Government Contracting Culture
Recently found this interesting report (link below) by the New America Foundation regarding ideas to change the culture of Pentagon contacting. Nothing drastically new per se, but some interesting thoughts and facts are included.
New America Foundation- www.newamerica.net
Report on Pentagon Contacting Culture-http://www.newamerica.net/files/Chan...ontracting.pdf
I can foresee some problems with their recommendations.
On the use of DSS and MPs for security: DSS employees are civil service, once hired they are almost impossible to get rid of and Congress does not like to cut spaces; thus given a relaxed security requirement -- which will occur (as everything goes in cycles) -- the USG would have yo pay for far more security than it needed. MPs could not be used in many locales due to their military affiliation and the Army is generally short of MPs in any event. The benefit of contractors is that their numbers can be swelled to meet a need and those numbers can be reduced when that need disappears.
They suggest:
Quote:
"Move away from reliance on the flawed and widely misunderstood term “inherently governmental” in deciding how and when to use private contractors, and instead focus on the issue of core competencies and mission success..."
Excellent idea. But.
Quote:
"...Congress should identify red-lined activities that must not be outsourced and require the military to maintain a “resident capacity” for any function it outsources, particularly as it relates to the ability to conduct proper contractual oversight.
Congress is not best suited to do that; they have to and will respond to lobbyists and vested interests.
The services investigatory arms, CID, ONI, OSI and DoD already have contract audit, complinace and investigatory powers, they generally work well, understand the requirements and they are able to call on the FBI when needed. The FBI does some things well, some not at all well. It has a bad habit of overdoing investigations; more importantly, it has plenty on its plate right now plus it does not know or understand the environment or requiremnts as an in-house organ does. I could make a strong case for the fact that it is doing many more things than it should be doing but that is irrlevant -- it has been tasked to do them. I guess the thing that strikes me about this is the old saw; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This aspect is not broken, the current system works.
What if it is perceived by policy makers to be broken?
Ken - Your analysis regarding the use of DSS/MP is spot on. (Though a minor correction, DSS is largely foreign service.) My question is whether or not political backlash against PMCs will make their continued use unfeasible, despite the cost efficiency? If memory serves correct, Sen. Clinton wished to abolish their use all together, and she appears to be the current front runner for the Sec. State gig.
I found it curious that the FBI was suggested vs improved capability of DoD, NCIS, CID, OSI, etc. Was the suggestion of increasing FBI capability in this area driven out of ignorance of DoD capabilities or was it intentional?
I appreciate the feedback from everyone. Though I have as of yet no experience related to any of this, I am currently in the pipeline with one of the above listed acronyms and have been told it is an important issue to familiarize myself with.
I know, didn't mean to sound snippy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DavidvsTheWorld
Mr. White - I apologize if it appeared as if I were nit picking. In fact, the point I was attempting to make in stating much of DSS is foreign service is that it would possibly be even more difficult to downsize than if they were civil service. I imagine eliminating foreign service positions (FSOs or not) is about as attractive and easy for State as it is for the AF to cut pilot slots.
True dat. Only prob with FSOs is getting 'em to go where needed instead of where they want to go... :D
Tongue in cheek that. While it does apply to a few, the majority are good hard working folks who DO go where they're needed and put up with a lot in the process. I've worked with a bunch, here and there. As is true in any endeavor, about 10% are worthless prima donnas, the good 20% do 80% of the work and most of 'em are good people.