Prohibiting NPS from studying its workforce and determining
where efficiencies can be achieved will only hamstring the agency from
achieving its goals.
Competitive sourcing also enables the agency to better focus on its
mission. The agency can and should focus resources on mission-critical
activities and utilize contractors where possible, especially in
services like lifeguarding, janitorial, maintenance, computer
technicians, and ticket takers.
NPS diversity will suffer.
For starters, competitions can be targeted at locations that don't
have diversity issues. Two other issues come to mind too; first,
contractors that win competitions will rely on local labor markets to
fill positions. Thus, diversity goals will likely be met regardless of
who is providing the service. Secondly, NPS can use competitive
sourcing to further its diversity goals by identifying competitions and
contractors that will advance its policy. Additionally, diversity
concerns assume that the contractors will violate civil rights laws or
that minority workers cannot compete with whites and must be sheltered
by an undemanding civil service code.
No cost savings will be achieved.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has the greatest amount of
experience in competitive sourcing of all U.S. agencies. Between 1978
and 1994 over 3,500 competitions were initiated by DOD involving
145,000 personnel. The competitions resulted in an estimated annual
savings of $1.46 billion (FY 1996 dollars).\15\ Had the DOD competed
the entire inventory of competeable positions, over 13,000 functions
employing over 380,000 personnel, competitions would have generated
$7.58 billion in annual savings.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Christopher M. Synder, Robert P. Trost, and R. Derek Trunkey,
``Reducing Government Spending with Privatization Competitions: A Study
of the Department of Defense Experience,'' George Washington University
Working Paper, 2000.
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data show an average savings of 31 percent of the baseline
cost,\17\ and that a majority of competitions remained in-house.
However, it also shows that DOD strategically used resources in the
most effective and productive manner by subjecting positions to
competition. DOD was able to focus more on core functions after
resources were freed up from outsourcing. Even if forecasts of savings
are wrong by a margin of 50 percent (i.e., savings only equal 15
percent) those are still significant savings. As taxpayers, we should
not automatically assume that federal employees are as efficient as
they could be. Without even the threat of competition, agencies can
grow stale and inefficient, as evidenced just last year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, OMB decided to use competition in response to poor
performance by the Government Printing Office and offered the job of
printing the fiscal 2004 federal budget to competitive bidding. Simply
indicating that the agency would be required to compete, i.e., OMB no
longer assumed that they were as efficient as they could be, the GPO
turned in a bid that was almost 24 percent lower than its price from
the previous year. That was $100,000 a year that GPO could have saved
taxpayers any time it chose, but it never chose to do so until it was
forced to compete.
There will be negative impact on rural communities.
There are real concerns that competitions will lead to work being
taken out of local communities, especially rural ones. However, the
projects NPS will be competing are mostly small competitions where the
work cannot be transferred away from the locations. Put simply,
maintenance activities cannot be removed from the locations.
Additionally, large companies like Bechtel will not be competing for
these jobs. If the in-house team does not win the competition, the
winners are actually likely to come from the local communities serving
the location. Thus, economic activity will increase, not decrease.
Additionally, private companies pay taxes while government doesn't,
creating additional economic activity for local rural communities.
The American taxpayer and park visitors deserve the best services
possible. Competitive sourcing gives NPS an opportunity to improve its
efficiency, tackle its massive maintenance backlog, and focus its
resources and energy on its core functions. Ultimately, competitive
sourcing can improve the quality and efficiency of our national park
system--in many regards the crown jewel of America. While there are
associated up-front costs, the demonstrated savings are significant and
competitions pay for themselves many times over.
Competitive sourcing gives NPS a valuable opportunity to focus on
the agency's mission and goals of enhancing environmental protection,
ensuring the availability and enjoyment of recreational facilities, and
providing for public safety. Again, the goal should be about improving
the service that is provided to the American taxpayer, both in terms of
quality of service, but also in terms of cost. Can we assume that
federal employees are the most efficient and effective given the
backlog of maintenance work and past mismanagement issues? We must
fully understand what the tradeoff and resulting costs are in stifling
the NPS competitive sourcing initiative. In this case, it is mandating
inefficient management and lesser quality parks for the American
taxpayer.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Wade.
STATEMENT OF J.W. (BILL) WADE, ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPAIGN TO
PROTECT AMERICA'S LANDS AND A COALITION OF CONCERNED NPS
RETIREES
Mr. Wade. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka. I
appreciate being here today. My name is Bill Wade. I retired in
1997 after over 30 years with the National Park Service, and
following just over 9 years of superintendent of Shenandoah
National Park. I'm representing the Campaign to Protect
America's lands and also approximately 100 retired National
Park Service employees, many of whom or most of whom are senior
managers. We are among those people that Senator Bingaman just
talked about, folks that are deeply troubled about what is
happening to the agency to which we devoted our careers.
Policy and political assaults are undermining the ability
of the National Park Service to carry out its intended mission
on behalf of the American people. We've heard a number of
people and the witnesses already before us speak of the
competitive sourcing initiative as focusing on cost, on
competition, and we don't hear much about effectiveness, value,
and benefit.
We question the wisdom of competitive sourcing if it
ignores the fact that Federal agencies are different from one
another. It may be arrogant to suggest that the National Park
Service is different from a number of other agencies, but I
think most people would agree that it is.
We question the wisdom of it if it ignores less destructive
ways to achieve organizational effectiveness, and if it means
that money supersedes visitor experiences, resource protection,
conservation values, and undermines the reasons for parks, all
in the interest of competition and privatizing activities to
carry out sometimes arbitrary numerical targets.
One of the things that we're concerned about is that many,
if not most of the positions in the National Park Service are
multidisciplinary nature. I think this was mentioned by one of
you earlier. As Superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, for
instance, I had roughly 200 employees. About half of those
people were maintenance employees. Of that half of the
maintenance employees, about 30 percent of them were qualified
and certified to fight wildland fire, and did so frequently.
I had interpreters, resource management, and administrative
employees similarly qualified and engaged, and many of those
same folks were routinely involved in search and rescue
operations. The same was true to have a skeleton structural
fire response capability for places like Big Meadows Lodge and
Skyland.
Maintenance and interpretive employees were often the first
to arrive at motor vehicle accidents, and because they were
frequently trained in emergency medical techniques, they
regularly treated victims, and they assisted with traffic
control.
Because of their numbers and their availability and their
knowledge of the park, maintenance employees typically answered
visitor questions and interpreted park features more than any
other category of employees. My friend Deb Liggett, who is now
the Superintendent of Lake Park National Park and was a
district interpreter in Everglades National Park when Hurricane
Andrew hit, after several days of preparing the park, here is
what she had to say about the day that the hurricane was
predicted to hit land. She said, our goal was to release the
employees by noon so they could go home and take care of their
families. This worked pretty well for the majority of our
employees, and we had most of them out of the park by 1 p.m.
The early release worked except for some particularly pig-
headed, stubborn maintenance folks who simply would not quit.
They just wouldn't quit.
I defy anyone to tell me how the commitment, dedication,
expertise, and multidisciplinary capability that I just
described could ever be replicated by contracting out. For
years, the National Park Service has had nationally and
internationally renowned experts in a number of fields. Where
do these experts come from? Senator Bingaman mentioned they
come through the ranks. They start somewhere. They develop
their expertise as they advance upward.
What happens if competitive sourcing reduces this level of
expertise? Many positions in science and resource management
that are targeted for competitive sourcing serve as the eyes
and ears of park managers and their efforts to carry out the
mission. Can we rely on contractors, who are unlikely to have
either the levels of expertise or mission commitment, to
provide such critical information to decisionmaking?
The National Park Service, Director Mainella mentioned, has
over 1 million hours of volunteer effort each year. What is the
likelihood that volunteers are going to continue to help if
they see their efforts contributing to profit in the private
sector?
So as we see it, the cost of competitive sourcing proposed
by the administration go far, far beyond just the expenses of
the studies and the contract administration. The costs are
unlikely to be recoverable, and far more damaging to the
organization's ability to effectively meet its mission mandate
and maintain the public's respect and support.
In summary, right now in the NPS because of the threat of
competitive sourcing and other things, other assaults on the
integrity and mission of the National Park Service, morale is
the lowest that any of us have seen in up to 50 years. What is
at risk is reducing a once proud, highly productive workforce
in an agency with immense public respect and admiration into a
run-of-the-mill government bureaucracy.
Is that what the citizens of America want? I think not. We
would urge you of the subcommittee to influence the use of this
competitive sourcing and look at other ways to reach more
effectiveness, value, and benefit, and not just focus on cost,
efficiency, and competition.
Thank you, and I'll be prepared to answer any questions the
subcommittee might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wade follows:]
Prepared Statement of J.W. (Bill) Wade, on Behalf of the Campaign To
Protect America's Lands and a Coalition of Concerned NPS Retirees
Chairman Thomas and Members of the National Parks Subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee and to
provide this statement for the record.
My name is Bill Wade, and I was a second-generation National Park
Service (NPS) employee, retiring in 1997 after over 30 years with the
agency. I retired following just over nine years as Superintendent of
Shenandoah National Park. One might accurately say that my life was
devoted to the mission of the NPS.
I am representing the Campaign to Protect America's Lands and also
approximately 100 retired National Park Service employees many of whom
were senior managers including one former Director, two former Deputy
Directors, seven former Regional Directors, 23 other former Washington
and Regional senior managers and 35 former Superintendents. Many of us
received Distinguished Service and Meritorious Service Awards for our
commitment and stewardship of our great National Parks
We, the former NPS employees I represent and I, are deeply troubled
about what is happening to the agency to which we devoted our careers.
Never before have we seen so many simultaneous assaults on the purposes
for which the National Park System exists. Such assaults are
undermining the role of the National Park Service professionals who
steward our great natural and cultural legacy and such assaults are
contributing to the failure of the National Park Service to carry out
its intended mission on behalf of the American public.
The consequences of a number of policies, proposed legislative
changes and actions being taken or proposed by the current
Administration are contributing dangerously to the failure of the NPS
to carry out its intended mission on behalf of the American public.
Moreover, we believe that the combined effects of these efforts could
be in violation of the P.L. 91-38 which amended the Act of 1916
establishing the National Park Service. This Act states: ``that the
National Park System . . . has grown to include superlative national,
historic, and recreation areas . . .; that these areas, though distinct
in character, are related through the inter-related purposes and
resources into one national park system as cumulative expressions of a
single national heritage. . . .'' The Congress further emphasized the
importance of preserving and protecting the resources contained within
the units of the national park system in the Redwoods Act of 1978 (P.L.
95-250) when it declared: ``. . . authorization of activities shall be
construed and the protection, management, administration . . . shall be
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the
National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the
values and purposes for which these various areas have been
established, except as many have been or shall be directly and
specifically provided by Congress.'' This rule of law is not being
followed under this Administration's policies.
One such assault on the integrity of the National Park Service and
System is the ``competitive sourcing'' initiative, about which we are
here today to discuss.
The President's Management Agenda, FY2002 provides insight to the
mind-set guiding this initiative. In the competitive sourcing section,
we see statements such as:
Nearly half of all federal employees perform tasks that are
readily available in the commercial marketplace--tasks like
data collection, administrative support, and payroll services.
Historically, the government has realized cost savings in a
range of 20 to 50 percent when federal and private sector
service providers compete to perform these functions.
Unfortunately, competition between public and private sources
remains an unfulfilled management promise. By rarely subjecting
commercial tasks performed by the government to competition,
agencies have insulated themselves from the pressures that
produce quality service at reasonable cost.
Competition promotes innovation, efficiency, and greater
effectiveness. For many activities, citizens do not care
whether the private or public sector provides the service or
administers the program. The process of competition provides an
imperative for the public sector to focus on continuous
improvement and removing roadblocks to greater efficiency.
By focusing on desired results and outcomes, the objective
becomes identifying the most efficient means to accomplish the
task.
This agenda centers on cost, efficiency and competition. Nowhere do
we see any reference to value and benefit.
