Wisconsin governor stands up for federal employees. Wait, what?
March 17th, 2011 | Unions | Posted by Stephen Losey
Is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — probably the most hated man in union circles right now — looking for a second career as a federal union advocate?
Not likely, but in an op-ed posted on the Washington Post’s website, Walker invites readers to “imagine the outrage” of government workers not being able to bargain for wages and benefits, and having to pay 28 percent of their health care costs. The kicker, of course, is that he’s talking about federal employees.
“It’s enough to make you wonder why there are no protesters circling the White House,” Walker wrote.
Actually, Walker’s op-ed is less about standing up for federal employees’ collective bargaining rights than downplaying the gutting to unions Wisconsin Republicans just rammed through the state legislature. (He also somewhat disingenuously characterizes the fact that most government workers cannot collectively bargain for wages and benefits as “what President Obama offers federal employees” — that’s the way federal labor law has been for decades, not Obama’s plan.)
But Walker does touch on some salient points. The average 28 percent of health care premiums federal employees pay is far more than the 12.6 percent Walker mandated Wisconsin workers pay. And feds’ weaker collective bargaining rights did make it easier for Obama and Congress to impose a partial two-year pay freeze. During this ongoing debate over federal compensation and the proper role of public-sector collective bargaining, it’s worth remembering that federal unions, pay and benefits are often very different from their state counterparts.
Tags: collective bargaining, Wisconsin
Shutdown planning, then and now
February 25th, 2011 | 2011 Budget 2012 Budget OMB Social Security Administration | Posted by Sean Reilly
With much of the government at risk of a forced vacation next month, there are some obvious parallels with the last such showdown, which resulted in back-to-back closures in late 1995 and early 1996. A bitter battle over spending; a Democratic president pitted against Republican lawmakers, many of them freshmen itching to shrink the federal footprint.
The last time around, though, executive branch preparations appear to have started a lot sooner.
Consider some evidence gleaned from congressional testimony: On August 22, 1995—almost three full months before the first shutdown occurred that November–then-Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin told all department heads to update their shutdown contingency plans within two weeks, according to a memo that was accompanied by a legal opinion outlining what government functions could continue during a “funding hiatus.” The congressional hearing record also shows that at least one agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs, had worked out a deal by September 1995 with the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees on how to handle shutdown-related furloughs.
Now, barely a week before the March 4 expiration of a continuing resolution could trigger a new shutdown, union leaders say they’re still trying to pry basic information out of agencies on how workers would be affected.
The overall status of shutdown preparations is anyone’s guess. Most agencies won’t discuss the subject or release copies of their contingency plans. Asked earlier this week when six major departments, included Defense, Justice, and Agriculture, had most recently updated those plans, the Office of Management and Budget instead provided a statement from chief spokesman Ken Baer that said in part: “OMB is prepared for any contingency as a matter of course — and so are all the agencies.”
A more forthright assessment came from Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue. In a Wednesday email to SSA employees, Astrue wrote:
“The truth is that we do not know what Congress will do. We are working hard to deliver the best possible result from Congress and to carefully manage the money we do receive.
“As we await congressional action, we are doing what we can to minimize the budget uncertainties from interfering with your lives and work. You should know that we are considering a variety of scenarios but we have not made any final decisions. We will do what we can to prevent furloughs caused by not having enough money to pay you. That strategy may mean tough choices like cutting back on or eliminating overtime and expanding the hiring freeze.
“I regret that I cannot give you precise information about what will happen, but I am uncomfortable not letting you know some of the possible outcomes so that you can begin to plan accordingly. Given all of the uncertainty, I encourage you to be careful about believing everything you hear. I will continue to share what we know as more information becomes available.”
Tags: government shutdown, Michael Astrue, Office of Management and Budget, Social Security Administration
Government responses to shutdown questions UPDATE
February 23rd, 2011 | Commerce Energy White House | Posted by Nicole Johnson
The Energy, Commerce and Defense departments seem to be on the same page, at least when it comes to handling media inquires about a possible government shutdown.
As a matter of course, here is what the Defense Department sent over:
As a matter of course, the Department of Defense plans for contingencies. In fact, since 1980, all agencies have had to have a plan in case of a government shutdown, and these plans are updated routinely. We will do everything we have to do to continue to support the deployed troops. The Department must also continue many other operations necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property. These types of activities will be “exempt” from cessation. All other activities would need to be shut down in an orderly and deliberate fashion.
Federal Times received similiar responses from other agencies…
Here is a response from the Energy Department (Emphasis added).
As a matter of course, our agency plans for contingencies, but this is besides the point since, as the bipartisan congressional leadership has said on a number of occasions and as the President has made clear, no one anticipates or wants a government shutdown. The Department is working with both sides on Capitol Hill to fund the government and keep its vital services and functions operating.
