The battle over the definition of "inherently governmental function" rages on, and the pro-insourcing forces are hauling out the heavy artillery.
Two weeks ago, 11 Democratic Senators sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag urging him to substantially expand the definition of inherently governmental function.
“We can't continue to allow federal agencies to lose control of mission-relevant functions by giving contractors a decisive role in how they are executed,” the Senators warned. They also recommended that Orszag set deadlines for each agency to identify and insource any work that was inappropriately contracted out.
Section 321 of the fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act (signed into law by President Bush in October 2008) directed the OMB to develop a new, government-wide definition of inherently governmental function by October of last year, and the pressure is mounting as Orszag struggles to finish Congress' homework assignment.
The Senators' letter bolsters President Obama's views on contracting reform as outlined in this March 2009 memorandum to the executive agencies. Obama seems determined to break with previous administrations and chart a new course for federal contracting.
An activity defined as inherently governmental is supposed to be performed by a federal government employee, not a private contractor – in theory. In reality, the line separating activities that should and should not be outsourced has been blurred. As a result, contractors are performing or have performed a wide variety of services that are either inherently governmental or very close to it.
The problem is that the definition of inherently governmental function has been gradually watered down over the years. Once, functions were either classified as inherently governmental or commercial. Now, the agencies have a growing list of terms at their disposal that allow them to stretch the boundaries. Functions that once would have been classified as inherently governmental are now slapped with less-certain terms like “core,” “critical” or “mission-essential.” POGO is glad that the Senators called for a definition of inherently governmental function that is expansive enough to eliminate the need for agencies to use such questionable terms.
OMB is expected to publish the new definition sometime tomorrow.
-- Neil Gordon
UPDATE: OMB and OFPP (Office of Federal Procurement Policy) have just issued a proposed policy letter containing the new definition of inherently governmental function. Click here to view POGO's statement on the proposed policy.
Thirteen business and taxpayer organizations wrote the President last week urging a narrow definition of inherently governmental.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs076/1102588223535/archive/1103235854587.html
Posted by: John Palatiello | Mar 31, 2010 at 06:00 PM