The pitfalls of a process driven largely by the single dimension of
efficiency are many. Dr. Bruce Hutton of the University of Denver has
been consulting on organizational effectiveness for the Intermountain
Region of the NPS. He describes the dangers:
``Because efficiency is such a prominent construct in the
competitive sourcing initiative, some time should be spent
placing it in an appropriate context. Efficiency can be defined
as the choice of alternatives that produces the largest result
for a given application of resources. The potential problem for
NPS is not in the definition per se, but rather how it is most
often operationalized. It has been shown many times over that
efficiency does not translate to the greatest benefit for the
cost. It usually means the greatest measurable benefit for the
greatest measurable cost. Management obsessed with efficiency
is one obsessed with measurement. The results can be
disastrous. Because economic benefits are typically more easily
measured then social benefits, efficiency may drive the
organization toward a kind of economic morality and social
immorality.
``James Hillman writes that `Two insanely dangerous
consequences result from raising efficiency to the level of an
independent principle. First, it favors short term thinking--no
looking ahead or down the line; and it produces insensitive
feeling--no looking around at the life values being lived so
efficiently. Second, means become ends; that is doing something
because the full justification of doing is the doing,
regardless of what you do.' He argues that specialization
strips decisions of their ethical context, and undoes breadth
of vision and any sense of balance. It is anti-humanistic.
``Efficiency emerges, in practice not as a neutral concept
but as one associated with a specific system of values--
economic values. It is argued that too much emphasis on
organizational efficiency will eventually destroy
organizational effectiveness. Putting systems ahead of people
gradually destroy the quality of human capital to contribute
anything to the organization but rote function. Efficiency is
recognized as a legitimate value for the park system, along
with the mission driven values of protection and sharing, plus
community as representative of the variety of relevant
stakeholders associated with parks (e.g., gateway communities,
society, Native Americans, etc.).''
We have seen what can happen when organizations, such as Enron and
Arthur Anderson, engage in short run efficiency behaviors with
disastrous consequences for community. This lack of balance of values
destroyed the companies' credibility and ultimately their ability to
even function.
We question the wisdom of competitive sourcing if it means money
supercedes visitor experiences, resource protection, conservation
values, and undermines the reasons for parks, all in the interest of
competition and privatizing activities to meet arbitrary numerical
targets.
We are fearful that the competitive sourcing initiative, if it is
applied to the National Park Service as it is currently constructed,
will have similar consequences.
The current effort to implement the competitive sourcing initiative
ignores two important considerations that I want to expand on:
First, it ignores the fact that the federal agencies are
different from one another. Typically, the expectation is that
competitive sourcing must be implemented the same way in the
NPS as it is in the Department of Defense and in the Internal
Revenue Service. Someone once said that, ``nothing is as
unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.'' Dr. Hutton
states: ``The most effective NPS, and individual parks, must
balance the value of efficiency with the other key values of
protection, sharing, and community.'' He goes on to assert,
``After all, our forefathers did not create our democracy and
the governance process based on efficiency. Markets are
certainly meant to be efficient, but they are not meant to be
fair or to treat all stakeholders equally. Government, on the
other hand, was not designed with efficiency as its primary
characteristic. Nor were national parks created with efficiency
in mind as the critical component. The role of government and
the parks is different, and it was meant to be. The governance
structure that was designed to play out democracy in this
country was designed to be effective in protecting and
balancing those values citizens hold most dear.''
Second, in its attempt to cut costs and reduce the federal
workforce, the competitive sourcing initiative ignores other
less destructive ways to achieve organizational effectiveness.
It focuses on short-term cost reduction while ignoring the long
term consequences and the greater question of how best to
define and maximize value and benefit.
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IS DIFFERENT
Perhaps unlike any other federal agency, many, if not most, of the
positions in the NPS are ``multi-disciplinary'' in nature. This is of
necessity, and largely has resulted from the critical staff shortages
that have plagued the Service for decades.
In a perfect world, plumbers would plumb, trails laborers would
build and fix trails, guides would guide, rescues would be carried out
by rescue specialists, structural fires would be suppressed by firemen,
and administrative technicians would do technical administrative work.
Taken literally, many of these kinds of positions could be performed by
federal employees--or not. Such a perfect world does not even come
close to describing the situation in the NPS.
In the parks, rarely does an employee perform his or her job, over
a period of time, limited to what might be defined in the
``Occupational Series'' to which he or she is classified. One's
position description might quite appropriately portray and classify his
or her principal duties as a Maintenance Worker, but in reality up to
30% or more of this employee's time might be spent performing other
necessary duties to meet the demands dictated by the conditions in the
park at any given time.
When I was Superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, I had
between 175 and 225 employees (permanent and temporary), depending on
the budget. About half of those were maintenance employees in various
occupations. About 30% of those maintenance employees were ``red-
carded'' for wildland fire, and many would be gone to work on large
fires elsewhere on public lands (not always in NPS areas) for
significant periods during the fire seasons. Moreover, I had
interpreters, resource management and administrative employees
similarly qualified and engaged. Maintenance and resource management
personnel and others were routinely used in search and rescue
operations. The same was true to have a skeleton structural fire
response capability for places like the Big Meadows Lodge and Skyland.
Backcountry patrol rangers routinely did minor trail and campsite
maintenance. Maintenance and interpretive employees were often the
first to arrive at a motor vehicle accident, and because they were
trained in emergency medical techniques, regularly treated victims; and
they assisted with traffic control. Because of their numbers, their
availability and their knowledge of the park, maintenance employees
typically answered visitor questions and ``interpreted'' park features
more than any other category of employees. Many employees had
``collateral duties'' required of them to meet agency-dictated
functions and committee assignments in areas such as safety, equal
opportunity and property management.
Underpaid and over-worked park employees like to say that they are
``paid in sunsets.'' These dedicated folks often find themselves
working long hours for no extra pay, and doing so out of love and
dedication to the parks. Try as I might, as a supervisor and manager,
to get employees to work within their schedule, many of them
essentially refused. They are there not for the profit; they are there
because many of them are the lucky people who love what they do. They
are dedicated and passionate about the places where they work. They are
there for the resource. They believe they are ``on the side of the
angels'' in carrying out the mission of the NPS.
I defy anyone to tell me how this commitment, dedication, expertise
and multi-disciplinary capability can ever be replicated by contracting
out. I have tried, and I've never been able to have anyone, even the
so-called competitive sourcing experts, tell me how you write a
contract proposal to capture these factors.
Dr. Hutton acknowledged this special quality in NPS employees:
``Employees are the parks. Employees of parks cannot be
considered as simply factors of production, interchangeable and
disposable. In much the same way you cannot separate the barber
from the haircut, the surgeon from the operation, or the chef
from the meal; many park employees are inseparable components
of their park. They are part and parcel of the whole. Such jobs
deserve careful attention to defining job performance
specifications and evaluation criteria, in order not to lose
productivity and effectiveness in the name of efficiency.''
EFFECTIVENESS, SUSTAINABILITY AND VALUE AND BENEFIT SHOULD BE THE
DRIVERS OF ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN THE NPS
In this context, a definition of ``sustainability'' put forth by
the World Bank is applicable: Sustainability is a process whereby
future generations receive as much, or more, capital per capita as the
current generation has available.
We could (and should) define value and benefit and effectiveness as
they apply to the NPS as its ability to maintain a sustainable balance
among the numerous values that define parks for the American people in
the fulfillment of its mission.
Effectiveness is inherently tied to determinants of quality. The
criteria used to measure effectiveness are not value-neutral. They are
typically based on the values and preferences of individuals.
Public sentiment is a good indicator of the extent to which the NPS
is fulfilling the values and preferences of the American citizens. For
as long as I can remember, the NPS is regularly listed at or near the
top of the public's list of ``most valued and respected government
agencies.'' The NPS must be doing something right.
For years, the NPS has been recognized, and admired, as having
nationally and internationally renowned experts in a number of fields,
such as archaeology (including underwater archaeology), cave
management, search and rescue, wildland fire management, and in many
other disciplines. Where do these experts come from? They start in many
of the positions that under the competitive sourcing initiative could
be contracted out to the private sector. They develop their expertise
as they advance up their chosen occupations. What happens if
competitive sourcing reduces this level of expertise in the NPS, as it
inevitably would?
Many of the positions--especially those in the sciences and
resource management--that are targeted for competitive sourcing serve
as the ``eyes and ears'' of park managers in their efforts to carry out
the mission to ``. . . conserve the scenery and the natural and
historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the
enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave
them unimpaired for the future generations.'' \1\ Such positions are
essential for managers to achieve ``situation awareness''--the ability
to perceive what is happening in the parks, the ability to comprehend
the importance of what is happening, and the ability to predict the
future outcome of those happenings. Can we rely on contractors, who are
unlikely to have either the levels of expertise or the mission
commitment to provide such critical situation awareness?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what about those functions that already are being performed by
non-federal individuals and organizations? The NPS benefits from over
one million hours of volunteer effort each year. How likely is it that
these volunteers will continue to contribute if many of the functions
to which they currently volunteer are contracted out? For example,
Mount Rainier National Park receives approximately 7000 hours each year
in volunteer effort directed at backcountry management. The 67
positions in the Maintenance Division are currently on the list to be
studied for competitive sourcing. The Superintendent there has already
been informed by several of the volunteer groups that if backcountry
maintenance is contracted out, there is no way those groups will
continue to volunteer their efforts to help a private contractor make a
profit. Other managers are hearing similar chords of discontent from
Friends groups and volunteers.
So, the costs of the competitive sourcing proposed by this
Administration go far, far beyond just the expenses of the studies and
the contract administration. The costs of the loss the institutional
capacity of the NPS to maintain a sustainable ``critical mass'' of
expert, highly committed employees and the loss of volunteer
contributions, among other casualties, are likely to be unrecoverable
and far more damaging to the organization's ability to effectively meet
its mission mandate and maintain the public's respect and support.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY
The National Park Service is not against contracting out as one
method of improving organizational effectiveness. It has engaged in
significant contracting out over the years, and continues to do so even
without the pressures of the current competitive sourcing initiative.
But it's clear that many Administration appointees view competitive
sourcing as the ``end''--to be valued on its own merits--rather than a
means to an end. For example, Interior Assistant Secretary Scott
Cameron recently stated that ``This (market-style competition) is the
way to capture the benefits of competition to produce better
performance and better value. Competition makes for a much more
exciting Lakers game than if only one team were on the court.'' Not
only is this analogy inappropriate, but a clear indication that these
appointees fail to understand the mission and the career motivation of
most NPS employees.
The Intermountain Region of the NPS has been wrestling with this
issue for the past year, or so, but is approaching it in a much more
constructive manner. Instead of focusing on how to implement
competitive sourcing, leaders in the Intermountain Region are looking
at ways to improve organizational effectiveness. With the assistance of
Dr. Bruce Hutton (already referenced), they are developing a Mission
Critical Position Application Plan. Their preliminary objectives for
this process are to:
Identify criteria to evaluate job related characteristics
needed to effectively and efficiently operate a park unit.
Document gaps between job descriptions, work done, and unmet
needs.
Re-bundle job characteristics into potential position
descriptions reflecting park needs, organizational
considerations, and relevance to mission, visitor, networks,
and knowledge and skill bases.
Provide a workable model that can be applied across a
variety of parks.
Moreover, they have developed a Strategic Plan to Achieve
Organizational and Operational Effectiveness. Together, these two plans
are designed to guide actions that will improve organizational
effectiveness in the region and its parks, while sustaining the ability
to carry out the public trust accorded them to meet its mission
requirements.
To us, these plans are much more appropriate ways to achieve
effectiveness in the management of the workforce without compromising
the value of the NPS employee and derogating the values of the mission
of the NPS.
