Harper's mag, July 2007, presents a very disturbing view (2-page spread graphic) of what has happened to our "Federal agencies" as we knew them. Since 2000, private contractors have taken over the jobs, through no-bid contracts, that were previously done within our government. (And here I thought the Blackwater mercenaries were all of them.) Private contractor employees now outnumber federal employees in total! Example: DOE spends 94% of their budget paying contractors. Most disturbing fact is NO availability to read exactly what's in these contracts (any agency) because of private company "proprietary" rights and they are not subject to FOIA. Welcome to corporate uncle.

Please tell me what you think a no bid contract is.

Federal procurement used to require competitive bidding for whatever we were spending taxpayer dollars to do. A no bid contract equals what used to be called a "sole source" award and had to be justified up the ying-yang showing only "company X" had the ability to fulfill the particulars of that contract. It now appears the contracts are written in such a manner as to exclude any other company being able to bid; in effect, the contract is written by and for the awarded receiver. No oversight, no transparency, and a violation of existing law.

Those are pretty big over-generalizations, double trouble. While there certainly have been a lot of contracting problems in the W era, and especially centered around Hurricane Katrina and the Global Fiasco on Terror, that's a long way from saying the entire government contractor scene is like that.

I work in that arena, and I can tell you that there are all kinds of oversight protocols in place. It's not irregular at all for you to not be allowed to see a contract- it's no different that you using FOIA to try to get GM's business plan, or the Navy's next ship blueprints. There are proprietary rights lost if contracts get compromised, but there are also a lot of conflict of interest issues at stake, so protected contracts also have the function of increasing competitiveness. For every contract signed, there are a host of assigned people on both the govt and corporate side that monitor and report on the contract request, proposal, and awared processes, and all of them are overseen by contract boards throughout the agencies. A majority of contracts go through GSA, throwing another middleman into the process but also adding another layer of administrative protocols that keep things somewhat fair.

I fully admit, and very honestly lament, the contract shenanigans going on with Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. And there are many other problems like the revolving door of government to contractor and back officials. And there's yet another issue of corporate personhood and the govt arranging so some companies aren't held liable in their participation in legally questionable work.

However.....don't take one article from Harper's mag as gospel. Don't listen to govt contractor soundbites and business-speak either. Investigate more and talk to those in the know.

Great response and would serve to properly chastise any hastily formed opinion based on just one article (not true in this case.) Apparently perception truly IS reality. Leslie Shepherd, chief architect of the GSA, related how many "government" buildings in D.C. are actually now privately owned and leased back to us. His comment, " to John Q. Public they ARE government buildings because it says "Department of Transportation" on the front."
I contend the competitive bid process is/was intended to get the best deal for our money and disagree that proprietary claims somehow enhance competitiveness. Just the opposite. It is a fact that a private company has no mandate to honor FOIA requests.
Your response indicates a belief that the private sector will do a better job of running my government. I respectfully disagree. A private contractor hires employees loyal to them, not to me or the ideals upon which this experiment in democracy was founded. Dismiss me if you choose with the observation that I need to read more; better to disagree on the merits than to shoot the messenger. I look forward to review of any evidence disputing the point of the original post. Even "people in the know" appear to agree with me.

My company has actually had a "no bid" contract with local government. There is a lengthy selection process involved prior to entering into the contract itself. Governments generally issue them as part of preparedness plans so that in emergency or time of trouble, they set their costs instead of scrambling around looking for contractors who charge premiums or have their resources committed to other customers. In the case of Halliburton, there are few companies that can do what they do so they have an advantage when dealing with the government. In fact, last time I checked, there was one other American company with their capability and they were partly owned by Halliburton.

Fact is, that working for the government is a pain in the ass. I didn't chose to renew my "no bid" contract because the money wasn't worth the paperwork.

quote:

Originally posted by dbltrbl:

Your response indicates a belief that the private sector will do a better job of running my government. I respectfully disagree.

No, another incorrent generalization. In fact, I am disgusted by the extent to which free-marketism (to terribly bastardize a word) and unchecked capitalism have infected government. I've often been called a socialist, or far worse terms. No, your assumption is wrong, and it's tought to make those kinds of assumptions based on one post in a thread. What you've got in me is a believer in a helpful, service-oriented government, providing base-line emergency and regulatory services, as well as social programs (health care, education, etc) for all people using the power of the many.

My point was that it is incorrect to label ALL the tens of thousands of government contracts like this. As I said before, twice, I freely admit (and lament) that there are so many abuses. But contracting isn't new, isn't ALL bad, and isn't going away. In the late 1700's ships & their captains were contracted for maritime services by an early American government. A lot, though not all, of contracts today provide services or goods that even far lefties like me don't think need be done or produced by the government itself. There are some efficiencies that can be wrought by contracting, out-sourcing, etc, when done so for the collective good. Contracts will continue in the future as well, I'm sure.

Remember contracting is commonplace- do you think any car company directly produces 100% of its own product? No. Batteries, lights, seat covers, tires, etc are produced by separate companies that have a contract with say, GM. Do you want the government to make its own pencils and notebooks? I would challenge you to find a lot of people to support that. Same with services: both the government and companies hire IT contractors to run systems rather than staff the positions internally. I think in large part that makes sense. You have to get into the details about staffing career paths, benefits comparisons, etc....a lot of boring detail that I don't wanna talk about because, well, it's boring.

There is an idea that we on the Left need to get our heads around. I support Thom's arguments for a government that supports people to be secure in their well-being and to better themselves (modern liberal/progressive ideology), versus the government that simply restricts people (modern conservative ideolody, dashes of libertarianism, objectivism, and even fascism thrown in) and allows the market and market-influenced government to set the course for the people. But a supportive, helpful government still doesn't need to be (and perhaps very much should not be) a big government, a bloated government. Efficiency should still be a goal for progressives. In fact efficiency supports greater progressive goals. I want absolute strict enforcement of environmental protocols and regulations...and by the most efficient means.

Okay I think I'm going off the road here, mind kind of wandering and my words probably reflect that.

Double trouble, I don't think we disagree- there are a lot of problems with contracting. My point is let's not use a broad brush though in describing the problems, let's target the problems and go from there.

Privatization of the commons. One of Thom's and Nader's recurrent nightmares I suppose.

Mine as well.

To get a Federal Government small enough to "drown in a bathtub"...thank you for that felicitous phrase, Grover, all one needs to do is to either defund agencies or privatize them.

The GOP has been busy as an army of little beavers figuring out ways to do both.

Corporatists out there are probably swooning with delight at the thought of privatized water and privatized road systems replacing the old publicly owned/operated model.