Time to nail down contractor roles

The question of which functions can or should be performedby federal contractors has been the focus ofincreasing debate, including two congressional hearings heldin early March. The issues involved are complex but timely.As I testified before the Senate Homeland Security andGovernmental Affairs Committee last summer, it is vital that the discussionproceed based on current realities and in context.In his March 11 testimony on the subject,Comptroller General David Walker citedthe confusion many agencies face in determiningwhich functions and activitiesshould be contracted out and which shouldnot. As Walker testified, the issue is onlypartially related to determining whichfunctions are inherently governmental ?that is, "so intimately related to the publicinterest as to require performance [exclusively]by government employees." Walkerand others question whether agencies haveconsistently exercisedadequate diligence tomeet that test or havethe resources to do so.But a more ambiguousand complicated area involves functionsthat are sometimes referred to as closelyassociated with the performance of inherentlygovernmental functions. As Walkernoted, federal procurement policy requiresagencies to exercise "greater scrutiny andmanagement oversight" when contractingfor such support ? an objective he said hebelieves is not being met consistently.Notably, Walker did not call for a cessationto contracting for the performance ofsuch functions. Rather, he questionedwhether agencies place adequate priorityon building the acquisition, managementand technical capacity to evaluate and overseesuch contracts. His testimony did notdefine a bright-line test that would supporthiring mandates or prohibitions.Walker's testimony and the hearingsthemselves suggest it is time to rethink theframework of this important policy discussion.The key to properly balancing governmentand contractor roles ? and to ensuringagencies' ability to adequately controland protect their interests and those ofpublic ? lies in a clarity of terms and linkingthose definitions to strategic workforceplanning and execution.This new framework must first be underpinnedby a common and consistent definitionof the term "inherently governmental."It is defined in slightly different ways invarious regulations, laws and policies.Second, as Walker's testimony implies,the phrase closely associated with inherentlygovernmental functions is vague andambiguous, and it should be replaced witha clearer framework around which agencieswould define critical organization positionsessential to protecting the government'sinterests and ability to control its missionresponsibilities. Moreover, agency workforceplans should be required to explicitlydefine how they identify, address andestablish priorities in these critical areas.At the same time, Congress shouldavoid dictating outcomes through hiringmandates or prohibitions. As shown bythe thousands of vacant positions governmentwide? and the broader, complexpersonnel challenges ? such asweeping approach could imperil agencyperformance and is unlikely to succeed.Clarifying the proper roles of contractorsis a valuable exercise. As Walker's testimony,the report of the Gansler Commissionon Army Contracting and many otherssuggest, the face of government has clearlychanged.Our traditional assumptions andapproaches to these issues must change,too. There is no reason such new thinkingneeds to be at odds with our common commitmentto protecting the public interest.Creating a workable framework with cleardefinitions would be a good start.