SUMMARY
Right now in the NPS, because of the threat of competitive sourcing
and other assaults on the integrity and mission of the NPS, morale is
the lowest any of us have seen in up to 50 years. What is at risk is
reducing a once proud, highly productive workforce in an agency with
immense public respect and admiration, into a run-of-the-mill
government bureaucracy. Is this what the citizens of America want? I
think not.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Subcommittee, I urge you to put a stop
to this initiative as it is being applied to the NPS and work with the
agency to find more appropriate and less costly ways to improve its
organizational effectiveness.
The writer Wallace Stegner called our national parks ``the best
idea America ever had.'' This Administration's policies could turn
``the best idea America ever had'' into a grim reality of private
corporations making money off of our national treasures. Unique natural
and cultural resources and the visitor experience will be sacrificed in
the process.
On behalf of the Campaign to Protect America's Lands and the
``Coalition of Concerned NPS Retirees'' I thank you very much for the
opportunity to share our concerns and experiences. I will be pleased to
answer any questions the Members might have.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much.
Mr. McElveen.
STATEMENT OF SCOT McELVEEN, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
NATIONAL PARK RANGERS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
Mr. McElveen. Chairman Thomas, thank you for letting me and
the association testify today. My name is Scot McElveen, and I
serve the American people as the Chief Ranger of Harper's Ferry
National Historical Park, but today I'm appearing here on my
own time and in my own capacity as board member for special
concerns for the Association of National Park Rangers. I am
pleased to present this testimony on behalf of ANPR and for the
Association of National Park Maintenance Employees.
ANPR and ANPME are organizations that support the National
Park Service and the National Park System. We represent a
portion of the rank and file on the ground, operations-based
employees of the National Park Service, and we believe our
perceptions describe conditions as they actually exist in the
parks. Our perceptions are not filtered through management, or
they're not filtered through political layers, and we provide
them in an attempt to help the National Park Service meet its
obligation to the American people and Congress.
Our greatest concerns with the concept of competitive
sourcing are the consequences that its application may have on
the congressionally mandated National Park Service mission, and
to paraphrase the Bretton Woods Act of 1978, authorization of
activities shall not be exercised in derogation of values and
purposes for which these various areas have been established,
except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically
provided by Congress.
Since the vitality and the perpetuation of the National
Park System are dependent upon a properly staffed and skilled
workforce, management programs that weaken the Service's
ability to prevent impairment of our national parks result in
derogation of the values and purposes for which these various
areas have been established, without being directly and
specifically provided by Congress.
Over the previous decade, a consistent 97 percent of park
visitors indicated that they are satisfied or very satisfied
with their national park experience, and the NPS consistently
ranks in the top five Federal agencies by Americans. We believe
that a uniform presence in the parks is an important factor in
that satisfaction.
Whether it's the uniformed fee collector at the front gate,
the interpretive ranger giving inspirational tours, the
maintenance worker working on grounds and facilities, or the
law enforcement ranger safeguarding park resources and park
values, people trust and respect those wearing the National
Park Service uniform. The public believes all NPS employees to
be rangers, and they don't differentiate between our job
titles.
NPS employees routinely acquire far broader knowledge and
skills than their position descriptions require. Strongly
influencing this diversity of skills is the variable nature of
work in parks. In a small workforce, multi-functional employees
can more easily adapt to varying duties. A work day might
include major emergencies, severe weather, injured or lost
visitors, wildfires, or just answering the myriad questions of
park visitors, who expect the ranger to know everything that
they need to know while enjoying their parks.
Here is one recent example of multi-functional NPS
employees in action at Yellowstone National Park. It just
happened this year. Over the busy Fourth of July weekend, one
of many serious motor vehicle accidents occurred just west of
Old Faithful. This accident involved a large van with four
occupants rear-ending at a high rate of speed a small sedan
with two occupants.
The first ranger arrived on scene and sized up the
situation and stated in her initial radio transmission, I need
extra help, I have more patients than I do people. Immediately,
a Park Service road crew, while at lunch, dropped their
sandwiches and went directly to the scene to control traffic.
Because of their training and experience with traffic
control, with appropriate signs and reflective vests they very
quickly set up a safe traffic control operation that allowed
for slow movement of traffic through the scene while the five
patients were attended to. The park geologist, a certified
emergency medical technician, having heard the radio traffic,
responded to the scene and was assigned patient care for one of
the more seriously injured patients.
Park superintendents have become experts in making the best
use of every penny of operational funding, as well as the
knowledge, skills, and available effort of every single park
employee. We ask you, are contract maintenance workers going to
deliver interpretive information to visitors, like the sign-
maker at Mount Rainier does as he hikes the trail performing
his sign inventory? Are contract fee collectors and maintenance
workers going to fight wildfires, search for the lost, and
rescue the injured, as they routinely do at most parks in the
system? Are contract fee collectors and administrative service
workers going to prevent significant building loss by
participating in the park structural fire brigade, as they did
at Big Bend on July 14 of this year?
If not, where is the value for the park or for the American
taxpayer? How will these savings on contracts increase the
service's ability to preserve the national and cultural
resources of the park, while providing excellent service to
visitors? We submit that a cost savings that seriously
diminishes park staff capacity is hardly a better value for the
taxpayer.
The National Park Service is, by necessity, a very
decentralized agency with a great deal of authority and
responsibility vested in each park superintendent. It is his or
her responsibility to continually assess how to obtain the
greatest value for each operational dollar received. In the
last several years, approximately 10 percent of the parks have
developed business plans utilizing common methodology to define
work and to define priorities. The results are useful
blueprints for the most effective and efficient operation of
the parks. This is a far superior approach to achieving the NPS
mission while ensuring value to the taxpayer.
We suggest a feasibility assessment process to avoid such a
waste of time, effort and money as we see presently taking
place, and Mr. Chairman, we have in our prepared statement a
process that is described based on four questions that we think
would meet that process.
In conclusion, not everything can or should be measured in
dollars. Can any of us presume to estimate the monetary value
of the breathtaking views or historical importance of parks, or
the recreational pleasure or spiritual renewal regularly
experienced by visitors, or the iconic value of such places as
Independence Hall, the Statute of Liberty, or Old Faithful? We
don't think so.
It's vitally important to understand that the preservation
of these resources and experiences requires people with a
strong sense of mission and ability to make decisions based
upon value, not just cost, and a willingness to go beyond
customary expectations to get the job done. These workforce
qualities do not easily lend themselves to replication in a
for-profit contract.
We're not saying that there are no positions in the
National Park Service----
Senator Thomas. Could you wind up, please? We're going to
have to go vote.
Mr. McElveen [continuing]. There's no appropriate positions
for outsourcing. We're just saying they're few and far between,
and in a quota-driven program is not the way to get there.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McElveen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scot McElveen, on Behalf of the Association of
National Park Rangers and the Association of National Park Maintenance
Employees
Chairman Thomas and Members of the National Parks Subcommittee: I
am Scot McElveen, Chief Ranger, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park,
but am appearing today on my own time and in my capacity as Board
Member for Special Concerns of the Association of National Park
Rangers. I am pleased to present this testimony on behalf of ANPR and
the Association of National Park Maintenance Employees.
Thank you for holding this oversight hearing on the competitive
sourcing effort within the National Park Service.
The Association of National Park Rangers (ANPR) is an organization
created to communicate for, about, and with park rangers; to promote
and enhance the park ranger profession and its spirit; and to support
the management and perpetuation of the National Park Service and
System. In meeting these purposes, ANPR provides education and other
training to develop and improve the knowledge and skills of park
rangers and those interested in the profession; provides a forum for
discussion of common concerns of park rangers; and provides information
to the public. Our membership is comprised of individuals who are
entrusted with and committed to the care, study, explanation, and
protection of those natural, cultural, and recreational resources
included in the National Park System, as well as of individuals who
support these efforts.
The Association of National Park Maintenance Employees (ANPME) is
an organization of NPS employees and others that work or have an
interest in maintenance, facility management and environmental
leadership. Dedicated to supporting the mission of the National Park
Service and the professional growth and well-being of maintenance
employees, ANPME promotes the highest standards of national park
stewardship and environmental leadership, and provides information to
its members and to the public through publications, programs, training,
and conferences.
As organizations that strongly support the mission of the National
Park Service, we have serious concerns about the short and long term
effects of this management initiative.
MISSION IS THE MEASURE
The American National Park System is a worldwide model. Much
emulated, and still unrivaled, it is at once a diverse and amazing
collection of beautiful natural resources and monuments, an enriching
source of learning about American history and culture, as well as a
source of recreation and enjoyment for more than 400 million visitors
each year. Yet, this amazing system will not endure without proper
care. Stewardship of the parks is the role of the National Park
Service. Drawn from its enabling statute, the Organic Act of 1916, the
mission of the Service is--
``. . . to promote and regulate the use of the . . . national
parks . . . which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by
such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations.''
Thus, we believe that all decisions and programs affecting the
National Park Service should be carefully examined to ascertain whether
they will further the NPS mission. Congress eloquently expressed this
principle in the Redwoods Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-250) when it stated--
``. . . authorization of activities shall be construed and
the protection, management, administration . . . shall be
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of
the National Park System and shall not be exercised in
derogation of the values and purposes for which these various
areas have been established, except as many have been or shall
be directly and specifically provided by Congress.''
Since the vitality and perpetuation of the National Park System is
very dependent upon a properly staffed and skilled Service, management
programs that weaken the Service and our ability to prevent impairment
of our national parks amount to ``derogation of the values and purposes
for which these various areas have been established.''
A component of the President's Management Initiative, the current
competitive sourcing program, is driven by quotas and is being applied
in an expensive, wasteful manner. No consideration is given to the NPS
mission or to the nature of jobs and work in our national parks.
Consequently, the greatest potential is not greater value for the
American people, but irreparable harm to the National Park Service and,
ultimately, the National Park System.
PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE UNIFORM
Over the years, a consistent 97 percent of park visitors have
indicated that they are ``satisfied'' or ``very satisfied'' with their
national park experience. While the beauty, fun, and educational value
of the natural and cultural resources are important factors, so is the
service that they receive from park employees. Whether it is the
uniformed fee collector at the front gate, the interpretive ranger
giving tours, the maintenance worker tending the grounds and
facilities, or the law enforcement commissioned ranger safeguarding
visitor welfare and park resources, people trust and respect those
wearing the National Park Service uniform. It represents a tradition of
excellence in public service.
We believe that a uniformed presence in the parks continues to be
important. Because of reduced personnel levels, fee collectors and
maintenance workers are often the only uniformed employees that
visitors see. Yet these positions are considered the most promising for
competitive sourcing. Should that happen, a significant number of
visitors will never see a park ranger.
Uniform positions that have been targeted for study include NPS
archeologists and biological technicians. These professionals routinely
enhance their effectiveness by working with 15 to 25 volunteers each--
an option not open to contractors. This value-added activity not only
augments our resource management efforts but also provides another form
of public service--by affording concerned Americans the opportunity to
contribute their time, energy, and talents to the preservation of
national treasures.
DIVERSITY OF WORK AND SKILLS
Congress designated each unit of the National Park System because
of its unique contribution to America's beauty and heritage. This
uniqueness very often requires specialized knowledge, unique skill
sets, and work flexibilities that simply are not found in the private
sector. With specialized and continuing training and mentoring, NPS
employees acquire far broader knowledge and skills than is reflected in
their job descriptions. Strongly influencing this diversity of skills
is the variable nature of work in the parks. At times as unpredictable
as Mother Nature and human behavior, a workday may include major
emergencies such as severe weather, injured and/or lost visitors, or
wildfires. It likely involves ensuring that visitors are served as
needed. This is illustrated by the following story from a young
employee at a Western park.
As a GS-5 visitor use assistant, I am clearly at the bottom
of park staffing. Today, I treated a man for a nearly
unstoppable razor cut to his face, spoke to 3 groups of 330
plus people each, dealt with 5 different school groups visiting
the park, and will in one half hour, deliver a 45 minute talk
and walk of the park to over 120 people. This morning we were
lucky, thanks to the ``donation'' of two law enforcement
rangers from other parks, so we had law enforcement support.
