Privatization Effects During Government Shutdowns

Privatization Effects during Government Shutdowns: full report (periodically updated)
Privatization Effects during Government Shutdowns: This is the ebook version and it is offered as part of the historical record (periodically updated)

Introduction

A systems approach was used to start an analysis of United States federal government shutdown impacts and it became clear that a key stakeholder has been left out of the entire shutdown and recovery activities, the new privatized worker. This issue has been fully ignored by all parties as narrow self-interests are addressed rather than attempting to fully understand the problem from a systems perspective.

On December 22, 2018 the United States Government entered into another shutdown because of the inability to pass a new budget. Each time the government has shutdown it has impacted a new workforce that surfaced as a result of privatization - the privatized government workforce. Previously once the budget is passed and government operations resume, new legislation compensates the civil servants who were furloughed during the shutdown. However, the privatized workers that work side by side with the civil servants in various offices, labs, and government bases are not compensated in future legislation.

Privatization Links

Privatization Source
Privatization Toward More Effective Government (President Reagan PDF)

This content was expanded and moved into this book.

Internet Version

Systems Perspective

During the 2018-2019 government shutdown the media focused on the civil servants where 420,000 must work without pay and 380,000 were sent home in the furlough. However 4.1 million government contractors were laid off and will collect unemployment and dip into savings. There is no national database tracking the number of contract employees. Dr. Paul Light a federal workforce expert at New York University provided the estimates. Not Expecting Back Pay, Government Contractors Collect Unemployment, Dip Into Savings, NPR, January 7, 2019.

If there were a clear systems perspective the discussion would include the system boundary, stakeholders, history, impacts, and critical analysis.

Privatization Key Executive Orders and Reports

There are 2 key Presidential Executive Orders and a report that essentially allowed for the privatization of a large portion of the Federal Civil Service. The work began in 1987.

Details of the executive orders and reports are provided further in this document.

Privatization Effects during Government Shutdowns

Today government functions are performed by traditional civil servants and privatized workers. They work side by side in various government offices, labs, and military bases supporting the same operations and basically performing the same functions with the same educational and skill levels.

During the past few decades the budget has been delayed and multiple government shutdowns have occurred. Both civil servants and their privatized counterparts are not permitted to work during a government shutdown. In all cases after the shutdown is resolved legislation has been passed to reimburse the civil servants. However, their privatized counter parts working side by side are not reimbursed. In addition, there is evidence suggesting that the privatized workers are discouraged from claiming unemployment with their respective states.

The problem was further exacerbated in 2018 when President Trump closed government offices for President Bush's funeral and for Christmas Eve. Once again the civil servants will be compensated while the privatized workers will lose pay for each of the days the government offices were closed.

The shutdowns and random holiday declarations unfairly and severely impact the privatized workforce with loss of income. The privatized employees' only mistake is choosing to work in the government privatized workforce alongside their civil servant counterparts rather than for a traditional government contractor with its own offices, operations, and contracts.

Treating the privatized workforce in this way is obviously a gross injustice and severely out of character for the United States of America. The Commission on Privatization was aware of the potential abuse of power that may surface and clearly stated in the executive summary:

"In addition, any recommendation supporting increased contracting out should be implemented only after full consideration has been given to employee interests."

Shutdown History

The US Federal Government has experienced multiple years when it was unable to pass a new budget in time for the next year - US Federal Funding Gaps. However, until 1980 the government did not stop its functions or fail to pay its bills on time and in full, unlike today. It was obvious that the US Federal Government would eventually pass a budget and pay its bills. This changed in 1980 with a reinterpretation of the 1884 Antideficiency Act. It is unclear why this bad law has remained when it is obvious that it has caused serious harm to the USA. Sabotage is defined as: deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage.

Since 1980 the US Federal Government has experienced multiple shutdown events because of its inability to agree on a new federal budget. The following table shows that the shutdown events have become more severe as time has moved on. Also because of the privatization of the government there are severe impacts to large numbers of workers that now form the new privatized contractor workforce..

Shutdown	Days	Civil Servants Furloughed	Privatized Contractors Not Paid
1980	1	1,600
1981	1	241,000
1984	1	500,000
1986	1	500,000	NOT reimbursed
1990	3	2,800	NOT reimbursed
Nov 1995	5	800,000	NOT reimbursed
1995–1996	21	284,000	NOT reimbursed
2013	16	800,000	NOT reimbursed
Jan 2018	3	692,900	NOT reimbursed
2018–19	35	reimbursed 380,000	NOT reimbursed 4.1 Million

Legislation

Senate - Compensate Civil Servants (800,000)

On January 17, 2019 the media reported that President Trump signed S.24 into law. This follows the precedent set with previous shutdowns. However the privatized workforce as contractors will not be reimbursed leading to an unfair treatment under the law and breach of thousands of contracts situation. Further the civil servants that must work without pay will not be reimbursed for the extra workload and extremely stressful work settings.

An alternative is for someone to bring a lawsuit against the Federal Government and claim that this law must be expanded to include everyone using the same arguments used by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Charles E. Morito vs. IRS care giver deduction 10th Circuit 1972. Extend protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to contractors.

House - Compensate Contractors (4.1 million)

Sec. 750. If a Federal contractor that provides retail, food, custodial, or security services to the Federal Government places the employees of such contractor on unpaid leave as a result of any lapse in appropriations which begins in fiscal year 2019, the Government shall provide compensation to such employees at their standard rate of compensation for the period of such lapse.

Delete "retail, food, custodial, or security" from the text to ensure there is equal treatment under the law

Senate - Compensate Contractors (4.1 million)

It limits weekly compensation to $965. A related bill HR824 increases the weekly compensation to $1,400.

All references to compensation limits must be removed. Everyone must be compensated at their regular rate. Perhaps damages should be included to address employee issues and costs due to loss of income.

The text for this bill only addresses non professional contractors in the Definitions section - The term “employee” means the following: - Once the references are traced not all contractors are included. Hiding this by using references is not good. The privatized contract employees include large numbers of professionals that are not included in this definition of employee.

Current estimates suggest there are 1.2 Million non-professional employees and 2.9 million professional employees.

