Congress' mixed messages on competition

One of the most prevalent themes in recent congressionalcritiques of federal acquisition involves competition or aperceived lack thereof. Some in Congress believe theproportion of federal contracts that are competitivelyawarded has dropped precipitously even though competitionlevels are at about the same proportion today as they were 10 yearsago.To some extent, congressional concern isdriven by the sometimes confusing butnonetheless real differences betweencompetitive procedures and full-and-opencompetition, which are often incorrectlyassumed to be synonymous. Even asCongress continues to express passion forenhancing competition as a tool to drivehigher performance and greater efficiency,it also takes precipitous steps that reduce oreven eliminate competition.In the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorizationbill, Congress added yet more restrictions onthe use of competitive sourcing at theDefense Department. This includes a prohibitionon requiring government activities thatwin a competitive-sourcing competition torecompete after an appropriate interval.There can be little doubt that ongoing competitionis critical to continuous performanceimprovement and cost efficiencies. That'swhy Congress has long insisted ? and federalacquisition rules have long required ? thatmost government contracts be routinelyrecompeted. Unfortunately, Congress decidedgovernment activities that win one competitionneed not be subject to similar futureexpectations ? even in a time of extraordinaryfiscal and workforce pressures.Congress also passed last year a provisionestablishing a strong preference for DOD toin-source contracted work with limited or noanalytical underpinning. Congress has madeclear its views on work that is contracted withlimited or no competition, price or otherevaluations. Why should it be any differentwith in-sourcing? This is not to say that insourcingshould not be allowed because thereare times when it is clearly appropriate. Butthe point of maintaining competition,whether in-sourcing is considered an optionor not, is to ensure that the decision is in thebest interests of the government.Despite DOD's April implementation guidance,which does require some degree ofappropriate evaluation, contracts have beencanceled or cut back with little apparentanalysis. Ironically, in some cases, the governmentactivities involved are struggling to hirethe government employees needed to performthe work ? a specific reason offered bythe guidance for not in-sourcing. In at leastone other case, contracted work is beingmoved to a nonappropriated fund activity(NAF) in what appears to be a violation ofexisting policies and rules that governNAFs. Needless to say, no one considersthe effect of in-sourcing on the affectedmembers of the contractor workforce who,as a result of in-sourcing, often simply losetheir jobs. Apparently, concern about jobsonly goes one way.However, the situation is about to getworse. The House version of the fiscal2009 Defense Authorization bill calls for athree-year ban on competitive sourcingand imposes daunting new bureaucraticrequirements on the creation of high-performingorganizations at DOD. The HPOprohibition is particularly astoundingbecause the whole idea of an HPO is to reengineerinternally and improve performanceand efficiency. However, Congress might prohibitDOD activities from doing so.Congress is right to continue pressingagencies to enhance competition to ensurethat our tax dollars are being spent as wiselyas possible. Unfortunately, Congress also hastied the hands of federal agencies and limitedtheir competitive flexibility even though theyface harsh fiscal, mission and workforce challenges.Indeed, when it comes to competition,what's good for the goose apparently is notgood for the gander ? or the taxpayer.