The only other uniformed ranger was one really good experienced
GS-9. And that's how we intend to deal with nearly 1000
visitors and their questions and even their small emergencies.
Want more? How clear do we need to be that more uniformed
presence is needed? Our maintenance man ended up playing
interpreter to two school groups out of lack of staff. We had
no volunteers, interns or other help for the first 3 hours of
the day and this is typical.
A motor vehicle accident at Yellowstone National Park that occurred
earlier this month illustrates the nature of employee teamwork.
Over the busy 4th of July weekend, one of many serious motor
vehicle accidents occurred just west of Old Faithful. This
accident involved a large van, with 4 occupants, rear-ending
(at a high rate of speed), a small sedan, with two occupants.
The first Ranger arrived on the scene sized it up and stated in
her initial radio transmission something like, ``. . . need
extra help, I have more patients than I do people.''
Immediately, a Park Service road crew, while at lunch, dropped
their sandwiches and went directly to the scene to control
traffic. Because of their training and experience with traffic
control, with appropriate signs and reflective vests, they very
quickly set up a safe traffic control operation that allowed
for slow movement of traffic through the scene while the 5
patients were attended to. The park geologist, a certified
Emergency Medical Technician, having heard the radio traffic,
responded to the scene and was assigned patient care for one of
the more seriously injured patients.
Many park employees are cross-trained like the geologist as an EMT
and the maintenance employees in traffic control. We regularly assist
each other in a variety of ways. For example, as maintenance employees
go about their work in the park, they serve as the ``eyes and ears'' of
law enforcement by watching for troublesome or suspicious
circumstances. Park employees work as teams to see that whatever needs
doing is done. At our present, low staffing levels, this is the only
way we are able get the job done.
Additionally, employees develop park specific skills talents not
required in other parks and certainly not easily found in private
industry. The following story comes from Mt. Rainier in Washington
State, as reported in The Olympian.
Ralph Bell has worked at Mount Rainier National Park for 20
years, but his job as a sign maker might be replaced under a
proposal by the federal government to turn over 1,708 National
Park Service jobs to private companies by the end of 2004 . . .
Bell is responsible for more than 4,500 signs on buildings,
trails, roads and campgrounds. He also conducts safety training
and leads peer support sessions to help rescue workers deal
with traumatic events, and is a liaison for relatives of
accident victims.
``I take [privatization] as a threat to the stewardship of
the park,'' said Jim Fuller, 46, supervisor for utilities at
the park. He started at Mount Rainier in 1978 as a seasonal
employee . . . Fuller also works with search and rescue teams
and volunteers to help backcountry rangers. He hikes park
trails in uniform and talks to visitors.
Like other park employees, Bell and Fuller have stayed at
Rainier because they recognize the park's value.
Even workers who clean toilets and pick up garbage in
campgrounds contact visitors. They know the park and they
answer visitors' questions.
``We haven't figured out how to work that into a contract,''
[Superintendent Dave] Uberuaga said.
COMPETITIVE SOURCING & NPS
On any given day, 48,000 people report for work in national parks.
Of this number, less than half (approximately 20,000) are federal
employees--and some of these federal workers are from other agencies.
Many of the non-federal workers are contract employees providing
outsourced services (e.g. engineering and visual information services).
Clearly, the National Park Service is no stranger to competitive
sourcing. In fact, we do not oppose the availability and proper use of
this authority--only its current application to the Service as required
by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the
Interior.
To further describe why this initiative hurts rather than helps, we
would like to make two important points.
First, the National Park Service is, by necessity, very
decentralized with a great deal of authority and responsibility vested
in the park superintendent. It is his/her job to continually assess how
to obtain the greatest value for each operational dollar received. In
the last several years, approximately 10 percent of the parks have
developed business plans which involve exhaustive analyses of
strategic, programmatic, and business goals, resources, and issues. The
results are useful blueprints for the most effective and efficient
operation of the parks. This is a far superior approach to achieving
the NPS mission while ensuring value to the American taxpayer.
Secondly, the parks are hurting for financial and staff resources.
Over the last 20 years, the NPS operations budget has eroded by 25
percent (measured in constant dollars). Meanwhile, visitation has
increased by approximately 50 percent and park acreage has increased by
166 percent. The result has been ever tightening budgets and shrinking
personnel levels. In an effort to deal with the demands of increased
visitation and deteriorating facilities and vehicles, park
superintendents have become experts at making maximum use of the
knowledge, skills, and available effort of every single park employee.
We ask you--
Are contract maintenance workers going to deliver
interpretive programs to visitors like the sign maker at Mount
Rainier National Park does as he hikes trails performing his
sign inventory?
Are contract fee collectors and maintenance workers going to
fight wildfires, search for the lost, and rescue the injured as
they routinely do at Canyonland National Park?
Are contract fee collectors and administrative service
workers going to prevent significant building loss by
participating in the park's structural fire brigade as they did
at Big Bend on July 14?
If not, where's the value for the park or for the American
taxpayer? How will the ``savings'' on these contracts increase the
Service's ability to preserve the natural and cultural resources of
that park while providing excellent service to visitors? We submit that
a cost savings that seriously diminishes park staff capacity is hardly
a ``better value for the taxpayer.''
AVOIDING WASTEFUL EFFORT AND EXPENDITURES
At a time when parks are very underfunded and understaffed, a top-
down, quota-driven competitive sourcing initiative is just plain
wasteful. It is estimated that the Service is paying nearly $3,000 to
study each position to simply determine whether it is feasible. And
that does not include an estimate of the value of the person/hours
required to work the competitive sourcing process. Thus, Mount Rainier
National Park, where 67 positions were scheduled for study, is faced
with the prospect of taking approximately $200,000 away from current
operations or maintenance, in order to study positions that, in all
likelihood, cannot reasonably be privatized. We can ill-afford such a
drain on our human and financial resources.
The optimal solution would be to exempt the National Park Service
from this management initiative and leave all such decisions to local
NPS managers. However, if that is not possible, then we suggest a
feasibility assessment process to avoid such a waste of time, effort,
and money as we see presently taking place.
An initial assessment before beginning the competitive sourcing
process with regard to any group of positions in a park or region. Such
an assessment would involve the examination of the following
questions--
1. Do the jobs proposed for competitive sourcing involve
consistent and predictable work within a fixed job description
(i.e., no additional responsibilities or emergency duties are
involved);
2. Are the skills associated with the positions sufficiently
standardized as to be readily and easily found in private
industry?
3. Would the sourcing of these positions enhance the overall
operation of the park?
4. Are there potential bidders within a short distance of the
park so that response time is quick and predictable?
We suggest to the Subcommittee that the initial review of the
positions should reveal positive responses to all four questions for
the competitive sourcing to proceed. If not, then we should not waste
precious resources studying positions that are inappropriate for
privatization.
CONCLUSION
Not everything can--or should be--measured in dollars and cents.
Can any of us presume to estimate the monetary value of the
breathtaking views or historical importance of our parks? Or the
recreational pleasure or spiritual renewal regularly experienced by
visitors? Or the iconic value of such places as Independence Hall, the
Statute of Liberty, and Old Faithful? We think not.
It is vitally important to understand that the preservation of
these resources and experiences requires people with a strong sense of
mission, an ability to make decisions based upon value (not just cost),
and a willingness to go beyond customary expectations to get the job
done. These workforce qualities do not easily lend themselves to
replication in a for-profit contractor. We are not saying that there
are no positions in NPS that may be appropriate for outsourcing. What
we are saying is that, at the park level, they are few and far between.
And this top-down, quota-driven program is wasting precious operational
dollars studying positions that cannot reasonably be outsourced. In the
meantime, we are devastating the morale of the very employees that we
are asking to do extra--and sometimes--extraordinary things.
In the end, we are talking about an enormous stewardship
responsibility that requires us as a nation to continually put our
best--not our cheapest--foot forward. The goal for the National Park
Service should be a sustainable, effective, and efficient organization
that emphasizes quality service for the good of the parks and the
public.
On behalf of the Association of National Park Rangers and the
Association of National Park Maintenance Employees, I thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Thomas. Thank you very much. I guess that was my
question. You're not suggesting that there's no place in the
whole Park Service for some kind of competition, for being more
efficient, for maybe having some outsourcing?
Mr. McElveen. We're not, sir. I think that we believe that
there are some basic questions that ought to be asked before
you spend money studying positions. There are just some basic
questions you ought to ask before wasting that $1.6 billion.
Senator Thomas. You have to move forward. You know your
business plans only came about because we required them.
Mr. McElveen. I do know that, sir.
Senator Thomas. So these parks are getting to be pretty big
business. Do you have concessions in your park in Shenandoah?
Mr. Wade. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Who runs those?
Mr. Wade. They were privately contracted.
Senator Thomas. How do they work?
Mr. Wade. Pretty well.
Senator Thomas. Interesting. There's no question. As you
look at the Defense Department, which apparently was yours, do
you see successes there? Do you see how that might work in the
Park Service, or is there that much difference?
Mr. Kleinman. I think there are a lot of lessons learned
here. Clearly, the Defense Department has to specify its
performance levels and criteria that it needs, and I think that
is what everyone is being measured against.
I think we find we require people to serve, we send people
into theater, contractors, probably civil servants. I know I
can look at Desert Storm, and we saw it with civilians that
were sent into theater to support the military, and there were
more contractors than there were civil servants, and they got
there sooner.
I look at the training, the aircraft contracts, and look at
how we keep up the aircraft, and the private contractors were
doing better than was being done previously, so I know they
keep to those standards, and they require it, and the private
contractors have to come through.
Senator Thomas. Of course, the Park Service is different.
The Service is there, obviously, at Yellowstone and Teton, but
do you think, have you had an effort to reorganize and
restructure your staff to look for efficiency and so on within
your employees?
Mr. Wade. Yes, sir. I think we did that quite regularly,
and I think that is being done fairly frequently around the
National Park Service. I'm aware, for instance, that the
intermountain region right now in the National Park Service is
going beyond just looking at competitive sourcing. They're
looking at a mission-critical application plan and a strategy
for organizational and operational improvement, and I think
those are the kinds of things that make more sense to us than
having this process driven by the sort of specter of
competition and cost savings, again, given the difficulty of
trying to put a cost on some of the things that are inherent in
the National Park Service mission.
Senator Thomas. Of course, cost savings is something you
ought to be interested in, since you're $4 billion behind in
maintenance and repairs, and the parks are getting larger, and
there are more things going on. They are getting more
businesslike, and they're going to have to be more businesslike
in order to make it work. There is an end to the money. I
certainly recognize the difference. Do you see, Mr. Segal, in
your work do you see the uniqueness of the park keeping it from
working like other agencies?
Mr. Segal. Well, in looking at the experience of State
governments, and actually our neighbors to the north in Canada
and some of the provincial parks there, there has been a
tremendous amount of contracting just in the parks alone, and
many of these services that the National Park Service would be
looking at, janitorial maintenance, ticket-takers, in fact
States such as Oregon and Washington have actually contracted
for fire-fighting services. In some cases when they needed
extra support they went out and contracted for them. It wasn't
a competitive process, however.
Furthermore, the national parks have the ability to take a
step back, look at their workforce, see what is mission-
critical, see where there are opportunities to outsource, or to
competitively source. This is not a blanket, we're going to do
everything. They have the ability to look at where they have
needs, where they have gaps, and they should be using
competitive sourcing to actually help fill those needs and
gaps, rather than go willy nilly.
Senator Thomas. Well, gentlemen, I agree with all of you. I
think there is merit in this, in looking at it. On the other
hand, I understand the uniqueness of the parks, and that
probably we ought to be looking at additional ways to
accomplish these things, so that's kind of where we are.
I do believe--and I'm glad the park Director was here. I do
think some of the information that came out originally was
probably not as accurate as it should be in terms of what their
real goals are. I'm sorry, I would like to ask more questions,
but we're about down to the end of this vote.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, I have questions, but I will
submit them for the record.