(A) A “service employee” as that term is defined in section 6701(3) of title 41, United States Code, except that the term also includes service employees described in subparagraph (C) of that section notwithstanding that subparagraph.

(B) A “laborer or mechanic” covered by section 3142 of title 40, United States Code.

It is clear that the House and Senate are not listening. This is extremely serious because it is obvious that all privatized workers must be reimbursed.

Essence of any new legislation should include everyone. The following proposed text is offered:

(1) Each excepted employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer who is required to perform work during a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at the employee's standard rate of pay plus 10%, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates.

Excepted employees forced to work during the shutdown experience significant increased workload and work stress. This is similar to a war zone where 25% is the expected pay rate increase. However since loss of life is not expected, the standard night rate 10% differential is suggested.

(2) Each contract employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public contract employee not permitted to work and has lost wages due to layoff or other actions as a result of a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid via their existing contracts for the period of the lapse in appropriations, at the contract employee's standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled billing dates.

Breach Of Contract and Equal Treatment Under The Law. This must be done to preserve the rule of law. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Charles E. Morito vs IRS care giver deduction 10th Circuit 1972.

Litigation

There does not appear to be any litigation from the shutdown events. Since 1980 there have been a total of 85 days of lost compensation due to shutdowns. It is unclear why no companies or their employees have challenged the Federal Government using the following as a basis:

Breach of Contract: The (1) contractors performed as expected, (2) the agencies performed as expected, and (3) there was no change in direction on the part of the contracting agencies. This is a clear breach of contract where an external element causes the failure of payment. In such cases the injured parties are to be reimbursed the original contract amounts even if the services are not performed. There is even the possibility of damages due to this third party interference in the performance of a contract.

Equal Treatment Under The Law: Even though clear precedent was set by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Charles E. Morito vs IRS care giver deduction 10th Circuit 1972 the legislation to reimburse civil servants has not been extended by the courts to include everyone not just a narrow select privileged group.

Violation of Public Law 105-270: The current contracts and shutdown actions violate The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 Public Law 105-270 Section 2 item (e) REALISTIC AND FAIR COST COMPARISONS. This is a provision for realistic and fair cost comparisons when considering contracting in the private sector. This includes the costs of quality assurance, technical monitoring of the performance of the function, liability insurance, and employee retirement and disability benefits, and all other overhead costs. The all other overhead costs should include the cost of shutdowns. Clear precedent was set by 1987 and all future contracts should have included provisions for government shutdowns.

Violation of Circular A-76 Performance of Commercial Activities: Although this is not a law it is a clear indication that the Government is not following its policies and the intent of the public law Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-270. This policy establishes that the Government should not compete with the commercial industrial base. This suggests what a commercial entity looks like - it engages in commercial business. Unfortunately as a result of the privatization efforts over the past few decades the Government has established a new entity that has no commercial activity and yet is considered a company that offers privatized contract services exclusively to the Government. The policy states that the business needs to be a commercial business, not one artificially created by the Government.

One can only conclude that there is severe harassment and intimidation to prevent anyone from trying to seek justice at this time.

The government shutdowns have now reached a serious crisis point because with each shutdown the number of days increases. The latest shutdown of 35 days normally would translate into a collapsed state with a call for a new government and new elections. Yes it is that serious. Litigation may stop this action instantly. It is clear that 1-4 million workers reimbursed for 85 days of lost pay would translate into billions of dollars not including the damages that surfaced in breach of contract litigation and impacts of the shutdowns including suicides, lost careers, etc.

Privatized Worker Companies

Since 1987 the policies associated with privatization has established a whole new set of companies with characteristics that previously never existed. Basically these companies derive most if not all of their revenues directly from federal dollars for services. They are essentially in competition with the costs of a civil servant. As part of privatization a cost benefit analysis is performed and the analysis must yield lower costs if a privatized workforce is to be established. All organizations have the same cost categories regardless of their nature - government, for profit, nonprofit, etc. The cost categories are:

Labor includes all labor categories including management and executive personnel. Since the 1980's there has been a trend to bury senior management and executive compensation into Overhead. This obscures the Overhead costs and their items.

Material includes whatever material is needed to develop and maintain the deliverable. The deliverable can be a product, products, system or technology.

General and Administrative costs are associated with running the operation. This is administrative staff, office supplies, office space, labs, etc.

Fee is the profit an organization attaches to a project bid. The profit can be accumulated and paid to employees as bonuses, shareholders as dividends, or put back into the organization to pursue new markets, products, or technologies. Because of tax law changes in the 1980's the profits can be accumulated to eventually buy the competition and establish a monopoly or oligopoly.

Cost of money is based on the inflation rate and is the cost associated with going to the markets to borrow money for short term or long term needs during the project.

Overhead includes employee costs above the basic salary or benefits, research and development, and organizational improvements. The additional employee costs are vacation, sick days, holidays, healthcare, retirement, education, training, etc. Research and development is for product and technology development. Organizational improvements are for process improvements, organizational assessment, new equipment and tools. When employees are not working on a project then they are working on Research and Development and or Organizational improvements until they are called to support a new project. This cycle guarantees that they are not immediately terminated once project funds stop. This also provides for organization survival growth, and stability.

In many proposals the money categories get mixed and it is difficult to see where the money is going in the project. However these are the clear categories that are then used to compare different organizations and see how they are able to justify their bids. The following table shows the difference between a traditional company, a services only company, and a civil service organization.

Overhead	Traditional Company	Service Company	Civil Service
Benefits
Vacation	Same	Less	Same
Sick Days	Same	Less	Same
Holidays	More	Same	Same
Healthcare	Same	Less	Same
Retirement	Same	None	Same
Education	Same	Less	Same
Training	Less	None	More
Research & Development
Product	Yes	None	Support
Technology	Yes	None	Support
Organization Improvements
Process Improvements	Yes	None	Yes
Organizational Assessment	Yes	None	Yes
New Equipment And Tools	Yes	None	Yes
Funds Interruption
Government Shutdown	No Impact	Lost Wages	Reimbursed

The traditional company provides products, technologies, and services. The new privatized worker company only provides services. A civil service organization typically provides services but after World War II was engaged in significant technology development and new product support to industry however this stopped with the movement into privatization.

