National Federation of Federal Employees
Affiliated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
FOREST SERVICE COUNCIL
We work for America every day
William R. Dougan, President         Michael Bunten, Secretary-Treasurer

Date: May 7, 2003

To: Dale Bosworth, Chief

From: Bill Dougan

Subject: Selection of Work Activities for Competitive Sourcing Study

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your April 29 letter asking for feedback on work activities to study in FY04 and FY05. I would offer the following comments from the union on this topic:

We question why the agency continues to pursue competitive sourcing relative to "targets" for FY04 and FY05, as referenced in item 5. in the white paper, "Strategic Selection of Work Activities For Competitive Sourcing Study", which was an attachment to your letter. To our knowledge, there are currently no targets assigned by OMB or other federal agency requiring minimum numbers or percentages of FTEs to be studied in FY04 and FY05. OMB has made it clear in recent communications to both Congress and the media that they have withdrawn any targets or numbers of FTEs for federal agencies to study under the President's Management Agenda for FY04 and beyond. Congress has also expressed their concern over the notion of targets of an arbitrary nature through recent language in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. For the agency to continue to pursue competitive sourcing targets seems to not be consistent with current direction, unless of course the agency has self-imposed these targets on itself for some reason.

The union does not support any of the options listed in the white paper for the selection of work activities to study. We believe that if the stated goals of competitive sourcing, which are to increase effectiveness and efficiency of goods and services delivered to the customers of the agency, are to be truly realized, competitive sourcing is the wrong tool to use to reach these goals. Competitive sourcing by its very nature focuses on individual work functions, rather than the organization as a whole; because of this, any individual gains in efficiency and effectiveness that might be achieved in a single work function through competing the work will not necessarily result in a more efficient Forest Service organization or a more efficient agency. This is due to the interconnected, interrelated, and multi-tasking nature of many of our work functions and our workforce (so clearly illustrated with the collateral duties issues that have surfaced during competitive sourcing, especially related to fire duties). We see the agency being put at risk of becoming an agency that could end up being efficient within individual work functions but highly dysfunctional when looked at as an agency from a holistic point of view. We also believe that our agency may find itself incapable of delivering critical services, such as fire suppression, to the nation due to fragmentation of work functions under competitive sourcing. We would encourage you to look at other options available to the agency that would better address this problem of dealing "holistically" with agency effectiveness and efficiency, such as High Powered Work Organizations (developed by our union affiliate IAMAW and successfully implemented in the private sector) or strategic sourcing, recently and successfully used by some Department of Defense installations in lieu of A-76 studies imposed upon those facilities.

With respect to other questions your letter asked feedback on, in answer to questions 2.and 3., the union does not and will not endorse any of the work activities listed for study, since we do not endorse competitive sourcing as a process to achieve agency efficiency and effectiveness. Again, we would endorse use of either High Power Work Organizations or strategic sourcing to analyze and make effective changes in the entire organization and all work processes of the agency versus the piece-meal approach used by competitive sourcing.

I believe that it is difficult for any of the audience you have asked to respond to your letter to formulate intelligent responses to these questions. The lack of knowledge on how other units (other than our own) function and are organized, as well as the lack of information on what work other units do, makes it difficult to provide meaningful input on what functions to study and how to study them. There is no clear understanding of how many people might be affected as a result of studying any particular work function, what "other" duties, such as fire or other collateral duties, might be affected as a result of studying any particular work function, and whether any specific work functions are currently "inefficient" as they are currently structured.

I would like to share a message I received from one of our union officials relating to competitive sourcing, which I believe illustrates many of the points the union has been trying to make on what is wrong with this initiative:

"When I contract out work or spend money for any service my criteria consist of:
1. Customer service
2. Character and integrity
3. Quality of the product/service
4. Cost

Cost is the last criteria and not the first as costs are generally competitive. It is customer service, character and integrity, and quality of the product that separate best, good, acceptable, poor, and unacceptable products or service. I am willing to pay more for reliable service than settle for the least cost at the sacrifice of what I feel are the most important business assets of the service provider. After careful consideration of Competitive Sourcing, I have come to the conclusion this is what is fundamentally wrong with the thought process supporting this initiative."

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the feedback from the union on this issue.

/s/Bill