Senator Thomas. We appreciate very much your being here,
and hope you will continue to give some thought to this as we
move forward. Thanks so much. We appreciate it. The committee
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Association of National Park Rangers,
August 6, 2003.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas: I would like to thank you for affording the
Association of National Park Rangers the opportunity to testify on the
important subject of competitive sourcing in the National Park Service.
We also were pleased to receive additional questions to be answered for
inclusion in the official hearing record. Following are the
Subcommittee's questions and our answer to each.
Question. If competitive sourcing is not appropriate for the
National Park Service, how would you suggest they go about improving
efficiency and lowering costs?
Answer. ANPR is not opposed to competitive sourcing. However, we
are opposed to its use in a top-down, quota-driven program, as in the
President's Management Initiative. Like other management tools,
competitive sourcing produces the most effective results when selected
for use by local managers whose decisions will take into account
overall park operations and long-term stewardship. Additionally, we
believe that the Business Planning Initiative (BPI), made available to
the parks by the National Parks Conservation Association, has the
greatest potential for improving efficiency and effectiveness of the
parks. The process of linking business considerations (i.e., costs,
revenue, and opportunities) to a strong strategic focus (i.e., park
goals), enables park management to more thoughtfully consider whether
park functions can best be handled in-park or under a business
contract. This is especially true as parks seek, through partnerships
and other business innovations, to develop additional value for the
public and enhanced revenues for park operations. Unfortunately, to
date, only about 10 percent of the parks have had the opportunity to go
through the rigorous and beneficial BPI process.
Question. Everyone seems to agree that Park Rangers are inherently
governmental and should not be subject to competitive sourcing. Which
jobs within the National Park Service do you think would be best suited
for competitive sourcing?
Answer. There may be appropriate applications of competitive
sourcing in the National Park Service, but this involves decisions that
should be made by managers close to the positions in question. We
believe it would be more beneficial to consider outsourcing in relation
to work functions rather than to jobs or positions. This approach would
enable the Service to efficiently and effectively handle specific
functions (e.g., certain aspects of firefighting) without diminishing
park capabilities in meeting the Congressionally mandated mission.
We hope that you find these answers helpful. Please let us know if
there is further information that we can provide to the Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Ken Mabery,
President.
Responses of Geoff Segal, Director of Privatization and Government
Reform Policy, The Reason Foundation, to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. How common is competitive sourcing by state
governments?
Answer. According to the Government Contracting Institute, the
value of state government contracts to private firms is up 65 percent
since 1996, reaching a total of $400 billion in 2001. This figure does
include the federal government; however, the rate of increase is
similar at all levels of government. A 1998 survey by the Council of
State Governments found that 60 percent of state agencies had expanded
their use of competitive sourcing in the past five years, and 55
percent expected to expand their use of competitive sourcing further in
the following five years. Looking specifically at state park systems,
in the same CSG survey, park departments were more likely than other
[executive] agencies to expand [competitive sourcing] in the past five
years. Respondents also expect the trend to continue for the next five
years--with almost three quarters of the respondents more frequently in
the coming years, and most others will maintain current levels.
Question 2. Under what circumstances is competitive sourcing not
advisable?
Answer. I believe that OMB has issued some guidelines, however,
there are a couple of general rules of thumb. Positions that deal with
policy making or are central to achieving the mission. With that said
though, I think it is important that every position be reviewed over
time--commercial activity or not. All positions should be subject to
review for efficiency and effectiveness, so as not to allow agencies to
stagnate.
Question 3. Some organizations have been criticized for taking too
long to conduct a competitive sourcing review. Based on your
experience, how does the amount of time vary and is there a range of
time that you would consider reasonable for competitive sourcing?
Answer. The more complex the competition is, the longer it will
take. Specialized services like engineering will have longer
competitions then a competition for a ticket taker or vehicle
maintenance position. However, some previous competitions have been
stalled or hindered by the agency, so as to prevent the competition
from taking place. OMB has issued numerous examples and believes that
under the new A-76 guidelines full fledged competitions should take no
longer then 12 months. I agree with this timeline, most states and
local governments complete competitions in far less time--in some cases
in only 3-6 months.
Naturally, smaller competitions will take less time. OMB has
suggested that 65 FTE's and under should be completed in 30 days. Its
possible that longer studies of such small competitions will result in
higher study costs and will offset any benefits or cost savings
achieved.
Question 4. We've heard reports that competitive sourcing reduces
morale and raises anxiety among workers. Is this inevitable or can you
explain how it might be minimized or avoided?
Answer. The clear path to improving morale is information. Getting
reliable and accurate information about the competitive sourcing plan
is essential. To date there has been a lot of misinformation, if that
continues, yes morale will continue to fall (if it has). I think
anxiety is natural, there is a level of uncertainty and lack of
control. By working with the employees, answering their questions and
fears, these feelings can be minimized. Following the approach taken by
the Department of the Interior will also minimize these concerns. Early
on, Interior entered into an agreement with their union and have worked
with them to address fears and concerns. They've also been very
strategic about their implementation, shifting competitions between pay
grades and locations so as to limit the burden to any one grade and
location. This thinking and effort has allowed the Department to use
competitive sourcing without a single RIF.
Additionally, the first competition that is won by employees will
raise morale. Once they see that they can compete, and that they are
given a fair and balanced chance to win, many of the fears will be
quelled. Again, I point to the Interior where employees have won nearly
50 percent of competitions.
______
Responses of Bill Wade, Former Superintendent, Shenandoah National
Park, to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 1. As a former park superintendent, which positions
currently performed by government employees within the National Park
Service would be good candidates for performance by a private
contractor?
Answer. The NPS ought to be allowed to determine which positions
are ``mission critical'' rather than using the arbitrary ``inherently
governmental'' approach. Mission critical positions would be those that
are heavily multi-disciplinary, are crucial to the institutional
capability of a manager to determine and act on ``situation awareness''
or are organizationally sensitive in nature (e.g., law enforcement,
financial management, certain human resource management, etc.). Such
mission critical positions would vary depending on the park or office,
and would not be determined by occupational series across the board.
Positions determined not to be ``mission critical'' would be candidates
for competitive sourcing.
Question 2. In your experience as a manager in the National Park
Service, did you ever take action to reorganize your workforce to
improve efficiency and quality? If so, how is competitive sourcing any
different and were you able to keep the cost savings?
Answer. Several times during my career I initiated workforce
reorganizations. These were usually necessitated by the shrinking
capability of the budget, or by FTE ceilings. These often resulted in
greater effectiveness and quality improvement. Budget limitations often
were driving the action, so ``cost savings'' per se were not a result
but a driver.
Question 3. Did you have contract or private sector employees
working in your park? How would you rate their overall quality and
performance?
Answer. Often specific projects were contracted out, but at
Shenandoah, we did not contract out entire functions while I was there.
However, we did rely heavily on volunteers to carry out some functions
(e.g., trail maintenance in backcountry) that we could not adequately
accomplish with paid staff.
Question 4. Specifically, how do you feel that a contractor would
diminish the level of service currently provided by NPS employees?
Answer. My biggest concern would be the reduction in the
institutional capability of a park manager to acquire good information,
interpret that information, and predict the future of processes and
actions if certain ``mission critical'' positions (such as scientists,
resource managers, education specialists) are contracted out. Moreover,
I am concerned about the loss of expertise and overall pride and
commitment of the workforce--especially as perceived by the public--if
public contact positions are contracted out.
Question 5. Have you had occasion to speak to any NPS employees and
determine their level of understanding of the competitive sourcing
process and gauge whether there is a loss in morale?
Answer. Having recently accomplished a project for the
Intermountain Region of the NPS to develop a ``Strategic Plan for
Improving Operational and Organizational Effectiveness'' I had occasion
to obtain substantial input from employees in the region, both in
workshops and via e-mail. I believe the level of understanding of the
competitive sourcing process is fair to good among those employees.
Their greatest concern is not for the potential loss of their own jobs;
rather it is a fear that contracting out will change the NPS's ability
to meet it's mission mandate and ultimately reduce the public's image
of the agency. They are concerned that the process ultimately will
reduce the flexibility within parks to meet unusual, unpredictable and
emergency situations, which are typical and ongoing in parks. It should
be noted that EVEN IF the NPS ``wins'' the contract in a competitive
sourcing action (as Director Mainella predicts often will be the case),
the work unit then must operate in accordance with the conditions
established for the RFP, thus making the operation much less flexible.
The problem here, of course, is being able to adequately capture the
multidisciplinary nature of many jobs and the lack of a stable,
predictable work situation into a contracting document.
I believe there is a significant loss in morale in the NPS right
now (some say it is the lowest observed in up to 50 years), and the
pressure of the competitive sourcing initiative (and the attendant
costs and loss of corresponding operational capability) is one of
several factors causing this.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time this hearing went to press.]
Questions for Fran Mainella, Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, From Senator Thomas
Question 1. As I mentioned in my opening statement, for years the
Park Service has been urged to eliminate the number of commercial
functions. For instance, in 1997 Congress instructed the Park Service
to:
``Continue to increase its contracting of commercial activities,
with the goal of divesting itself of such activities by the end of
fiscal year 1999. When services or products of equal quality and cost
are available from the private sector, the Service should use the
private sector. The budget savings achieved should be used to reduce
the maintenance backlog.'' (See attached document)
While you were not the Director of the Parks Service at the time,
could you tell the committee what the Parks Service did to follow
through with this provision? (Clinton Administration failed to act on
Congressional requirement).
Did the Park Service provide a report to the House and Senate on
its efforts to divest itself from commercial functions?
Question 2. Between 1982 and 1990, GSA studied 459 of its in-house
work activities, many with A-76, and saved an average of 40 percent.
Since 1978, DOD has studied 2,300 activities and saved 33 percent. With
permanent, year-after-year payoffs like these, it seems to me that the
cost of doing the studies is trivial compared to the potential benefit
to the parks, your budget, and the visitors. How would you explain the
resistance and reluctance in NPS to move forward on this effort?
Question 3. Critics of competitive sourcing have said that use of
contract personnel will lower the quality of the visitor experience.
How will you sustain a high quality visitor experience during and after
the competitive sourcing process?
Question 4. You have asserted that competitive sourcing would have
a negative effect on the diversity of the NPS workforce. The NPS is
considered to be considerably under-represented in the diversity of its
employees, what steps are you taking to improve the diversity of the
workforce as competitive sourcing progresses?
Question 5. While I understand the revisions to the A-76 process
eliminated the practice known as direct conversion, could you explain
to the Committee why the Parks Service used direct conversions for a
number of positions?
Also, when direct conversion was used by the Parks Service, was
there any economic analysis done?
Question 6. Critics of the competitive sourcing effort have
reported that volunteer participation will decline if contractors are
hired to perform trail maintenance and similar activities. How does the
Administration plan to address the potential impact of competitive
sourcing on volunteer programs?
Question 7. Which programs or projects have you extended,
postponed, or canceled in order to fund the competitive sourcing
effort? How are you funding the competitive sourcing effort?
Question 8. A Washington Post article on July 15 of this year
reported that the Park Service is reviewing archaeology positions at
the Midwest and Southeast Archaeological Centers for competition. Is
this true and if so, when do you expect to make a decision regarding
the future of the archaeology positions?
Question 9. Why pick archaeologists as one of your first studies,
as opposed to the types of operations more commonly contracted for by
most local governments, such as road maintenance and repair, snow
plowing, vehicle maintenance, janitorial, etc?
Question 10. If, through competition, a contractor assumes the
archaeological functions, how do you intend to maintain the quality,
and more importantly, the quantity of effort currently expended through
volunteers?
Question 11. In addition to competitive sourcing, I also understand
that the Department of the Interior is putting together a workforce
plan. Is the workforce plan being incorporated into the Park Service's
competitive sourcing plan?
Question 12. You have stated that the NPS competitive sourcing
effort will be focused on positions with projected retirements, high
attrition, positions that are difficult to recruit and retain, and
positions with a history of poor performance. How do you intend to do
this?