What the table clearly shows is that the new privatized worker is a second class worker that receives less benefits and is subject to termination once project funds end. This is because these companies have no activity in the general economy providing commercial or industrial products and services. They have no additional money from the overhead accounts to carry the workers between the projects.

This is a direct result of policy of the United States of America since the introduction of privatization. Rather than encourage the development of new companies and industries able to operate in commercial or industrial markets the Federal government has syphoned off hundreds of billions of dollars to feed economically questionable entities to justify a political goal of the appearance of smaller government. There is room for companies to provide exclusive services to the Federal government but these companies should be few and far between and the workers should number in the tens of thousands not millions. This has had a serious negative effect on the economic base. To have 4 million privatized workers in a setting where they do the same thing as 800,000 civil servants is a disaster.

Privatized Worker Unions

The privatized workforce is fragmented across hundreds of privatized worker companies. In the case of the FAA SE2020 and SE2025 programs there are approximately 379 companies providing privatized workers. This means that 300+ companies would need to be organized by multiple unions representing very low numbers of employees in each company.

There are about 4 million workers in this category with thousands of companies between the workers and the Federal Government. This is an impossible task. Further organizing 30 people in a company is pointless because they do not have issues with their companies. It is the Federal Government that is doing the damage with shutdowns, bad contracts, and potentially unconstitutional legislation that is hurting the workers.

Unfortunately it looks like a system has been established to bypass the unions and associated laws that protect workers and their rights. It is difficult to imagine that this is an unintended consequence of privatization especially given the anti-union history of the 1970s and 1980s.

The only way for the privatized workers to escape this bad situation is to seek employment outside the privatized workforce settings or for certain Federal Government organizations like the FAA to be sold off to a private entity. Once the private entity is established then one or more unions can step in and organize the workforce. One of the key elements of a union contract is that only a small percentage of the workforce can be contract employees; this is typically less than 10%.

The limit of contract employees set to 10% is interesting because there are multiple Federal Government unions and a government facility could be subjected to the 10% contract employee limit. However that has not happened. It is not unusual to see in a government facility 50%, 60%, and 70% of the workforce as contract employees.

How Did This Happen

In the late 70's early 80's there was a push to help start new companies especially small disadvantaged businesses. The idea was that they would start with services then grow to eventually provide products, technologies, and services to the entire economy of government, commercial, and industrial markets. Those that would stay in the services space would follow the model of small firms where career growth would include junior and senior partners and distribution of profits to the remaining employees. None of this happened.

So here we sit with millions of people needing these jobs in bad environments with poor benefits and loss of income at the slightest interruption of project funds. This does not happen in commercial markets. Commercial markets may decline quickly and bad management may hide the facts, but there is time to react and look for a new job or career. Also these environments do not allow the employees to express themselves and their capabilities because they do not develop new products, technologies, and or markets. They just sit and punch out the requested services.

Architecture Analysis

Is there a way to capture the architecture of the government and industrial base before and after privatization so that models can be developed to make comparisons? Would this be two separate architectures or just one generic architecture that uses different parameters for two scenarios? This is an attempt to answer these questions. It obviously is an incomplete work but that work should begin for this new century.

The government performs many different functions. The suggested architecture is independent of the functions and based on surfacing the key subsystems and showing some form of a topology. The System Architecture is as follows:

It is a hierarchical architecture with the people shown at the top. The people supply labor and intellectual resources and receive goods and services. The Earth is also a subsystem provides natural resources but is not shown. For our analysis the key top level subsystems are:

Each subsystem has its own set of functions and architecture with subsystems that perform the functions. The details may vary but there are a common set of lower functions that apply. These are the lower level functions:

It is interesting that all the functions are starting to look like what may be found in an organizational chart. They are also starting to look like cost centers in an organization. So this begs the question, can mental models be developed in terms of staffing level and or money flows for the architecture circa 1987 versus the architecture circa 2019.

This is an example of a mental model developed in a spreadsheet. Each subsystem is identified and then each function is itemized for each subsystem. An assumption is then made for the staffing levels in each area. This is performed for both 1987 and 2019 time frames. This represents one of many possible mental models. The trick is to find the real numbers and see how they compare with the mental models. The following is the details form mental model A.

Core Big Engineering & Big Science Activities	1987	2019
Civil Service
Contracts	10	100
Vendor Monitoring	20	200
Administration	10	10
Human Resources	10	10
Operations	500	500
Engineering	100	75
Support	0	0
Maintenance	30	1
R&D	30	1
	710	897
Non Profit / FFRDC
Contracts	2	1
Vendor Monitoring	2	1
Administration	2	1
Human Resources	2	1
Operations	1	1
Engineering	10	5
Support	2	1
Maintenance	1	1
R&D	10	5
	32	17
Privatized Services For Profit
Contracts	1	10
Vendor Monitoring	1	20
Administration	1	10
Human Resources	1	10
Operations	1	1
Engineering	1	500
Support	5	500
Maintenance	5	5000
R&D	1	1
	17	6052
Commercial Industrial Base
Contracts	100	100
Vendor Monitoring	200	200
Administration	100	100
Human Resources	50	50
Operations	0	0
Engineering	1000	1000
Support	500	5
Maintenance	5000	10
R&D	300	30
	7250	1495

A summary is now offered with some additional analysis. This summary and analysis suggests that the overhead associated with privatization is 5.64% (8461/8009). This number was less than expected. Meanwhile the Industrial Base Damage is significantly more than expected at -79.38 (1495/7250). This unfortunately does show reality when we examine the number of companies that provided products, technology, and services in the past versus today. The consolidations and closures of extremely powerful and competent companies in the last decade of the last century is huge and may be the result of the Governments policy on privatization.

Core Big Engineering & Big Science Activities	1987	2019

Civil Service	710	897
Non Profit / FFRDC	32	17
Privatized Services For Profit	17	6052
Commercial Industrial Base	7250	1495
Total	8009	8461

Privatization Overhead		5.64%
Industrial Base Damage		-79.38%

This is what is called seat of the pants analysis. It is done quickly to get a feel for a system and what needs to be done to get a better handle and understanding of the system. It is a first pass analysis done in one seating session. It is amazing how these initial analysis sessions can surface important insights before the system model gets over thought and moves into potentially less useful results. It is always important to go back to these first pass back of the envelop system analysis findings after the hard work begins of getting the real data and trying to model the system.