Here is the response from the Commerce Department:
As a matter of course, the Commerce Department plans for contingencies. In fact, since 1980, all agencies have had to have a plan in case of a government shutdown, and these plans are updated routinely. All of this is beside the point since, as the bipartisan congressional leadership has said on a number of occasions and as the President has made clear, no one anticipates or wants a government shutdown. The administration will work with both sides on Capitol Hill to fund the government and keep its vital services and functions operating.
Tags: government shutdown
Government responses to shutdown questions eerily similar
February 22nd, 2011 | Agencies Agency Management Commerce Energy Uncategorized White House | Posted by Andy Medici
The staff over here at Federal Times are getting a sense of deja vu from agency responses to our questions about a possible government shutdown.
Here is a response from the Energy Department (Emphasis added).
As a matter of course, our agency plans for contingencies, but this is besides the point since, as the bipartisan congressional leadership has said on a number of occasions and as the President has made clear, no one anticipates or wants a government shutdown. The Department is working with both sides on Capitol Hill to fund the government and keep its vital services and functions operating.
Here is the response from the Commerce Department:
As a matter of course, the Commerce Department plans for contingencies. In fact, since 1980, all agencies have had to have a plan in case of a government shutdown, and these plans are updated routinely. All of this is beside the point since, as the bipartisan congressional leadership has said on a number of occasions and as the President has made clear, no one anticipates or wants a government shutdown. The administration will work with both sides on Capitol Hill to fund the government and keep its vital services and functions operating.
Somehow I doubt that these two public affairs people at these two agencies came up with the exact same phrasing and punctuation.
I will post questions to each of these agencies and will update if I get a response.
Government cyber-takeover?
June 3rd, 2010 | Congress Homeland Security Information Technology | Posted by Tom Spoth
Wired magazine reported today that a new bill from Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, currently in draft form, would give the government broad powers to take over responsibility for civilian networks in case of an “imminent cyber threat.”
It’s commendable that legislators are thinking about private networks while making contingency plans for a massive cyber attack. Protecting government IT systems isn’t enough — the vast majority of the country’s infrastructure in this area lies in private hands.
From the Wired report:
“These emergency measures are supposed to remain in place for no more than 30 days. But they can be extended indefinitely, a month at a time. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: cybersecurity, government takeovers, Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins
The politics of potties
March 18th, 2010 | Facilities | Posted by Stephen Losey
Federal employees are all too aware of the importance of pay parity. But Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., has set his sights on ending a different inequality: Potty parity.
Towns on March 17 introduced the Restroom Gender Parity in Federal Buildings Act — or as he called it, the Potty Parity Act — which seeks to ensure men and women have equal access to toilets in federal buildings. Towns’ bill, HR 4869, would require any newly constructed, purchased or renovated federal building to have at least a one-to-one ratio of toilets in women’s and men’s restrooms. It would allow buildings to have more women’s toilets than men’s toilets.
The bill counts urinals as toilets too, so a building can’t get away with installing a token toilet bowl in each gender’s restroom and then adding a slew of urinals for the guys.
Tags: Darrell Issa, Edolphus Towns, potty parity, toilets
You get what you pay for
October 1st, 2009 | Procurement State | Posted by Steve Watkins
The State Department “got what it paid for” when it hired embattled contractor ArmorGroup North America to provide security to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, a new report from the Wartime Contracting Commission found.
Unfortunately, the commission also found State had little choice because federal law prohibits the department from choosing security contractors based on performance rather than cost. According to the report:
Unlike other federal agencies, the U.S. Department of State is forbidden by law to select anything but the lowest price and ‘technically acceptable’ offer when awarding contracts to protect its overseas buildings — even if this means passing up offers from firms offering higher quality and better experience. In contingency operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, this prohibition can have negative consequences for security, wartime mission objectives, and America’s image.”
The report comes on the heels of revelations by the Project on Government Oversight that employees of ArmorGroup threw alcohol-fueled parties and forced subordinates to engage in lewd behavior that resulted in high staff turnover and placed embassy officials at risk.
The commission recommended removing the low-price requirement to allow State to select the contractor that will provide the best value.
Tags: ArmorGroup, contractors, POGO, private security, Wartiime Contracting Commission
More concerns about DCAA audit opinions
September 22nd, 2009 | Agency Management Congress Defense Procurement | Posted by Steve Watkins
Earlier today I previewed reports the Government Accountability Office and the Defense Department Inspector General will release tomorrow highlighting the depth of auditing problems at the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
But these watchdogs are not the only ones with concerns about DCAA’s audit management. The Wartime Contracting Commission — a bipartisan, congressionally chartered panel tasked with making recommendations to improve contingency contracting — released this report today calling on DCAA to abandon the all-or-nothing approach it takes when rendering opinions on contractor business systems.
