AFGE Legislative Grassroots Agenda for 2004

1. AFGE Legislative Grassroots Agenda for 2004 Legislative Issues Briefing

2. AFGE Legislative and Political Department Staff • Beth Moten, Director, Legislative and Political Action Department • Bob Nicklas, Director of AFGE-PAC and Issues Mobilization

3. AFGE Legislative and Political Action Department Staff • John Threlkeld, Assistant Legislative Director • Linda Bennett, Legislative Representative • Joseph Lopes, Legislative Representative • Alan Kadrofske, Legislative Representative

4. AFGE Legislative and Political Action Department Staff • Kristin Nabers, Political Representative • Amy Lloyd, Campaign Finance Compliance Specialist • Valencia Newman, Legislative Assistant • Mildred Hopson, PAC Assistant

5. AFGE Field Legislative and Political Action Organizers • Bob Mechan • Fred McDuff • Chris Kemm • Yolanda Taylor

6. PRIVATIZATION

7. PRIVATIZATION • John Threlkeld • P: 202 639-6466 • F: 202 639-6492 • E: threlj@afge.org

8. TOPICS • What’s OMB up to now? • OMB’s bogus savings claims • What’s wrong with A-76 • How we fought back in 2003 • What we can do in 2004

9. What’s OMB up to now? • Quotas became “goals”--so what? • Most agencies crafted their privatization goals when quotas were in effect! • Still not based on research and analysis

10. What’s OMB up to now? • OMB still judges agencies by numbers: • arbitrary numbers of competitions of jobs • within arbitrary periods of time, • not whether these privatization reviews actually serve interests of taxpayers and customers

11. What’s OMB up to now? • Number of feds targeted has actually grown: 425,000 to 434,000 • Change in A-76’s definition of “inherently governmental” means that number could increase further

12. What’s OMB up to now? • BUSINESS AS USUAL!

13. OMB’s bogus savings claims • OMB: “competitive sourcing” generates “anywhere from 10-40 percent savings on average, regardless of whether the competition is won by a private contractor or the government.”

14. OMB’s bogus savings claims • Economic Policy Institute: “Show Me the Money” • Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) • RAND • IBM Endowment for the Biz of Government • Department of Defense (DoD) • General Accounting Office (GAO)

15. OMB’s bogus savings claims • CNA: • only 16 studies in DoD, although DoD has conducted well over 300 studies, and all prior to 1996; • very selective: • most studies discarded for poor documentation; • ignored small studies because the savings were too small; and • actual costs exceeded costs in contractor bids in every instance.

16. OMB’s bogus savings claims • RAND: • includes only 6 studies in DoD; • admits unfair overhead rate may have overstated savings; and • acknowledged that savings came from firing with minimum due process and reducing wages.

17. OMB’s bogus savings claims • IBM: • No original research. Based on flawed RAND and CNA studies—and a magazine article. • Of the four cases in the magazine article, only one was subject to an external study, which reported no savings.

18. OMB’s bogus savings claims • Pentagon claims 33% savings. • GAO has noted that such claims are “unaudited…because the cost accounting systems are not just of a state that we can form an opinion…” • CNA criticized DoD’s accounting systems that were used to create the savings claim.

19. OMB’s bogus savings claims • GAO says only that savings are possible.

20. What’s wrong with A-76 #1 • Uses a “quick-and-dirty” 90 day streamlined process • no Most Efficient Organization • no Minimum Cost Differential (a.k.a. the 10% rule) • no savings research, bogus or otherwise, to support process

21. What’s wrong with A-76 #2 • OMB retains direct conversion authority, i.e., agencies can and still do give our jobs to contractors without competition when they secure OMB’s permission.

22. What’s wrong with A-76 #3 • Overstates in-house overhead costs (i.e., 12% overhead rate), • according to RAND and the Department of Defense Inspector General.

23. What’s wrong with A-76 #4 • Rewards contractors who provide inferior health care benefits • DoD Appropriations Bill

24. What’s wrong with A-76 #5 • Has a disproportionate adverse impact on women and minorities • DoT, DVA, National Parks Service

25. What’s wrong with A-76 #6 • Does not test and evaluate use of subjective “best value” process. • Because they were so concerned, HASC and SASC Chairmen Duncan Hunter and John Warner insisted that “best value” be put on an extended limited pilot project for DoD.

26. What’s wrong with A-76 #7 • Establishes one-sided requirements on feds for • acquiring new work, • keeping existing work, and • length of contracts / performance agreements.