Again both results were unexpected. The expectation was large overhead with little impact or damage to the industrial base.

When the major policy decision was made to move towards privatization it is unclear if various economic models were run to try and understand the system ramifications. Other modeling and analysis can be performed to try and understand if we are better off now with privatization in place or if we need to change direction and transition into a new system. Some of the suggested models to run today are:

Report of the President's Commission on Privatization

This section is a summary of the report that was the result of Executive Order 12607 - President's Commission on Privatization issued on September 2, 1987 by President Reagan. This is a key document because it clearly outlines the plan to privatized major portions of the US Federal Government. As of 2018 we clearly see a major portion of this plan has been executed. However, in that time frame they were sensitive to the needs of employees.

What is not stated in the report is that at that time it was important to ensure that second class workers were not created with lower salaries and benefits. This was part of the perception that the Federal Government, as the largest employer in the US, should set an example and not facilitate downward spirals. Ensuring and encouraging commerce and upward economic growth and mobility were part of the social fabric when this report was produced.

Letter of Transmittal

I am pleased to transmit to you the report of the President's Commission on Privatization, PRIVATIZATION: Toward More Effective Government. Created by your Executive Order No. 12607 on September 2, 1987, the Commission has devoted the past several months to examining the appropriate division of responsibilities between the federal government and the private sector.

During the conduct of our examination, we reviewed extensive literature on privatization, considered the testimony of 140 witnesses, and analyzed information and data provided by the pertinent federal agencies in each of the subject areas addressed in this report.

In our deliberations, we considered first and most critically the needs of the American consumer and how those needs can best be satisfied. In this report we recommend alternative approaches for administering many government programs and services, when we determined that they could be better managed at less cost by involving the private sector and/or providing for individual consumer's choice.

It is our belief and hope that this report of findings and recommendations, if adopted, would serve as the linchpin in the identification and transfer of federal activities that can be performed more effectively by the private sector.

For all of us, participation in the work of the Commission has been a challenging and stimulating opportunity to serve our nation. We appreciate having had this privilege.

A copy of the letter was also sent to James C. Miller, III the Director of Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Summary Extract

This following is an extract of the executive summary. The executive summary provides additional details on how to deal with each of the targeted agencies and government functions.

The President's Commission on Privatization was established on September 2, 1987 "to review the appropriate division of responsibilities between the federal government and the private sector," and to identify those government programs that are not properly the responsibility of the federal government or that can be performed more efficiently by the private sector.

In all these representative areas, the Commission found potential for improved efficiency, quality of service, or both, to be derived from increased private sector participation in the provision of services. In some areas, such as the Naval Petroleum Reserves, the Commission found that the public would be best served by complete government divestiture. In other areas, such as Housing, Education, and Medicare, the Commission found that the continued need for public sector support could be served by means of vouchers, which act as vehicles for private sector participation, and hence, competition. In yet other areas, such as Air Traffic Control, Postal Service, and Urban Mass Transit, the Commission found that a combination of private sector initiatives, from contracting out to asset sales, may best serve the public interest. However, federal workers should be assured that normally any staff reductions resulting from the implementation of Commission recommendations should be handled through attrition. In addition, any recommendation supporting increased contracting out should be implemented only after full consideration has been given to employee interests.

Executive Order 12607 - President's Commission on Privatization

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. I), a Commission to review the appropriate division of responsibilities between the Federal government and the private sector, it is hereby ordered as follows:

(a) There is established the President's Commission on Privatization. The Commission shall be composed of not more than 13 members appointed or designated by the President. The members shall be drawn from among a bipartisan cross-section of distinguished leaders.

(b) The President shall designate a Chairman from among the members of the Commission.

(1) Past and current privatization efforts by the Federal government, State and local governments, and foreign governments, including asset sales by the Federal government;

(3) The environment for additional privatization efforts by the Federal government.

(b) The Commission shall review the current activities of the Federal government, including asset holdings, and identify those functions that:

(1) Are not properly the responsibility of the Federal government and should be divested or transferred to the private sector, with no residual involvement by the Federal government; or

(2) Require continuing oversight by an Executive Branch agency but can be performed more efficiently by a private entity, including the use of vouchers as an alternative to direct service.

(1) Privatization opportunities, including those identified in (b) above, listed in order of priority;

(2) Legislative and administrative actions necessary to effect the privatization initiatives or remove existing privatization restrictions;

(3) Needed improvements to personnel and administrative policy to create an environment conducive to privatization;

(4) Organizational and resource requirements necessary to implement successfully the privatization program; and

(d) The Commission shall submit its findings and recommendations to the President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by March 1, 1988. Interim recommendations shall be transmitted to the Director for consideration in the formulation of the President's FY 1989 budget.

(a) The heads of Executive departments, agencies, and independent instrumentalities shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the Commission, upon request, with such information as it may require for purposes of carrying out its functions.

(b) Members of the Commission shall serve without compensation for their work on the Commission. While engaged in the work of the Commission, members appointed from among private citizens of the United States may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence , as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).

(c) To the extent provided by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Executive Order, the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that are applicable to the Commission, except that of reporting annually to the Congress, shall be performed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in accordance with guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services; and

(b) The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting its final report to the President.

Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:57 a. m., September 8, 1987
The Executive order was released by the Office of the Press Secretary on September 3.

Executive Order 12803-Infrastructure Privatization

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that the United States achieves the most beneficial economic use of its resources, it is hereby ordered as follows:

(a) "Privatization" means the disposition or transfer of an infrastructure asset, such as by sale or by long-term lease, from a State or local government to a private party.

(b) "Infrastructure asset" means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals.

(c) "Originally authorized purposes" means the general objectives of the original grant program; however, the term is not intended to include every condition required for a grantee to have obtained the original grant.