Question 13. Federal jobs pay well if you include benefits in the
total pay calculation. Are you lowering the economic standard of rural
communities if you contract out positions?
Question 14. How will you ensure that workers continue to receive
medical benefits for positions filled by contract employees?
Question 15. Through this process do you foresee the need to
request Reduction-in-Force or Early Out authority?
Question 16. When you served as Director of Parks programs in the
State of Florida, what type of competitive sourcing did you undertake
in that organization?
Question 17. The Administration has consistently opposed new park
designations in order to place emphasis on correcting the maintenance
backlog. Why spend funds on competitive sourcing if maintenance backlog
is a priority?
______
Questions for Angela Styles, Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy, Office of Management and Budget, From Senator Thomas
Question 1. What changes has the Administration made in the
competitive sourcing effort based on feedback from employees and the
public?
Question 2. Has the NPS submitted or developed a communication plan
for its employees?
Question 3. Has the National Park Service provided adequate
information to its employees servicewide?
Question 4. Civilian agencies, including the National Park Service,
have little experience with competitive sourcing. What has OMB done to
modify the A-76 process to make it more compatible with civilian
agencies?
Question 5. What is the Administration's position on efforts in the
House of Representatives to shield Archeologists from competitive
sourcing?
Question 6. What has OMB been doing to tailor the percentage of
``commercial'' positions being examined to something more appropriate
for an agency like the National Park Service that has a mission
involving close contact with the public?
Question 7. Following an A-76 competition in which a private sector
company wins, can you explain to the Committee what happens to the
savings that are had? Do they go back to the Treasury?
______
Questions for Sam Kleinman, Vice President for Resource Analysis,
Center for Naval Analysis Corporation, From Senator Thomas
Question 1. How much has the Department of Defense spent for its
competitive sourcing effort, how many years has the study been ongoing,
and how many positions have they reviewed?
Question 2. We all learn from experience and use the lessons
learned to avoid mistakes in the future. What are the most important
lessons learned from conducting competitive sourcing in the Department
of Defense?
Question 3. What advice can you offer the National Park Service to
help them minimize the adverse impact of competitive sourcing?
Question 4. What is the success rate of government versus contract
in winning contracts?
Question 5. Overall, have the contractors provided the same or
better level of service than public employees?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Colleen M. Kelley, National President,
National Treasury Employees Union
Chairman Thomas, Ranking Member Akaka, and other distinguished
members of this subcommittee, thank you for giving me an opportunity to
submit testimony in opposition to the Administration's plans to
privatize National Park Service (NPS) jobs. The National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU) represents 150,000 federal employees in 29
federal agencies and departments, including many of the men and women
who work at the National Park Service.
NTEU strongly opposes OMB's quota-driven campaign to privatize
National Park Service jobs and hundreds of thousands of other federal
employee jobs throughout the government. We believe this privatization
initiative is unfair to federal employees, and will ultimately result
in government services being delivered by unaccountable private
contractors at higher costs and lower value to the taxpayers.
The Park Service is reviewing more than 1,700 federal jobs for
privatization to meet OMB's ``competitive sourcing'' quotas. An April
memorandum from NPS Director Fran Mainella raised serious concerns
about the high costs and effects on park operations of complying with
the OMB privatization mandate. The memorandum pointed out that since
the OMB mandate is unfunded, NPS will have to cut its park maintenance
budget. The memo also stated that, ``covering these costs would have
serious consequences for visitor services and seasonal operations,'' as
``agency staff must be taken off other priority projects to accomplish
the competitive sourcing studies.'' In addition, the memorandum cites
the negative impact the privatization studies will have on the
diversity of its workforce.
With strong bipartisan support, the House of Representatives
recently approved the House Interior Appropriations Act for FY 2004,
which included an amendment that would put the brakes on efforts at the
Park Service to privatize the jobs of hundreds of professional Park
Service employees. With this vote, the House of Representatives sent a
clear signal to the Administration that the reckless campaign to
privatize the federal government has gone too far, too fast.
The breadth of the Administration's rush to privatize goes well
beyond the Park Service. In addition to the Park Service, every
agency--from those charged with enforcing our tax and trade laws to
those ensuring our homeland security--is being forced to comply with
the OMB mandate. The Park Service and other federal agencies are
already struggling under tight budget constraints in order to carry out
their missions. And now with this unfunded OMB mandate, all agencies
are being forced to dip into their operating budgets to hire outside
consultants to conduct the ``competitive sourcing'' studies. In
addition, federal employees at the Park Service and elsewhere have been
shifted away from their core activities in order to prepare performance
work statements, develop in-house organizations, and conduct cost
comparison studies. And as more and more government functions are
privatized, the funding and staffing necessary to oversee contractors
and ensure their compliance with contracts will skyrocket.
I urge this subcommittee to work to stop the reckless privatization
underway at the National Park Service and other federal agencies.
Safeguarding our national parks and natural treasures has always been
the responsibility of federal employees and it always should be. When
Americans visit our national parks, they rightly expect to be greeted
by rangers employed by the federal government, not by guards rented
from major campaign contributors. Now is not the time for the federal
government to turn its back on our nation's vast array of natural
riches.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
______
Statement by Bobby L. Harnage, Sr., National President,
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Chairman Thomas, for this opportunity to submit written
testimony for today's hearing on the impact of the Bush
Administration's wholesale privatization policy on the National Park
Service (NPS). AFGE urges Senators to support efforts to at least
temporarily suspend the massive effort underway at the Department of
the Interior and related agencies to privatize the services performed
by the reliable and experienced federal employees--including
scientists, archeologists, architects, curators, engineers, fire
fighters, and laborers--who have dedicated their lives to safeguarding
America's natural treasures.
The House Interior Appropriations Bill already includes a
bipartisan provision (Section 335) that would suspend this wholesale
privatization effort so that the Congress can develop a better
understanding of its costs and consequences. AFGE urges lawmakers to
include a similar provision when the Interior Appropriations Bill is
considered on the Senate floor.
Currently, Interior and related agencies are under extraordinary
pressure to privatize critical programs because of an onerous quota
imposed upon all agencies by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to review for privatization 15% of their ``commercial'' activities by
the end of FY 2003. This quota is being applied regardless of the
impact on the mission of Interior and related agencies or the needs of
all Americans who depend on those agencies for efficient and reliable
service. In fact, OMB has refused to supply any research or analysis to
justify the privatization quota, despite a report requirement in the FY
2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. However, the sanctions that OMB
imposes on agencies that fail to fulfill the privatization quota are
severe, ranging from arbitrary reductions in staff to punitive budget
cuts.
That's why it is so imperative that the Congress protect Interior
and related agencies from this controversial privatization effort by
preventing the OMB quota from being enforced with respect to the
essential work performed by those agencies. Like the Republican and
Democratic lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee, as
expressed in the report for the Interior Appropriations Bill, AFGE is
``concerned about the massive scale, seemingly arbitrary
targets, and considerable costs associated with this
initiative, costs which are expected to be absorbed by the
agencies at a time when federal budgets are declining . . .
This massive initiative appears to be on such a fast track that
the Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor
understand the costs and implications of the decisions being
made.''
According to political appointees in Interior and related agencies,
the OMB privatization quota has diverted staff from high-priority
assignments, consumed funding that the Congress had directed towards
fulfilling important mission-essential requirements, and has turned
back the clock on efforts to ensure the in-house workforce is as
diverse and inclusive as the American people.
WHY THE OMB OUTSOURCING QUOTA SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN IN INTERIOR
1. Currently, Interior and related agencies are under extraordinary
pressure to privatize critical programs because of an onerous quota
imposed upon all agencies by OMB to review for privatization 15% of
their ``commercial'' activities by the end of FY 2003. This quota is
being applied regardless of the impact on the mission of Interior and
related agencies or the needs of all Americans who depend on those
agencies for efficient and reliable service. In fact, OMB has refused
to supply any research or analysis to justify the privatization quota,
despite a report requirement in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
Bill.
House report language: ``. . . (T)he Committee remains concerned
about the massive scale, seemingly arbitrary targets, and considerable
costs associated with this initiative, costs which are expected to be
absorbed by the agencies at a time when federal budgets are
declining.''
Senate report language: ``The Committee also notes the seeming
absence of consideration of previous competitive sourcing experiences,
which often have occurred with the Committee's encouragement and active
involvement. The National Park Service's Denver Service Center and the
mapping activities of the U.S. Geological Survey are two such examples.
While the Committee does not contend that agencies should be satisfied
to rest on past achievements, it does expect that past successes and
failures be evaluated in some detail prior to the launching of any
major new initiatives. If such an evaluation has taken place, the
results have not been presented to the Committee.''
2. The OMB privatization quota is having an adverse impact on the
ability of Interior and related agencies to perform their missions.
House report language: ``The Committee understands that the Forest
Service expects to spend $10 million during fiscal year 2003 on
competitive sourcing activities. The Committee is concerned that all
forests and most contracting officers will be heavily impacted by this
effort at a time when they should concentrate their attention on
improving business practices that were adversely affected by last
year's severe fiscal situation due to the redirection of funds for
emergency fire-fighting.''
National Parks Service Director Fran Mainella: ``In addition to
contract costs agency staff must be taken off other priority projects
to accomplish the competitive sourcing studies.''
The Washington Post (April 19): ``(Director) Mainella noted that
covering such costs without new funding would have `serious
consequences for visitor services and seasonal operations.' The most
likely result, agency spokesman David Barna said, is that the park
service would cut back on the 6,000 to 8,000 seasonal employees,
including park rangers and trail guides, that it typically hires to
handle the crush of visitors during the summer.''
National Parks Service Director Mainella: ``Another major area of
concern is the cost of the studies. Our negotiations and information on
consultant costs to date reflect the cost of approximately $3,000 per
FTE in a full cost comparison study . . . Further, the cost of
monitoring work that is ultimately contracted out is an unknown to us .
. . (W)e do not have a fund source to cover the cost of completing
these studies. The costs are too significant to be covered by the
affected parks as some in the Department have suggested.''
GovExec (June 16): ``The Park Service has already cut back some
facility repairs in order to finance competitive sourcing studies and
law enforcement costs related to the war on terrorism. In a May 7
memorandum to park superintendents in the Pacific West Region, which
encompasses five western states, Park Service officials announced that
$4.6 million in building repairs would be cut. ``Our region recently
received a $4,617,000 assessment [from the regional repair program] to
fund law enforcement costs for anti-terrorism activities and for
competitive sourcing studies,'' said Cynthia Ip, chief budget officer
in the Pacific West Region, in a recent memo. ``The assessment is a
substantial cut of 28 percent from the congressional approved amount
for the [program],'' she added. Repair projects put on hold include the
seismic retrofit of 18 historic buildings in the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, according to an attachment to Ip's memo.
The Washington Post (June 10): ``To understand how budget cuts and
job anxiety are playing out on the ground, consider Mount Rainier
National Park, where 1.3 million people a year visit a 14,410-foot
volcano southeast of Seattle. Administrators of the park have been
instructed this spring to absorb a 40 percent cut in their repair
budget. The order halted plans to fix a rotting footbridge and a
dilapidated backcountry ranger cabin. The bridge and cabin are part of
a $90 million maintenance backlog in the park. Dave Uberuaga,
superintendent at Mount Rainier, said the $273,000 that would have been
spent this year to fix the bridge and cabin will instead pay for an 18-
month privatization study by consultants. They will examine whether the
government could save money by replacing 60 percent of the 112 federal
employees in the park with contract workers.''
3. Interior and related agencies are spending large sums of funds
appropriated for mission-essential work to pay off high-priced
privatization consultants.
House report language: ``This massive initiative appears to be on
such a fast track that Congress and the public are neither able to
participate nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions
being made. In addition, the Committee's required reprogramming
guidelines are not being followed. While millions have been spent,
reprogramming letters have not been forwarded to the Committee.''
