Senate Report 108-089

COMPETITIVE SOURCING

The Committee has carefully considered the administration's competitive sourcing initiative as it applies to the agencies funded in this bill. The Committee embraces the principle at the root of this initiative, which is that government must continually strive to improve the efficiency of its operations and the delivery of services that it provides. The Committee is deeply concerned, however, at the administration's failure to either budget adequately for the cost of the initiative or describe such costs in budget documents. As a result, significant sums are being expended in violation of the Committee's reprogramming guidelines and at the expense of critical, on-the-ground work such as the maintenance of Federal facilities. The Forest Service alone plans to spend $10,000,000 on competitive sourcing in fiscal year 2003, including $3,000,000 to establish a competitive sourcing office. Such activities were described nowhere in the Forest Service's fiscal year 2003 budget justification, and were not provided for in the fiscal year 2003 conference report or accompanying statement of the managers. The Department of the Interior is also spending significant amounts on the competitive sourcing initiative. Though a belated reprogramming request from the Department has been promised, there is no reason these costs could not have been anticipated and described in budget documents to a much better degree. The Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and other agencies are expected to undertake additional competitive sourcing activities during fiscal year 2004, but the relevant budget documents contain little in the way of additional detail or adequate funding.

The Committee also notes the seeming absence of consideration of previous competitive sourcing experiences, which often have occurred with the Committee's encouragement and active involvement. The National Park Service's Denver Service Center and the mapping activities of the U.S. Geological Survey are two such examples. While the Committee does not contend that agencies should be satisfied to rest on past achievements, it does expect that past successes and failures be evaluated in some detail prior to the launching of major new initiatives. If such an evaluation has taken place, the results have not been presented to the Committee.

As a result of these concerns, the Committee has included language in the bill prohibiting the Forest Service from initiating additional competitive sourcing studies until such time as the Committee has been given a detailed competitive sourcing proposal and has approved such proposal in writing. The proposal should include the number of positions to be studied, the amount of funding required, and the activities from which funding will be reprogrammed. The proposal should also provide the same information for activities undertaken in fiscal year 2003. The Committee notes that this requirement should not be construed as opposition to the careful and considered conduct of a competitive sourcing program. Rather, it is the most prudent way for the Committee to ensure its constitutional prerogative over appropriated funds, and to enable Congress to evaluate the costs and tradeoffs involved in an initiative of this magnitude.