Congress Demands Investigation of Overuse of Contractors

Walter Pincus reported [1] in the Washington Post on Monday that the fiscal 2008 intelligence authorization bill includes a requirement that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell produce a report by March concerning the "activities performed by contractors" in all 16 intelligence agencies and how the outsourcing process at those agencies is overseen.

Apparently Congress is concerned the intelligence community does not understand which functions can appropriately be outsourced and which should be handled by government employees. Perhaps they are also concerned about one estimate showing a core government worker, on average, costs about half as much ($126,500) as a average contracted employee ($250,000). That fact alone is cause for concern. How are contractors supposed to be saving the government money when they are charging twice as much as it would cost the government?

Tom Shoop, who blogs over at Government Executive magazine, quoted [2] another blogger who focuses on the intelligence community who correctly points out [3] the funding structure Congress has implemented has lead to increased levels of outsourcing:

By limiting the number of positions within the Intelligence Community while adding funds for services, Congress set the stage for the wide scale outsourcing we see today, with some 70% of the de facto workforce of the CIA's National Clandestine Service made up of contractors. After years of contributing to the increasing reliance upon contractors, Congress is now providing a framework for the conversion of contractors into federal government employees--more or less.

An interesting aspect to this issue is that Congress has allowed Mr. McConnell the leeway to automatically change positions held by contractors into full-time government positions. McConnell has the authority to increase the size of the intelligence agencies by up to 10 percent.

This approach might be one way to fight back against the raft of outsourcing that has accelerated during the Bush presidency - by giving executive branch personnel the authority to expand government positions automatically rather than having to pound a higher appropriations number through Congress every year for staff increases. I'm curious to see if this tactic will work, and if so, if it will be tried elsewhere in the Federal government. Stay tuned...