(i) the amount paid or to be paid by a private party for an infrastructure asset, if the asset is transferred as a result of competitive bidding; or

(ii) the appraised value of an infrastructure asset, as determined by the head of the executive department or agency and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, if the asset is not transferred as a result of competitive bidding.

(e) "State and local governments" means the government of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, regional or interstate governmental entity, council of governments, and any agency or instrumentality of a local government, and any federally recognized Indian Tribe.

Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following objectives and principles:

(a) Adequate and well maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to provide for infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greater freedom to privatize infrastructure assets.

(b) Private enterprise and competitively driven improvements are the foundation of our Nation's economy and economic growth. Federal financing of infrastructure assets should not act as a barrier to the achievement of economic efficiencies through additional private market financing or competitive practices, or both.

(c) State and local governments are in the best position to assess and respond to local needs. State and local governments should, subject to assuring continued compliance with Federal requirements that public use be on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, have maximum possible freedom to make decisions concerning the maintenance and disposition of their federally financed infrastructure assets.

(d) User fees are generally more efficient than general taxes as a means to support infrastructure assets. Privatization transactions should be structured so as not to result in unreasonable increases in charges to users.

To the extent permitted by law, the head of each executive department and agency shall undertake the following actions:

(a) Review those procedures affecting the management and disposition of federally financed infrastructure assets owned by State and local governments and modify those procedures to encourage appropriate privatization of such assets consistent with this order;

(b) Assist State and local governments in their efforts to advance the objectives of this order; and

(c) Approve State and local governments' requests to privatize infrastructure assets, consistent with the criteria in section 4 of this order and, where necessary, grant exceptions to the disposition requirements of the "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments" common rule, or other relevant rules or regulations, for infrastructure assets; provided that the transfer price shall be distributed, as paid, in the following manner:

(i) State and local governments shall first recoup in full the unadjusted dollar amount of their portion of total project costs (including any transaction and fix-up costs they incur) associated with the infrastructure asset involved;

(ii) if proceeds remain, then the Federal Government shall recoup in full the amount of Federal grant awards associated with the infrastructure asset, less the applicable share of accumulated depreciation on such asset (calculated using the Internal Revenue Service accelerated depreciation schedule for the categories of assets in question); and

(iii) finally, the State and local governments shall keep any remaining proceeds.

To the extent permitted by law, the head of an executive department or agency shall approve a request in accordance with section 3(c) of this order only if the grantee:

(a) Agrees to use the proceeds described in section 3 (c) (iii) of this order only for investment in additional infrastructure assets (after public notice of the proposed investment), or for debt or tax reduction; and

(b) Demonstrates that a market mechanism, legally enforceable agreement, or regulatory mechanism will ensure that:

(i) the infrastructure asset or assets will continue to be used for their originally authorized purposes, as long as needed for those purposes, even if the purchaser becomes insolvent or is otherwise hindered from fulfilling the originally authorized purposes; and

(ii) user charges will be consistent with any current Federal conditions that protect users and the public by limiting the charges.

In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements of this order. The Office of Management and Budget shall review the results of implementing this order and report thereon to the President 1 year after the date of this order.

Nothing in this order is in any way intended to limit any existing authority of the heads of executive departments and agencies to approve privatization proposals that are otherwise consistent with law.

This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive-branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other persons.

Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998

It was not until the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 Public Law 105-270 that serious action was taken towards privatizing the federal government. The law required that the head of each executive agency submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a list of activities performed by the Federal Government that in the judgment of the head of the executive agency are not inherently governmental functions.

It includes a provision for realistic and fair cost comparisons when considering contracting in the private sector. This includes the costs of quality assurance, technical monitoring of the performance of the function, liability insurance, and employee retirement and disability benefits, and all other overhead costs. The all other overhead costs provision is significant because it has huge impacts in the presence of a government shutdown event.

To provide a process for identifying the functions of the Federal Government that are not inherently governmental functions, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the ''Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. ANNUAL LISTS OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES NOT INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL IN NATURE.

(a) LISTS REQUIRED. Not later than the end of the third quarter of each fiscal year, the head of each executive agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a list of activities performed by Federal Government sources for the executive agency that, in the judgment of the head of the executive agency, are not inherently governmental functions. The entry for an activity on the list shall include the following:

(1) The fiscal year for which the activity first appeared on a list prepared under this section.

(2) The number of full-time employees (or its equivalent) that are necessary for the performance of the activity by a Federal Government source.

(3) The name of a Federal Government employee responsible for the activity from whom additional information about the activity may be obtained.

(b) OMB REVIEW AND CONSULTATION. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall review the executive agency's list for a fiscal year and consult with the head of the executive agency regarding the content of the final list for that fiscal year.

(1) PUBLICATION. Upon the completion of the review and consultation regarding a list of an executive agency

(A) the head of the executive agency shall promptly transmit a copy of the list to Congress and make the list available to the public; and

(B) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice that the list is available to the public.

(2) CHANGES. If the list changes after the publication of the notice as a result of the resolution of a challenge under section 3, the head of the executive agency shall promptly

(A) make each such change available to the public and transmit a copy of the change to Congress; and Federal Register,

(B) publish in the Federal Register a notice that the change is available to the public.

(d) COMPETITION REQUIRED. Within a reasonable time after the date on which a notice of the public availability of a list is published under subsection (c), the head of the executive agency concerned shall review the activities on the list. Each time that the head of the executive agency considers contracting with a private sector source for the performance of such an activity, the head of the executive agency shall use a competitive process to select the source (except as may otherwise be provided in a law other than this Act, an Executive order, regulations, or any executive branch circular setting forth requirements or guidance that is issued by competent executive authority). The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall issue guidance for the administration of this subsection.

(e) REALISTIC AND FAIR COST COMPARISONS. For the purpose of determining whether to contract with a source in the private sector for the performance of an executive agency activity on the list on the basis of a comparison of the costs of procuring services from such a source with the costs of performing that activity by the executive agency, the head of the executive agency shall ensure that all costs (including the costs of quality assurance, technical monitoring of the performance of such function, liability insurance, employee retirement and disability benefits, and all other overhead costs) are considered and that the costs considered are realistic and fair.