27. What’s wrong with A-76 #8 • Requires automatic competition on feds when we default--but not on defaulting cons

28. What’s wrong with A-76 #9 • No legal standing for feds before GAO and CFC • Cons: No standing for feds because • Too difficult and cumbersome • Contractor employees don’t have standing • Standing should only be given to Agency Tender Official

29. What’s wrong with A-76 #9 • Watch our for fake standing: • just for GAO (and not CFC as well) • just when we lose (instead of throughout the process like contractors) • just for ATO (instead of the employees actually affected)

30. What’s wrong with A-76 #10 • Narrows definition of “inherently governmental” by literally rewriting the law.

31. What’s wrong with A-76 #11 • Discourages agencies from considering alternatives to privatization, • such as reorganizations, consolidations, labor-management partnerships, • that might generate more savings, • because agencies get credit from OMB only for doing privatization reviews.

32. What’s wrong with A-76 #12 • Fails to ensure that feds can compete for new work and contractor work, despite OMB’s rhetorical support for fairness.

33. What’s wrong with A-76 #13 • No new systems to track costs from contracting out • No new resources to administer contracts • No new resources to pay for privatization studies and transitioning the work (although more agencies will ask for money in their budgets, e.g., DVA)

34. How we fought back in 2003 • Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill (can have gov’t-wide impact) • House: Van Hollen Amendment (220-198), defund new A-76, Vote 3 • House: Hastings Amendment (205-211), revise new A-76, Vote 2 • Senate: Mikulski Amendment (47-48), defund new A-76, Vote 3

35. How we fought back in 2003 • Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Conference: Istook-Shelby-Mikulski-Hoyer Compromise • all agencies must allow feds to submit best bids (MEO’s) • all agencies must require contractors to promise savings sufficient to offset costs (MCD’s) • all agencies must allow affected feds standing to appeal to GAO

36. How we fought back in 2003 • After White House veto threats • only agencies funded by Transportation-Treasury must allow best bids (MEO’s) • no agencies required to force contractors to promise savings (MCD’s) • no agencies required to give affected employees standing before GAO

37. How we fought back in 2003 • Department of Defense • Senate: Kennedy-Chambliss Amendment: MEO, MCD, exclusion of health care costs • House: Dicks-Lewis Provision: MEO and MCD • Conference: MEO and MCD

38. How we fought back in 2003 • Department of Army • “Third Wave”: indefinitely suspended

39. How we fought back in 2003 • Department of Interior • House: Taylor Provision: No new outsourcing • Senate: Reid Amendment: No new outsourcing, 44-51, Vote 2 • Conference: MCD and limitation on funding new outsourcing

40. How we fought back in 2003 • Department of Agriculture • AFGE Local 3354: Bond Provision: no outsourcing of rural development and farm loan programs

41. How we fought back in 2003 • What’s AFGE Local 3354’s secret? • Republican lawmaker was their champion • Who was on right committee • Who was up for re-election, • And AFGE Local 3354 WORKED VERY HARD and had help from allies

42. How we fought back in 2003 • Department of Veterans Affairs • Senate: Bond-Mikulski: No funding for VHA outsourcing • House: Walsh-Mollohan: No funding for VHA outsourcing • Conference: No funding for VHA privatization • Must do it again in 2004

43. How we fought back in 2003 • Department of Commerce: Seafood Inspection Program (SIP) is commercial • Senate: Hollings Letter (20) • House: Frank Letter (25) • Department of Commerce: SIP is Inherently Governmental

44. How we fought back in 2003 • Department of Homeland Security • Immigration Information Officers • Senate: Lieberman Letter (34) • House: Gutierrez (105) and Baca (20) Letters • Allies in immigration community • Laying the groundwork for 2004

45. How we fought back in 2003 • Federal Aviation Administration • Cartographers • Senate: Mikulski (20) Letter • Allies in the aviation community • Laying the groundwork for 2004

46. What we can do in 2004 • Government-wide effort (Transportation-Treasury Appropriations Bill) • Agency-specific efforts (e.g., IIO’s, Cartographers, VHA)

47. What we can do in 2004 • House TRAC Act (H.R. 3426) / Sponsor: Representative Al Wynn (D-MD) (SEE HANDOUT) • Track costs and • Require fair competition for • fed work, • new work, and • contractor work

48. What we can do in 2004 • That would • allow feds to always submit best bids • require contractors to be 10% more efficient to take work from feds • exclude pay and benefits costs if contractor provided less pay and worse benefits

49. What we can do in 2004 • Senate TRAC Act to be introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

50. What we can do in 2004 • How did your lawmakers vote on our amendments? • If they were right, thank them, particularly if they are Republicans. • If they were wrong, find out why.