Re: replacing government workers with private contractors. Here’s how that little charade works, and believe me, it saves the taxpayer nothing.
While most government contracts are low bid, this is not the only criteria, and is usually for one-time projects. When contractors bid for a services contract, qualifications are taken into consideration, and this is where the shell game takes place.
A contractor submits his bid package, which has to include the resumes of key employees, from the project manager down to the lower level managers and possibly even further. This sounds good on the surface of things, but what happens is that bidders often submit packages that contain resumes of people that don’t even work for them anymore. Or, they submit resumes of current employees that they have no intention of assigning to this project.
Upon awarding of the project, the contractor, in order to maximize profit, starts filling positions with people who may or may not be qualified to do the work, particularly in the labor and technical positions, and paying them much less than the bid documents indicate. If the government objects, the contractor may claim that this is the best person they can find for the job, or that the person’s experience outweighs the lack of education, credentials or certifications. There can be some back and forth, with the government crying ‘foul’, but in the end the job has to get done and the government will concede with the stipulation that they have right of review if the work isn’t getting done. This personnel shuffle can go on for years. Contracts with union labor employees are a little more difficult to fudge, but in that case, the bidder will do his best to get by with fewer management personnel than are called for, and run the same shell game.
In addition to unqualified people, contractors will substitute substandard equipment and materials. This is particularly so in janitorial and maintenance contracts, and until GSA receives enough complaints, little will be done about it. A janitorial contractor can keep switching products almost indefinitely and things don’t ever get any better.
Anything that is not specifically called out in the contract language, or that is somewhat vague, will cost extra. While the government has gotten better about making sure contracts are all-inclusive, oversights are inevitable, and a contractor will charge exorbitant rates to provide extra services (change orders).
Eventually, work quality suffers. Frequent turnovers in personnel destroys continuity and undermines confidence. As word gets out that this contractor is an asshole to work for, employee quality takes a significant downturn, and before long you can even have dangerous situations where, for instance, someone with no boiler certifications and minimal experience is responsible for a large heating plant. Poor maintenance performed at improper intervals shortens equipment life. When large, expensive pieces of equipment fail, or roofs start leaking, or any number of other things fail to function, it’s not the contractor who pays to replace them unless gross negligence can be proven (a difficult chore).
Bonafides: My wife was a property manager for GSA and saw this going on all the time. Trying to manage contracts that somebody else put into place without doing due diligence was the most stressful part of her job. I worked for a couple of government contractors and saw what was being done firsthand. Believe me, the government takes a bath on these.