(a) CHALLENGE AUTHORIZED. An interested party may submit to an executive agency a challenge of an omission of a particular activity from, or an inclusion of a particular activity on, a list for which a notice of public availability has been published under section 2.

(b) INTERESTED PARTY DEFINED. For the purposes of this section, the term ''interested party'', with respect to an activity referred to in subsection (a), means the following:

(A) is an actual or prospective offeror for any contract, or other form of agreement, to perform the activity; and

(B) has a direct economic interest in performing the activity that would be adversely affected by a determination not to procure the performance of the activity from a private sector source.

(2) A representative of any business or professional association that includes within its membership private sector sources referred to in paragraph (1).

(3) An officer or employee of an organization within an executive agency that is an actual or prospective offeror to perform the activity.

(4) The head of any labor organization referred to in section 7103 (a) (4) of title 5, United States Code, that includes within its membership officers or employees of an organization referred to in paragraph (3).

(c) TIME FOR SUBMISSION. A challenge to a list shall be submitted to the executive agency concerned within 30 days after the publication of the notice of the public availability of the list under section 2.

(d) INITIAL DECISION. Within 28 days after an executive agency receives a challenge, an official designated by the head of the executive agency shall

(2) transmit to the party submitting the challenge a written notification of the decision together with a discussion of the rationale for the decision and an explanation of the party's right to appeal under subsection (e).

(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPEAL. An interested party may appeal an adverse decision of the official to the head of the executive agency within 10 days after receiving a notification of the decision under subsection (d).

(2) DECISION ON APPEAL. Within 10 days after the head of an executive agency receives an appeal of a decision under paragraph (1), the head of the executive agency shall decide the appeal and transmit to the party submitting the appeal a written notification of the decision together with a discussion of the rationale for the decision.

(a) EXECUTIVE AGENCIES COVERED. Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act applies to the following executive agencies:

(1) EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. An executive department named in section 101 of title 5, United States Code.

(2) MILITARY DEPARTMENT. A military department named in section 102 of title 5, United States Code.

(3) INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT. An independent establishment, as defined in section 104 of title 5, United States Code.

(2) GOVERNMENT CORPORATION. A Government corporation or a Government controlled corporation, as those terms are defined in section 103 of title 5, United States Code.

(3) NONAPPROPRIATED FUNDS INSTRUMENTALITY. A part of a department or agency if all of the employees of that part of the department or agency are employees referred to in section 2105 (c) of title 5, United States Code.

(4) CERTAIN DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. Depot-level maintenance and repair of the Department of Defense (as defined in section 2460 of title 10, United States Code).

(1) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SOURCE. The term ''Federal Government source'', with respect to performance of an activity, means any organization within an executive agency that uses Federal Government employees to perform the activity.

(A) DEFINITION. The term ''inherently governmental function'' means a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees.

(B) FUNCTIONS INCLUDED. The term includes activities that require either the exercise of discretion in applying Federal Government authority or the making of value judgments in making decisions for the Federal Government, including judgments relating to monetary transactions and entitlements. An inherently governmental function involves, among other things, the interpretation and execution of the laws of the United States so as

(i) to bind the United States to take or not to take some action by contract, policy, regulation, authorization, order, or otherwise;

(ii) to determine, protect, and advance United States economic, political, territorial, property, or other interests by military or diplomatic action, civil or criminal judicial proceedings, contract management, or otherwise;

(iii) to significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons;

(iv) to commission, appoint, direct, or control officers or employees of the United States; or

(v) to exert ultimate control over the acquisition, use, or disposition of the property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, of the United States, including the collection, control, or disbursement of appropriated and other Federal funds.

(i) gathering information for or providing advice, opinions, recommendations, or ideas to Federal Government officials; or

(ii) any function that is primarily ministerial and internal in nature (such as building security, mail operations, operation of cafeterias, housekeeping, facilities operations and maintenance, warehouse operations, motor vehicle fleet management operations, or other routine electrical or mechanical services).

Circular A-76 Performance of Commercial Activities

This Circular establishes Federal policy regarding the performance of commercial activities and implements the statutory requirements of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-270. It is an important policy document because it establishes that the Government should not compete with the commercial industrial base. This suggests what a commercial entity looks like - it engages in commercial business.

Unfortunately as a result of the privatization efforts over the past few decades the Government has established a new entity that has no commercial activity and yet is considered a company that offers privatized contract services exclusively to the Government. This is a violation of the policy. The policy states that the business needs to be a commercial business, not one artificially created by the Government.

August 4, 1983 (REVISED 1999) CIRCULAR NO. A-76 TO THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS

1. Purpose. This Circular establishes Federal policy regarding the performance of commercial activities and implements the statutory requirements of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-270. The Supplement to this Circular sets forth the procedures for determining whether commercial activities should be performed under contract with commercial sources or in-house using Government facilities and personnel.

2. Rescission. OMB Circular No. A-76 (Revised), dated March 29, 1979; and Transmittal Memoranda 1 through 14 and 16 through 18.

3. Authority. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (31 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1979. (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998. (P. L. 105-270).

a. In the process of governing, the Government should not compete with its citizens. The competitive enterprise system, characterized by individual freedom and initiative, is the primary source of national economic strength. In recognition of this principle, it has been and continues to be the general policy of the Government to rely on commercial sources to supply the products and services the Government needs.

b. This national policy was promulgated through Bureau of the Budget Bulletins issued in 1955, 1957 and 1960. OMB Circular No. A-76 was issued in 1966. The Circular was previously revised in 1967, 1979, and 1983. The Supplement (Revised Supplemental Handbook) was previously revised in March 1996 (Transmittal Memorandum 15).

a. Achieve Economy and Enhance Productivity. Competition enhances quality, economy, and productivity. Whenever commercial sector performance of a Government operated commercial activity is permissible, in accordance with this Circular and its Supplement, comparison of the cost of contracting and the cost of in-house performance shall be performed to determine who will do the work. When conducting cost comparisons, agencies must ensure that all costs are considered and that these costs are realistic and fair.

b. Retain Governmental Functions In-House. Certain functions are inherently Governmental in nature, being so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance only by Federal employees. These functions are not in competition with the commercial sector. Therefore, these functions shall be performed by Government employees.