In December, DCAA scrapped its opinion that allowed business systems with minor deficiencies to be deemed “inadequate in part.” A prior GAO report that found the auditors in DCAA’s western region were pressured by supervisors to change the middle-ground opinions to “adequate” in order to please contractors. Contractors can only directly bill the government for work if their systems are deemed fully “adequate,” or reliable. If a contractor can directly bill the government, it doesn’t have to go through a lengthy invoice approval process.
But the commission, which has held a series of hearings about the adequacy of contractors’ cost estimating and accounting systems, found the new pass-fail policy increases the government’s risk of wasting money because it diminishes the importance of an inadequate audit finding.
Under the new rules, a system is deemed “inadequate,” or unreliable, if even one minor aspect of the accounting system is broken. Such a blanket finding is “not informative enough to help contracting officers make effective decisions” about how to hold the contractor accountable for fixing problems, according to the commission report.
The report went on to say:
Rather than giving system deficiencies more importance, it seems to have the opposite effect — undermining the significance of the audit findings and weakening their effectiveness…Without any reasonable provision for more accurately describing systems that are less than perfect, contractors and contracting officers find the ‘adequate/inadequate’ options too restrictive.”
A graduated grading system is needed to give contracting officers clear information about the monetary losses that could result from a system deficiency and the level of risk that deficiency poses, so contracting officers can decide how to hold contractors accountable, the report said.
Tags: DCAA, DCMA, DoD IG, GAO, Wartime Contracting Commission
Congress to approve $7.7 billion for flu
June 11th, 2009 | Agencies Congress HHS | Posted by Rebecca Neal
House and Senate conferees reached an agreement late Thursday on the $105.9 billion war supplemental bill, which includes $7.7 billion to respond to pandemic flu.
The Centers for Disease Control and the Health and Human Services Department will receive $1.5 billion in additional fiscal year 2009 appropriations, as well as $5.8 billion for a contingency fund for expanding detection efforts, increasing federal drug stockpiles and developing and administering vaccines. President Barack Obama had requested $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009 funds and $2 billion in contingency funds.
In addition, the supplemental provides $350 million to help state and local governments prepare for and respond to a pandemic. It also includes $50 million for global efforts to track and contain the spread of pandemic flu. Obama did not request funding either of those efforts.
The bill now goes back to the chambers for consideration, with leaders stating they’re eager to pass the final bill quickly.
GSA Chooses 59 firms for Alliant
March 27th, 2009 | General Services Administration Information Technology Procurement | Posted by Steve Watkins
The General Services Administration has chosen 59 of the 62 bidders for its $50 billion Alliant information technology contract, the agency announced today.
This could be the start of another round of protests for the already protest-plagued procurement.
This time last year, a federal court upheld the protest of eight bidders that claimed GSA didn’t properly evaluate their bids. All eight of those protesters were awarded contracts this time around, but it’s not clear if the losing bidders will seek to protest this latest decision.
The awardees are:
1. Abacus Technology Corporation
2. Accenture National Security Services, LLC
3. Advanced Management Technology, Inc.
4. Advanced Technology Systems, Inc.
5. Alion Science and Technology Corporation
6. Alliant Solutions, LLC
7. American Systems Corporation
8. Analytical Services, Inc.
9. Apptis, Inc.
10. ARINC Engineering Services, LLC
11. ARTEL, Inc.
12. AT&T Government Solutions, Inc.
13. BAE Systems Information Technology, Inc.
14. BAE Systems Science and Technology, Inc.
15. BearingPoint, Inc.
16. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.
17. CACI, Inc. – Federal
18. Centech Group, Inc., The
19. CGI Federal, Inc.
20. Client Network Services, Inc.
21. Communication Technologies, Inc.
22. Computer Sciences Corporation
23. Dynamics Research Corporation
24. Electronic Data Systems, LLC
25. Engineering and Professional Services, Inc.
26. Federal Network Systems, LLC
27. General Dynamics One Source, LLC
28. Harris Corporation
29. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.
30. INDUS Corporation
31. International Business Machines Corporation
32. ITS Corporation
33. Keane Federal Systems, Inc.
34. L-3 Services, Inc.
35. LGS Innovations, LLC
36. Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc.
37. MacAulay-Brown, Inc.
38. ManTech Advanced Systems International Corporation
39. McNeil Technologies, Inc.
40. NCI Information Systems, Inc.
41. Nortel Government Solutions, Inc.
42. Perot Systems Government Services, Inc.
43. Professional Software Engineering, Inc.
44. Raytheon Company
45. Science Applications International Corporation
46. Serco, Inc.
47. Smartronix, Inc.
48. Southwest Research Institute
49. Stanley Associates, Inc.
50. STG, Inc.
51. SYS (DBA SYS Technologies, Inc.)
52. Systems Research and Applications Corporation
53. TASC, Inc.
54. TKC Communications, LLC
55. Trantech, Inc. (DBA T3 Alliance)
56. TYBRIN Corporation
57. Unisys Corporation
58. Vangent, Inc.
59. Wyle Information Systems, LLC
Tags: Alliant