WASHINGTON, D.C.— U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) today led 26 senators on a letter to U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Secretary Leon Panetta urging the DoD to implement sourcing and workforce management laws and to use civilian personnel where possible as opposed to awarding more costly private contracts. The senators are urging the Department to adhere to insourcing laws, and urge against using contract personnel simply because fewer civilian employee slots are available.
“As the Defense Department seeks to reduce costs, it must recognize that the use of private contractors can be more expensive than using direct employees,” Brown said. “The Defense Department must make its sourcing decisions on what is best for our nation and our military, even if that means lifting the arbitrary cap on civilian employee numbers.”
“We are proud of all of our men and women serving the U.S. military. In New York, civilian employees of the Defense Department have proudly served our installations from West Point to Fort Drum. Even as we seek to find more efficiencies, we must continue to honor their service,” said Senator Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“We understand that the defense budget must be adjusted to take into account new national security risks and budgetary realities. However, we are concerned that while the size of the civilian workforce is proposed to be cut back to FY 2010 levels, no comparable constraints were imposed on workforce hired through contractors,” the senators wrote. “We are concerned that this would incentivize managers to use contracting firms rather than civilian employees even when the latter costs less. We also believe that there are a number of sensitive roles that should be performed by direct employees. When determining whether services should be performed by employees or contractors, DoD’s sourcing decisions should be made on the basis of the law, cost, policy, and risk, and not because DoD managers simply have fewer civilian employee slots.”
In addition to Brown and Gillibrand, the letter was signed by Sens. Mikulski, Leahy, Murray, Harkin, Tester, Durbin, McCaskill, Blumenthal, Menendez, Conrad, Shaheen, Merkley, Franken, Klobuchar, Schumer, Stabenow, Sanders, Akaka, Begich, Coons, Casey, Boxer, Wyden, and Lautenberg.
Dear Secretary Panetta:
Thank you for your leadership of the Department of Defense (DoD) during these challenging times. We are proud to support DoD installations that employ military, civilian, and contractor personnel who make invaluable contributions towards ensuring our national security.
We understand that the defense budget must be adjusted to take into account new national security risks and budgetary realities. However, we are concerned that while the size of the civilian workforce is proposed to be cut back to FY 2010 levels, no comparable constraints were imposed on workforce hired through contractors.
We are concerned that this would incentivize managers to use contracting firms rather than civilian employees even when the latter costs less. We also believe that there are a number of sensitive roles that should be performed by direct employees. When determining whether services should be performed by employees or contractors, DoD’s sourcing decisions should be made on the basis of the law, cost, policy, and risk, and not because DoD managers simply have fewer civilian employee slots.
That is why, as the federal government’s largest employer, the DoD must comply with sourcing and workforce management laws, both those that are longstanding as well as those that were included in the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Specifically, we expect DoD to:
As you lead the Department in adjusting to budgetary realities, it is imperative that the Department and the Services build upon and fully integrate the remarkable work done by our civilian personnel. The best way for the Department to accomplish this is by ensuring that it is fully compliant with all relevant sourcing and workforce management laws.
Thank you for your consideration.
###