c. Rely on the Commercial Sector. The Federal Government shall rely on commercially available sources to provide commercial products and services. In accordance with the provisions of this Circular and its Supplement, the Government shall not start or carry on any activity to provide a commercial product or service if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial source.

a. A commercial activity is one which is operated by a Federal executive agency and which provides a product or service that could be obtained from a commercial source. Activities that meet the definition of an inherently Governmental function provided below are not commercial activities. A representative list of commercial activities is provided in Attachment A. A commercial activity also may be part of an organization or a type of work that is separable from other functions or activities and is suitable for performance by contract.

b. A conversion to contract is the changeover of an activity from Government performance to performance under contract by a commercial source.

c. A conversion to in-house is the changeover of an activity from performance under contract to Government performance.

d. A commercial source is a business or other non-Federal activity located in the United States, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which provides a commercial product or service.

e. An inherently Governmental function is a function which is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance by Government employees. Consistent with the definitions provided in the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 and OFPP Policy Letter 92-1, these functions include those activities which require either the exercise of discretion in applying Government authority or the use of value judgment in making decisions for the Government. Services or products in support of inherently Governmental functions, such as those listed in Attachment A, are commercial activities and are normally subject to this Circular. Inherently Governmental functions normally fall into two categories:

(1) The act of governing; i.e., the discretionary exercise of Government authority. Examples include criminal investigations, prosecutions and other judicial functions; management of Government programs requiring value judgments, as in direction of the national defense; management and direction of the Armed Services; activities performed exclusively by military personnel who are subject to deployment in a combat, combat support or combat service support role; conduct of foreign relations; selection of program priorities; direction of Federal employees; regulation of the use of space, oceans, navigable rivers and other natural resources; direction of intelligence and counter-intelligence operations; and regulation of industry and commerce, including food and drugs.

(2) Monetary transactions and entitlements, such as tax collection and revenue disbursements; control of the Treasury accounts and money supply; and the administration of public trusts.

f. A cost comparison is the process of developing an estimate of the cost of Government performance of a commercial activity and comparing it, in accordance with the requirements of the Supplement, to the cost to the Government for contract performance of the activity.

g. Directly affected parties are Federal employees and their representative organizations and bidders or offerors on the instant solicitation.

h. Interested parties for purposes of challenging the contents of an agency's Commercial Activities Inventory under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 are:

(1) A private sector source that (A) is an actual or prospective offeror for any contract or other form of agreement to perform the activity; and (B) has a direct economic interest in performing the activity that would be adversely affected by a determination not to procure the performance of the activity from a private sector source.

(2) A representative of any business or professional association that includes within its membership private sector sources referred to in (1) above.

(3) An officer or employee of an organization within an executive agency that is an actual or prospective offeror to perform the activity.

(4) The head of any labor organization referred to in section 7103(a) (4) of Title 5, United States Code that includes within its membership officers or employees of an organization referred to in (3) above.

a. Unless otherwise provided by law, this Circular and its Supplement shall apply to all executive agencies and shall provide administrative direction to heads of agencies.

b. This Circular and its Supplement apply to printing and binding only in those agencies or departments which are exempted by law from the provisions of Title 44 of the U.S. Code.

(1) Be applicable when contrary to law, Executive Orders, or any treaty or international agreement;

(3) Apply to the Department of Defense in times of a declared war or military mobilization;

(5) Authorize contracts which establish an employer-employee relationship between the Government and contractor employees. An employer-employee relationship involves close, continual supervision of individual contractor employees by Government employees, as distinguished from general oversight of contractor operations. However, limited and necessary interaction between Government employees and contractor employees, particularly during the transition period of conversion to contract, does not establish an employer-employee relationship.

(6) Be used to justify conversion to contract solely to avoid personnel ceilings or salary limitations;

(7) Apply to the conduct of research and development. However, severable in- house commercial activities in support of research and development, such as those listed in Attachment A, are normally subject to this Circular and its Supplement; or

(8) Establish and shall not be construed to create any substantive or procedural basis for anyone to challenge any agency action or inaction on the basis that such action or inaction was not in accordance with this Circular, except as specifically set forth in Part 1, Chapter 3, paragraph K of the Supplement, " Appeals of Cost Comparison Decisions" and as set forth in Appendix 2, Paragraph G, consistent with Section 3 of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998.

d. The requirements of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 apply to the following executive agencies:

e. The requirements of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 do not apply to the following entities or activities:

(2) a Government corporation or a Government controlled corporation as defined in 5 USC 103,

(3) a non-appropriated funds instrumentality if all of its employees are referred to in 5 USC 2105(c), or

(4) Depot-level maintenance and repair of the Department of Defense as defined in 10 USC 2460.

8. Government Performance of a Commercial Activity. Government performance of a commercial activity is authorized under any of the following conditions:

a. No Satisfactory Commercial Source Available. Either no commercial source is capable of providing the needed product or service, or use of such a source would cause unacceptable delay or disruption of an essential program. Findings shall be supported as follows:

(1) If the finding is that no commercial source is capable of providing the needed product or service, the efforts made to find commercial sources must be documented and made available to the public upon request. These efforts shall include, in addition to consideration of preferential procurement programs (see Part I, Chapter 1, paragraph C of the Supplement) at least three notices describing the requirement in the Commerce Business Daily over a 90-day period or, in cases of bona fide urgency, two notices over a 30-day period. Specifications and requirements in the solicitation shall not be unduly restrictive and shall not exceed those required of in-house Government personnel or operations.

(2) If the finding is that a commercial source would cause unacceptable delay or disruption of an agency program, a written explanation, approved by the assistant secretary or designee in paragraph 9.a. of the Circular, must show the specific impact on an agency mission in terms of cost and performance. Urgency alone is not adequate reason to continue in-house operation of a commercial activity. Temporary disruption resulting from conversion to contract is not sufficient support for such a finding, nor is the possibility of a strike by contract employees. If the commercial activity has ever been performed by contract, an explanation of how the instant circumstances differ must be documented. These decisions must be made available to the public upon request.

(3) Activities may not be justified for in-house performance solely on the basis that the activity involves or supports a classified program or the activity is required to perform an agency's basic mission.

