OCR Text |
Show THE VOICE OF BUSINESS Congress has chance vo tfrim military tfatf by Richard L. Lesher, Pres., Chamber of Commerce of the United States Those who insist that the Defense budget can be trimmed without interfering in-terfering with our needed military buildup are frequently challenged by Pentagon officials to demonstrate where;such savings can be made. That's not always an easy task for those without access to complete information infor-mation on the department's operations, but there is one area that clearly offers opportunities for savings the contracting contrac-ting out to the private sector of certain commercial and industrial services now performed "in-house." Unfortunately, Congress appears to be moving in the opposite direction. In its draft of Department of Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1983 (H.R. 6030), the House Armed Services committee has strongly recommended a one-year moratorium on contracting out by the Pentagon, which could spell disaster for many small businesses that depend on Defense as a customer. As if that were not enough, the bill would also provide 17,000 additional civil service personnel for commercial activities. It deletes all funding for cost comparison studies to evaluate the potential savings of relying on private businesses for various activities. The proposed Military Pay Bill (H.R. 6317) contains language that essentially prohibits pro-hibits the conversion of fire fighting and security services to the private sector. As for the Senate, it has already approved ap-proved an amendment by Sen. George Mithcell (D-Maine) to prohibit the contracting con-tracting out of fire fighting and security needs at military installations. The amendment passed, despite a Pentagon estimate that it will cost the taxpayer an additional $50 million. Defense is not the only department in which your tax dollars could be saved by turning to competitive bidding for contracts in the private sector. The General Accounting Office has estimated that the federal government now performs some 11,000 commercial or industrial activities at a cost of $19 billion per year. Rather than compete unfairly with the private sector at the taxpayers' expense, ex-pense, Uncle Sam could hire businesses, particularly small businesses, to perform many of these services more efficiently and at a cheaper cost. In fact, procurement experts ex-perts estimate that competitive contracts con-tracts can reduce costs of a particular job or service by as much as 25 to 50 percent. The greatest source of opposition to this effort comes from fefc employees and their advocates in Cos gress who fear a loss of jobs and w But current procedures require thai 1 existing in-house activities will not If converted to private contract unless tl move would result in at least a 10 percent per-cent savings in personnel costs, and! the successful bidder on converse must give the right of first refusal to federal employees whose jobs ai jeopardized. These provisions stall remove any legitimate objections ti contracting out. It has been 26 years now since Ik Eisenhower Administration issued ; j directive that the government sk not provide services that put it in cot petition with private industry. It is lit; that the federal government, include! a supposedly deficit-minded Congres take this policy seriously. Taxpayers should insist that whe these defense bills reach the floor i Congress for final action later this mirth, mir-th, that they be made to encore rather than inhibit greater reliances contracts for needed goods and services. ser-vices. The Pentagon, our natiori defense and the civil service would lj survive this modest M tighening and the private sector sure use the business! |