Small Legislative Victory Heralds Brighter Days Ahead for Contractors

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, a bipartisan bill currently working its way through the Senate, would update the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The purpose of the GPRA is to “improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of the federal government” by holding the agencies accountable for achieving program results and curbing waste and inefficiency in federal programs. The GPRA requires agencies to set goals, measure results, and publicly report their progress in strategic and performance plans and reviews.

The GPRA, which was enacted in 1993, was a harbinger of things to come in the pro-outsourcing, “downsize and reinvent the government” climate that existed during the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. When the pendulum started to swing in the other direction after Obama took office, contractors became worried.

As Government Executive reports, contractor trade groups are busily working behind the scenes on the GPRA Modernization bill. At first, the bill seemed relatively non-controversial and destined for easy passage. However, as contractors closely examined the bill’s language, some began to worry that it would shut them out of much of the work that goes into preparing GPRA reports, a lucrative source of business for D.C.-area consulting firms.

The bill identifies several activities as inherently governmental functions, or functions that only government employees should perform: drafting strategic plans, performance plans and agency performance updates, as well as developing federal government and agency priority goals. Contractors want the final bill to include language clarifying that federal contractors will still be allowed to “assist” in the performance of these functions. On Monday, Senate Democrats submitted the clarifying language. A congressional source told GovExec that the new language was considered extraneous but was added anyway to ease contractors’ concerns.

Maybe contractors shouldn’t feel so worried these days. Aside from their effective lobbying skills, in just a few weeks, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) will issue its final guidelines on when work must be reserved for performance by federal government employees. While the consensus at first was that OFPP’s new guidelines would be pro-insourcing, last month’s elections might have been a game changer. All of a sudden, it’s federal employees who seem to be in the cross-hairs.

-- Neil Gordon

Comments

[Dfens]

The bottom line on government contracting should be, if you can't pay for an end product or result then the service should be performed by a government employee.

[Observer V]

While you insist on posturing govt labor as a zero-sum game, it idoes not have to be (1) if we finally get an agreeable, clear def. of inherently governmental; (2) both feds and contractors get meaningfully evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency--and pay the price of job loss when they do not deliver. The most compelling reason not to play zero-sum is that today the labor supply is the same or very similar for almost any govt or contractor position. It may not appear to cost the same, but if you do the long division, it is obvious that government labor is far more expensive--and you can't shed it when you don't need it.

[Joe Dolittle]

I can't keep up with all the POGO Blog posts today! Please spread them out so I can read them all.