(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish criteria for determining when Government performance of a commercial activity is required for national defense reasons. Such criteria shall be furnished to OMB, upon request.

(2) Only the Secretary of Defense or his designee has the authority to exempt commercial activities for national defense reasons.

c. Patient Care. Commercial activities performed at hospitals operated by the Government shall be retained in-house if the agency head, in consultation with the agency's chief medical director, determines that in-house performance would be in the best interests of direct patient care.

d. Lower cost. Government performance of a commercial activity is authorized if a cost comparison prepared in accordance with the Supplement demonstrates that the Government is operating or can operate the activity on an ongoing basis at an estimated lower cost than a qualified commercial source.

9. Action Requirements. To ensure that the provisions of this Circular and its Supplement are followed, each agency head shall:

a. Designate an official at the assistant secretary or equivalent level and officials at a comparable level in major component organizations to have responsibility for implementation of this Circular and its Supplement within the agency.

b. Establish one or more offices as central points of contact to carry out implementation. These offices shall have access to all documents and data pertinent to actions taken under the Circular and its Supplement and will respond in a timely manner to all requests concerning inventories, schedules, reviews, results of cost comparisons and cost comparison data.

c. Be guided by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 24.2 (Freedom of Information Act) in considering requests for information.

d. Implement this Circular and its Supplement with a minimum of internal instructions. Cost comparisons shall not be delayed pending issuance of such instructions.

e. Ensure the reviews of all existing in-house commercial activities are completed within a reasonable time in accordance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 and the Supplement.

10. Annual Reporting Requirement. As required by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 and Appendix 2 of the Supplement, no later than June 30 of each year, agencies shall submit to OMB a Commercial Activities Inventory and any supplemental information requested by OMB. After review and consultation by OMB, agencies will transmit a copy of the Commercial Activities Inventory to Congress and make the contents of the Inventory available to the public. Agencies will follow the process provided in the Supplement for interested parties to challenge (and appeal) the contents of the inventory.

11. OMB Responsibility and Contact Point. All questions or inquiries should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Room 6002 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Telephone number (202) 395-6104, FAX (202) 395-7230.

12. Effective Date. This Circular and the changes to its Supplement are effective immediately.

Recommendations For The Short Term

After the shutdown is over, legislation has been passed to compensate the civil servants and contracts have been modified to ensure companies providing the privatized workers receive the original contract value, however the privatized workers are not compensated for lost wages.

The argument is that companies cannot bill the government for work not performed. However, the civil servants are compensated for work not performed. One interpretation of law is used to deny wages to one group out of two groups of workers that are both equally hurt by the shutdown.

Another interpretation can be that the law should treat everyone equally. If the privatized workers are not paid then the civil servants should not be paid. If the civil servants are retroactively compensated for work not performed then the privatized workforce should be retroactively compensated for work not performed.

As the shutdown time increases there comes a point where healthcare and other benefits such as retirement, 401K contributions, and other benefits are impacted. The privatized workers may move to more expensive COBRA healthcare and lose time that contributes to their benefits before their civil servant coworkers because of shorter pay cycles.

The recommended remedy to this gross injustice is based on the concept that everyone must be treated equally under the law:

1. All future legislation that allows civil servants to be compensated after a shutdown must include their privatized counterparts who work side by side everyday as part of the United States of America government functions.

2. Further an investigation of previous shutdowns must be performed to determine how previous shutdowns affected the privatized workforce and if needed they must be compensated for their lost income since 1988.

3. Legislation must be provided to ensure that such gross injustice does not occur in the future.

It's not that complex. Essentially each contract for privatized workers is automatically updated to include a new payment associated with the shutdown.

Automatically reimbursing privatized workers after a government shutdown also should be added to the body of law for future shutdowns so that companies providing privatized workers can float the costs of the shutdown using traditional financial mechanisms such as their banks. The guarantee of government reimbursement will allow this to happen. This is critical because these contracts do not have sufficient overhead to carry employees during shutdowns.

It is unfortunate that special legislation is needed to deal with a dysfunction of government. This is a symptom of a larger systemic problem associated with privatization and the role of government. Executive Order 12607 - President's Commission on Privatization may have been issued with the best of intentions, however there is now decades of empirical data to suggested that there are serious unintended consequences and that there is significant harm.

The reality is as we pursued the path of privatization beginning in 1987 no one really bothered to investigate the role of government and industry. Basic civics class 101 was never considered. This analysis needs to happen and future policy needs to be established to correct this serious problem that leads to constant budget standoffs and government shutdowns that penalize one group of workers while preserving another group of workers. There is more on this topic at:

Recommendations for Privatization Transformation

The USA has wasted 30 years of funds spent on millions of people in entities that are not performing in the market. This needs to stop. The issue is how to make an effective transition. This will require significant analysis but these are some guidelines.

The Federal Government must stop the practice of lowest bidder to justify lowest costs at the destruction of the worker. Money must be put back into the Overhead items. Yes the costs will be higher than the costs of a civil service organization because there is management overhead associated with administration and control on both ends and there is a fee (profit) that must be paid. However we now have to fix the damage and move forward with a new system.

There should be no large companies deriving more than 50% of their revenues from government services. They need to figure it out - merge, invest, do something to engage in the economy and grow it. No one will do this voluntarily so legislation may be needed for companies to wean themselves off government funds. Legislation must be passed so that after 5 years no entity can derive more than 50% of its earnings from the government unless it is less than 200 employees where 50% are highly experienced or end of career workers or 100% employee owned.

Money and compensation is much simpler to manage today than 30 years ago when entities were conceived where their only purpose was to print pay checks. The Government must establish a mechanism that cannot be compromised where people can directly bill the government for services provided. This may not be possible because of the inability to check corruption. However it should be examined and part of the detailed analysis.

Copyright 2018. This content may be freely distributed and referenced as long as the author is clearly identified.
When using this paper for critical review or significant meetings the author requests that he be contacted and made aware of the events.

Privatization Effects During Government Shutdowns

Introduction

Privatization Links

Internet Version

Systems Perspective

Privatization Key Executive Orders and Reports