Senate report language: ``The Committee is deeply concerned,
however, at the administration's failure to either budget adequately
for the cost of the initiative or describe such costs in budget
documents. As a result, significant sums are being expended in
violation of the Committee's reprogramming guidelines and at the
expense of critical on-the-ground work such as maintenance of Federal
facilities. The Forest Service alone plans to spend $10,000,000 on
competitive sourcing in fiscal year 2003, including $8,000,000 to
establish a competitive sourcing office. Such activities were described
nowhere in the Forest Service's fiscal year 2003 budget justification,
and were not provided for in the fiscal year conference report or
accompanying statement of the managers. The Department of the Interior
is also spending significant amounts on the competitive sourcing
initiative.''
GovExec.com (June 24): ``The Forest Service had planned to spend
$10 million on job competitions in fiscal 2003, a figure that includes
contractor support and the cost of running a competitive sourcing
office in Washington, according to Thomas Mills, deputy director for
business operations at the agency. On Tuesday, Mills said the Forest
Service will conduct another estimate of the cost of its competitive
sourcing in response to congressional concerns. `It looks like there's
enough interest that we're going to do a new estimate,' he said. `I'm
fairly confident it will be more than $10 million,' he added.''
4. Because Interior and related agencies lack sufficient capacity
to conduct privatization reviews and administer an ever-growing number
of service contracts, the Congress has little insight into how
efficiently taxpayer dollars are being used.
House report language: ``Each agency should provide in-depth report
to the Committee detailing the results of completed studies and the
action to be taken as a result of those studies. The reports should be
completed by March 1, 2004, and should include specific schedules,
plans, and cost analyses for the outsourcing competitions.''
5. The OMB privatization quota is having a devastating impact on
the ability of agencies to employ a workforce that is as diverse and
inclusive as the American people.
National Parks Service Director Mainella: ``First is the diversity
issue. In recent years we have sought to increase the diversity of the
agency workforce. These studies have the potential to impact this
effort, for example, 89% of the FTE proposed for study in the
Washington, D.C., area may affect the diversity of our workforce.
Studies in San Francisco and Santa Fe show large concentrations of
diverse FTE as well. This potential impact upon this workforce concerns
us.''
6. OMB has recently made the privatization process even more unfair
to federal employees, especially in the context of the privatization
quota.
a. The new A-76 emphasizes a streamlined competition process
that does not ensure that federal employees are able to submit
their best bids and that contractors at least promise
appreciable savings before work is contracted out; this process
has even been repudiated by the pro-contractor Commercial
Activities Panel.
b. The new A-76 also introduces a subjective best value
competition process that allows contractors to submit more
expensive and less responsive bids than federal employees and
still win contracts. The Senate Armed Services Committee has
prevented the best value process from even being used by the
Department of Defense on any services other than information
technology.
c. The new privatization process also absolutely requires
federal employees to compete in order to acquire and retain
work, but not contractors.
d. Federal employees are held strictly accountable in the
event of failure, but not contractors.
e. The OMB privatization quota is entirely one-way: only work
performed by federal employees is reviewed, even though OMB
officials insist that they have ``removed all obstacles'' that
would prevent federal employees from competing for new work and
work performed by contractors.
f. Federal employees, unlike their contractor counterparts,
are still deprived of the legal standing to take contracting
out concerns to the General Accounting Office (GAO) or the
Court of Federal Claims.
g. Agencies receive no credit for using alternatives
(reorganization, consolidation, labor-management partnerships)
to privatization to make their agencies more efficient, even
those that don't have the significant costs associated with
privatization (conducting a competition, transitioning the
work, and administering a contract).
______
Statement of Craig D. Obey, Vice President for Government Affairs,
National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA) appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony on a subject of major concern to us--the administration's
plan to outsource a significant number of positions at the National
Park Service. NPCA is the only national, nonpartisan advocacy
organization exclusively devoted to protecting the national parks.
Today, we have more than 300,000 members nationwide.
The National Park Service is one of the most beloved institutions
of American government. It is comprised of some of the most dedicated
and underpaid public servants in our nation and is the guardian of our
most precious natural and cultural treasures. Not only do the people of
the Park Service protect the legacy of great Americans ranging from
presidents John and John Quincy Adams and the Reverend Martin Luther
King, Jr. to the Wright brothers, but they also bring to life historic
battles at Manassas, Gettysburg, and Glorieta Pass, and preserve
remarkable gifts of nature at Mount Rainier, Great Smoky Mountains, and
Theodore Roosevelt national parks. Together, these places preserve a
collective American heritage that must be treated with the highest
care.
Yet, the administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
Department of the Interior are moving aggressively with a policy that
could hand over to low-bidding private contractors a majority of jobs
in the already understaffed, financially strapped National Park
Service, including archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, museum
curators, masons and other maintenance workers. As currently designed,
this rapid, massive effort to competitively outsource many Park Service
positions threatens to adversely impact our national parks and the
experiences of millions of park visitors, and would further limit the
ethnic diversity of the Park Service workforce.
NPCA strongly supports the pause in outsourcing activity approved
last week by the House of Representatives. We believe a pause is more
than reasonable, given the administration's aggressive, reckless
pursuit of outsourcing and competition as an end in itself, without
providing due consideration to the mission and needs of our national
parks. The Park Service already outsources an enormous amount of
activity, but we must look before we leap. It is essential that we
avoid reaching a tipping point at which too much responsibility for
protecting our national treasures is placed in the hands of commercial
interests, and too little left in the hands of the mission-driven Park
Service. The protection of our national parks must be acknowledged as
an inherent responsibility of government and Park Service employees
recognized as key to the preservation of our national heritage for
present and future generations.
BACKGROUND
Originally established in 1955, and codified by the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998, the privatization
policy described in OMB Circular A-76 was created to ensure that
activities performed by the government are as cost-effective and
efficient as possible. The policy outlines the procedure for deciding
whether commercial activity done by a federal government employee will
be contracted out, kept in-house, or performed by a separate government
agency.
The term ``inherently governmental function'' defines a function
that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require
performance by government employees, and therefore not be subject to A-
76. OMB's controversial rewrite of the A-76 Circular, which was made
public in December 2002 and finalized in May, includes changes that
threaten our national parks. The most problematic aspects of the
revised Circular are that it:
Redefines the term ``inherently governmental function'' by
deleting the provision that includes jobs involving the
``regulation of the use of space, oceans, navigable rivers, and
other natural resources'';
Presumes all federal activities are commercial, and subject
to contracting, unless an agency can prove otherwise;
Designates a political appointee to approve or reject a
career professional's justification that a particular job is
inherently governmental, the key test for whether a job is
considered commercial; and
Requires that all competitions be completed within one year.
We do not oppose the FAIR Act, nor do we oppose outsourcing in
appropriate circumstances. However, we are extremely concerned by the
degree to which the Bush administration has broadened the reach of the
contracting out of Park Service jobs by removing the presumption that
protecting natural resources is an inherently governmental function.
Further, we are concerned that the administration has, to this point,
demonstrated no willingness to slow this process to the degree
necessary to ensure that enormous mistakes are not made.
PRIVATIZATION IN THE PARKS
The National Park Service already provides significant and
appropriate opportunities for private sector partnerships. The
concessions program, which generates annual revenues of $800 million,
has long been a private undertaking. More recently, architectural,
design, and printing work throughout the National Park System has been
and continues to be contracted out. In individual parks, both large and
small, superintendents already make decisions as to what jobs can, and
should, be outsourced. Thus, without intervention from political
appointees in Washington. D.C., the Park Service has already outsourced
positions, when appropriate, while retaining the positions and
functions that are key contributors to its core mission to protect the
national parks and connect the American public to its shared history
and culture.
Importantly, the Park Service has yet to assess the impact of the
significant activity it has already outsourced. The fact that so much
activity at the Park Service is already in commercial hands provides an
enormous opportunity and reason to study what has already occurred,
before moving aggressively to further shift the balance. Ultimately,
the question asked should not be how many positions conceivably could
be placed in commercial hands, but the aggregate impact of such
privatization on the mission of the National Park Service.
COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES
NPCA is enormously concerned by the speed, breadth, and cost of the
administration's outsourcing effort. The Park Service's own estimates
indicate it costs $3,000 per FTE to conduct outsourcing studies. The
Park Service's commercial activities inventory identified about 11,500
``commercial'' FTE that are potentially subject to outsourcing. Using
the Park Service's $3,000 estimate, studying the positions identified
in the inventory could cost the taxpayers more than $34,000,000. This
total amount far outstrips the Park Service's own estimate earlier this
year that bringing in consultants to help run the private-public
competitions may cost between $2.5 million and $3 million in the near
future. But either way, this is money that the Park Service does not
have, as national parks are already operating, on average, with only
two-thirds of the needed funding a shortfall this subcommittee has been
quite helpful in pointing out. We think it particularly unwise to spend
such funds when the Park Service's base operating budget is actually
decreasing in real terms by 3 percent since FY 2001, according to the
House Appropriations Committee--and the Park Service continues to have
an enormous backlog of unmet needs.
The situation at Mount Rainier National Park in western Washington
illustrates this point. After a century of intense visitation, the
park's roads, bridges, and facilities need dire repairs. Under
outsourcing and anti-terrorism requirements, the park may have to
divert up to 40 percent of its repair budget, putting important
projects on hold. We understand that the outsourcing study of 67
maintenance, rescue, and other staff positions at Mount Rainier Park
may be postponed past fiscal year 2004. If such a postponement occurs,
we wonder if other parks could receive similar reconsideration. After
all, many other national parks are, or soon will be, in similar
situations.
For example, roughly 150 positions at Great Smoky Mountain National
Park are scheduled for study in fiscal year 2004. The administration's
plan as of this February was to study 37 Park Service positions in New
Mexico, almost all of which are in cultural resource management or
archeology. In total, the Intermountain region of the National Park
Service consists of roughly 5,000 positions. The fiscal year 2003
Commercial Activities Inventory shows that approximately 2,600 FTE
could be studied--positions that include maintenance, administration,
and natural and cultural resources. OMB is requiring that before fiscal
year 2005, 50 percent of the positions on the Commercial Activities
inventory be studied. That means studying 25 percent of all positions
in the region. Other regions appear to face similar burdens.
The administration is generally quick to argue that it will only
study a cumulative number of 1708 by the end of fiscal year 2004. But
this figure ignores the nearly 1,000 direct conversions that have
already occurred; some that likely were inherently governmental in
nature even under OMB's new definitions, and therefore may have been
illegally converted. It also misses the larger point--the cumulative
impact of this enormous shift in positions on the long-term ability of
the National Park Service to protect our national legacy.
In addition, Congress did not authorize the expenditure of funds to
conduct these studies. The Park Service has been very careful to spend
less than $500,000 at a time, thus avoiding the reprogramming
requirements of the appropriations committees. But, in total, they have
spent much more than this amount, and recently submitted a
reprogramming request only after the enormous criticism they received
from congressional appropriators.
In one example of expenditures, Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary
Scott Cameron sent a letter to Congressman Doug Bereuter on May 30,
2003, explaining:
``The Star Mountain/CH2Mhill contractor team competed among
three GSA Schedule contractors to perform five studies
involving NPS maintenance and architect/engineer services, as
well as the Midwest and Southeast Archeological Centers for
$872,491. The contract cost attributable to the two
Archeological Centers studied was $412,766, or roughly $200,000
per Center.''
To the best of our knowledge, nowhere has the Park Service or the
Interior Department explained what Park Service needs went unmet in
order to pay for these expensive studies.
Importantly, in the face of enormous pressure, the Park Service
leadership earlier this year raised concerns about the cost and impact
of the outsourcing initiative to the Interior Department leadership.
The Park Service, itself, raised the possibility that funding these
studies could force parks to reduce the number of seasonal rangers
hired during the summer months--the very people who serve summer
visitors--thereby diminishing the experience of the public. We have
similar concerns, and share the concerns raised at that time about
costs and the potential impact on the diversity of the Park Service
workforce.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Concern for how the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service
have handled this issue led the House of Representatives, on a
bipartisan basis, not only to prevent the administration from requiring
these agencies to conduct any outsourcing studies during fiscal year
2004, but also from finalizing the study of the Park Service's Midwest
and Southeast Archeology Centers. According to the report of the House
Appropriations Committee:
``The Committee remains concerned about the massive scale,
seemingly arbitrary targets, and considerable costs associated
with this initiative, costs which are expected to be absorbed
by the agencies at a time when federal budgets are declining .
. . This massive initiative appears to be on such a fast track
that Congress and the public are neither able to participate
nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions
being made.''
During the debate on the archeology centers, Congressman Bereuter,
who authored the amendment to prevent their outsourcing said, ``Now, I
do not resist A-76. I have consented and gone along with A-76 for other
Federal employment in my district. But this process is flawed from the
beginning.'' He went on to say:
``There are only three such centers in the United States. We
are dealing with two of them here, the majority of the
archaeological capability. It is mentioned that they frequently
do things for other parts of the Federal Government. They have
been involved in looking for the remains of the POWs and MIAs
in Vietnam. They were involved in examining the sites of the
war crimes in the Balkans. This is a particular expertise that
will never, ever, be put back in place again if it is
destroyed.
These employees and centers should never have been categorized this
way. It is a mistake. They do not want to admit it. Their consultants
say it was a mistake, and they have been hushed up as a result with
pressure from the National Park Service, pressure which ultimately does
come, as the distinguished gentleman from Alaska suggested, from OMB.
It is a bean counter that is doing something that is senseless.''
Congressman Don Young, who supported the amendment and keeping the
archaeology centers in Park Service hands, said, ``I believe in a lot
of privatization, but archaeology is a system that has to be addressed
by professionals, and these people are truly professionals.'' NPCA
would submit that many more of the positions subject to outsourcing at
the Park Service may very well be similarly situated.
For example, the Management Summary for 2002 and 2003 for the
Vanishing Treasures program at the Park Service indicates the program
was designed ``to bring Vanishing Treasures sites to a condition where
routine maintenance will suffice for their preservation and the
necessary cadre of skills and expertise can be rebuilt and maintained .
. . approximately $8 million is needed for a preservation work force
estimated at 150 individuals.'' It goes on to state, ``For the duration
of the Program, funding will be sought for high priority and emergency
preservation projects and to recruit and train craftspeople and subject
matter experts such as archeologists, engineers, and historical
architects.''The Park Service has yet to hire even half of the staff
contemplated by the initiative, yet it is these very types of people
who may be subjected to outsourcing under the administration's
initiative.
NATIONAL PARKS ARE MISSION DRIVEN
Working in America's national parks is for many park staff more
than just a job--it is a calling. Unlike nine-to-five contract workers,
park staff has an extraordinary sense of commitment to their jobs that
provides an extra benefit to the national parks and to park visitors.
The overlap between the lives and the jobs of National Park Service
employees is enormous. A Park Service maintenance person or resource
specialist may be red carded to fight fires or might volunteer to give
interpretive talks on weekends. There are many examples of this. In
fact, few job descriptions reflect the breadth of contribution made by
park staff, and it is enormously difficult to see how a low-bidding
contractor could replicate the personal dedication and expertise of
Park Service staff. In fact, the administration's privatization efforts
have already jeopardized the esprit de corps of the Park Service and
could undermine its mission.
As Vice President Cheney observed in 2001, ``People expect rangers
to know just about everything, and they usually do. The typical park
ranger works as a historian, resource manager, law enforcement officer,
curator, teacher--and sometimes paramedic and rescuer.'' Park Service
staff knows and does just about everything. The multi-tasking nature of
such positions cannot be reproduced in a contract mechanism, except at
much higher expenditures of already scarce resources, and would likely
result in a net loss of services without significant savings.
From the point of view of the public, everyone who wears the
uniform of the National Park Service is a park ranger. Because of
reductions in the number of individuals employed in the technical
ranger series over the years, staff in other positions has increasingly
provided the public face of the Park Service.
The administration wisely said it would not outsource ranger
positions in the 0025 series, declaring them to be inherently
governmental. Nonetheless, it completely missed the point by ignoring
the critical nature of many other positions that will still be
outsourced, and by placing decision-making authority in the wrong
hands. Curators, historians, and resource managers throughout the park
system are subject to being contracted out, as are environmental
protection specialists, anthropologists, recreation specialists, and a
whole manner of individuals who serve and educate the public. And the
people who know the parks least are driving those decisions.
The people of the National Park Service--from rangers to visitor
center staff to masons, open the eyes of hundreds of millions of
visitors every year to the natural and cultural wonders of the parks.
But with the resources of the Park Service stretched to the limit, many
of these same people must now expend enormous time, energy and cost to
justify their jobs in an institution that has a 97 percent popularity
rating with the American public.
The contribution of National Park Service personnel to the
enjoyment of visitors and to their appreciation and understanding of
the parks should not be underestimated. The central role for
interpretation in the parks has been apparent from the beginning. As
Freeman Tilden, the father of modern interpretation, observed half a
century ago, few people who go to the parks are there for a course in
botany, archaeology, biology, or geology. He said that when people
visit the extraordinary wonders of places like Yosemite, Mount Rainier,
and elsewhere, ``These things are no longer something just to look at;
they are something to wonder about.'' In Tilden's words:
``If the blind man who was shown the crater of ancient Mount
Mazama had happened to be on the trail with a naturalist, he
would have found that sight, however precious, is not the only
desirable sense, for the guide would have made plants come to
keen perception by their odors and tastes; trees by the feeling
of their bark; birds by their call-notes and songs. Even many
rocks can be recognized, or guessed, by touch, especially when
one knows the kind of rocks that might be expected to occur in
a locality.''
Depending on the size of or resources available in any given park,
all manner of staff, from maintenance personnel to archaeologists, play
important roles in enriching the experience of park visitors through
interpretation and in providing other assistance to park visitors. This
is particularly true in smaller park units. It would be folly to
undermine such service and commitment by rushing to focus on job
categories and position descriptions, rather than on the systemic
impact on the parks.
It is critically important that the national parks be run as
efficiently as possible, particularly when they face enormous funding
needs and when so many Americans are turning to them as a way to
reconnect with their heritage. Indeed, NPCA strongly supports the park
specific assessment of needs that can be used to determine whether and
when outsourcing or competitive sourcing of positions can benefit the
park's mission. This has already been done in 10 percent of the parks.
Contrary to administration assertions about the current outsourcing
process promoting efficiency, Interior's implementation of competitive
sourcing has not been thoughtful, considered, or appropriately focused,
and it takes the key decisions out of the hands of those who best
understand the on-the-ground situation in individual parks.
It is also critically important that efficiency itself not become
the end for which we strive in the parks. In some cases, even the
option that first appears to be more efficient may be much less
protective of a park in the long run. That is why the parks,
themselves, must be the ones to drive any outsourcing decisions. There
are many cases when specific park managers, after careful business
planning and analysis of their mission and needs, have contracted for
services that could help them fulfill their mission. Park managers know
best what their people do. No two parks are exactly alike, and small
remote parks may have very different personnel needs from others. A
top-down, bureaucratic process with quotas set inside the Washington
Beltway cannot adequately reflect the specific situation and needs of
individual national parks.
The mission of the National Park Service, as set forth in the 1916
Organic Act, should always be paramount: ``to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' The fulfillment of that mission requires dedicated
people, and should be considered an inherent responsibility of
government.
DIVERSITY OF THE PARK SERVICE WORKFORCE
Importantly, privatization threatens to further limit the ethnic
diversity of the Park Service workforce in part because many of the
jobs targeted for outsourcing are located in metropolitan areas such as
Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Santa Fe, and are held by people
of color. The Park Service has made great strides recently in
increasing the diversity of park staff; privatization will destroy this
momentum at the expense of providing opportunities for the private
sector.
Even if some of the outsourced employees are hired by outside
contractors, the impact could be a reduction of career-track
opportunities to advance within the Park Service. The administration
should be spending at least as much effort to provide career track
opportunities that enhance the diversity of the Park Service workforce
as it is spending to force these individuals to re-compete for their
jobs.
CONCLUSION
OMB's rewrite of A-76 threatens to undermine the ability of the
strongly committed, mission-focused National Park Service staff to
continue to adequately protect the 388 units of the National Park
System. NPCA supports outsourcing in appropriate circumstances after
careful analysis. However, no careful analysis of the contracting that
has already occurred has ever been conducted. It is reasonable to
require a pause in the administration's outsourcing effort in order to
protect our national heritage and the experiences of nearly 300 million
visitors who visit our national parks every year.
______
Statement of the Society for American Archaeology
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) appreciates the
opportunity to submit these comments on outsourcing at the National
Park Service (NPS) for the record of today's subcommittee hearing.
SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in
1934, has been dedicated to the research, interpretation, and
protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With more
than 6,600 members, the Society represents professional archaeologists
in colleges and universities, museums, government agencies, and the
private sector. SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other
nations around the world.
SAA wishes to make clear at the outset that it takes no position as
an organization on the merits or drawbacks of outsourcing certain
positions within the NPS Archaeology and Ethnography Program. It is
crucial, however, that the possible effects of outsourcing decisions on
the protection, management, and interpretation of archaeological
resources within the Park System be given serious scrutiny. We are
concerned that the process now underway for determining whether
particular functions within the Archaeology and Ethnography Program are
inherently governmental or not is proceeding without enough importance
being placed on the question of future resource stewardship in the
parks.
NPS is the steward of some of the most significant archaeological
resources in the U.S.; by some estimates, there are as many as one
million archaeological sites within the Park System. Many parks with
important archaeological resources do not have on-staff archaeological
expertise and are dependent on the regional centers for ongoing, day-
to-day assistance in cultural resource management and compliance
decisions. Additionally, other federal agencies, as well as state
agencies and tribal preservation programs, sometimes depend on NPS
archaeological staff, particularly in the regional centers, for
specialized advice and expertise on a timely, as-needed basis.
Archaeological resources are both subtle and fragile--familiarity with
the resources of a particular region or set of parks, and institutional
memory about previous work and preservation efforts an about past
decisions and the reasons for them, are necessary components of good
resource management.
Familiarity with NPS procedures, mission, and corporate culture
makes NPS archaeologists particularly effective at working with park
managers and fitting archaeological stewardship measures into the
ongoing activities of individual parks. The A-76 process, however,
specifically requires that activities involving NPS policy development
be segregated from activities involved in routine archaeological
resource management. If implemented, this artificial separation between
policy development and actual on-the-ground resource management could
have serious negative implications for archaeological sites in the
parks.
SAA is not suggesting that outsourcing, per se, is detrimental to
archaeological resources. As an organization, we support outsourcing of
archaeological compliance and research work by federal agencies when
there is appropriate planning to ensure that the archaeological
resources will receive the best possible management, interpretation,
and protection. In fact, NPS already outsources substantial amounts of
work, some to private sector firms and some through cooperative
agreements with colleges and universities. The work that is outsourced
through the cooperative programs provides the added benefit of training
opportunities for students. If the competitive outsourcing model
envisioned by the A-76 process were to be implemented, outsourcing
through, cooperative projects with colleges and universities would no
longer be possible,
SAA strongly supports participation by a broad spectrum of
professional archaeologists in developing innovative management
strategies and cutting-edge research programs within federal agencies.
The inclusion of archaeologists from academic institutions and private
sector firms in archaeological resource management within NPS, whether
through outsourcing or cooperative agreements, has been and can
continue to be positive, both for the resources and for the agency.
We are concerned, however, that the current outsourcing studies
have been conducted without input or review by the archaeological
profession, and we question whether adequate consideration has been
given to the potential effects of the decisions that are being made on
the world class archaeological resources under the stewardship of the
National Park Service.
Thank you for allowing SAA to testify on this important issue.