A-76 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
| Q: |
What is A-76? |
 |
| A: |
OMB Circular A-76 establishes Federal policy regarding the performance of commercial activities. The circular establishes procedures (cost comparison) for determining whether commercial activities should be performed under contract with commercial sources or in-house using Government personnel. |
| Q: |
Where can I go to learn more about Commercial Sourcing (the A-76 Process)? |
| |
| A: |
We have a number of links from this web page to OMB Circular A-76 - Performance of Commercial Activities. Links to the circular, supplemental handbook, transmittal memorandum, Year 2002 inventory of commercial activities and OMB's FAIR Act inventory. We also have A-76 Related Links to Government Executive Magazine links and information related to A-76 and outsourcing. In reviewing these resources, heavily laden with A-76 related terms, you may wish to refer to a link we have set up on the NIH A-76 web page: Definition of Terms. |
| Q: |
What are the various types of Competitive Sourcing Reviews? |
| |
| A: |
Generally, there are two types of reviews, standard reviews and streamlined reviews. The rules of A-76 require that standard reviews be completed within 12 months, with an extension of up to 6 months available in rare circumstances. Under the standard review procedures, the agency develops a proposal for a “most efficient organization” or “MEO” that competes with bids from the private sector. Under a streamlined review, agencies calculate the cost of how they currently do business and compare this to an estimated private sector cost using documented market research or soliciting cost proposals in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Under a second type of streamlined review, the agency also develops an MEO as part of the process. Streamlined reviews must be completed in 90 days, with 45-day extension possible in cases where the agency develops an MEO. |
| Q: |
Where can I go to learn more about Commercial Sourcing (the A-76 Process)? |
| |
| A: |
You can find a number of links from this web page to OMB Circular A-76 - Performance of Commercial Activities. Links to the circular, supplemental handbook, transmittal memorandum, Year 2002 inventory of commercial activities and OMB's FAIR Act inventory. You may also want to consult the A-76 Related Links to Government Executive Magazine, which contains additional information related to A-76 and outsourcing. In reviewing these resources, heavily laden with A-76 related terms, you may wish to refer to a link we have set up on the NIH A-76 web Page: Definition of Terms. |
| Q: |
Will Lead Extramural Administrative Support Review Techs be included in
Extramural Administrative Support Review? |
| |
| A: |
Yes, at least initially. There is sufficient vagueness on what would potentially
make this function Inherently Governmental as well as the consistency with
how it is being reported across ICs. We will include this function in the
review in order to more clearly define it, and based on the review we will
work with the Extramural Administrative Support Review Co-chair group to
determine if it should be classified as IG, Commercial Core, or Commercial
Competitive, and how to best apply it consistently across the ICs. We believe
this is the only way to fairly review this function. |
| Q: |
Should the support staff (by whatever title is used) for all managers and
supervisors in program, review, and Extramural Administrative Support Review
management such as branch and IRG chiefs, division directors, and heads
of extramural activities/EPMC representatives be interviewed? |
| |
| A: |
Yes. This will provide the PWS Team with the most data from which to craft
the PWS. |
| Q: |
What code should be used for the more senior scientific managers and supervisors,
such as branch and IRG chiefs, division directors, and heads of extramural
activities/EPMC representatives? |
| |
| A: |
ICs seem to have used a variety of codes - 103.3A, 103.3B, 140.7, and perhaps
others that we have not yet discovered. How to achieve consistency in this
area will be a topic of discussion for a future Extramural Administrative
Support Review Function Committee meeting. |
| Q: |
Should program analysis (R103.9) and program analysis support (R103.10)
FTEs be interviewed? |
| |
| A: |
Yes if they serve an extramural function (program, review, or Extramural
Administrative Support Review management). We understand that this will
include staff with a broad range of grade levels and responsibilities. However,
because ICs may use a wide variety of titles and grade levels to perform
this function, the Extramural Administrative Support Review Function committee
can think of no other way to achieve equity across ICs. The interviews will
help determine which functions fit within the developing Performance Work
Statement and which do not. |
| Q: |
Are committee management (R103.15) and committee management support (R103.16)
included in the Extramural Administrative Support Review function? |
| |
| A: |
The Extramural Administrative Support Review Function Committee has not
yet made a determination. In most ICs, they serve intramural and extramural
and the Office of the Director in the IC. For the purposes of the FY03 Extramural
Administrative Support Review function interviews, committee management
support (R103.16) staff members will NOT be interviewed. The function MAY
eventually move out of Extramural Administrative Support Review and into
general admin. |
| Q: |
Will the activities/functions of the people who are interviewed be automatically
considered part of the developing Performance Work Statement? |
| |
| A: |
No. Being interviewed does not mean that person's activities/function
will be subjected to competitive sourcing. The Performance Work Statement
must be composed of elements that fit well together. Some activities/functions
may simply not fit within the final PWS. |
| Q: |
What is a type 2 senior scientist? Will these positions be affected? |
| |
| A: |
You can find a description of category 2 senior scientists in the Intramural Research Sourcebook at http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/prof-desig/srsci-cli.htm. As a result of the pre-planning process for FY 2004 competitions, NIH has decided not to compete this function. |
| Q: |
Need management to demonstrate respect for employees, e.g., by seeking
employee input early on how to respond to or implement A-76 measures. |
| |
| A: |
NIH has conducted several overviews of the competitive sourcing (A-76)
requirement and process, both at the past three NIH Director All-hands meetings
and at two A-76 specific all-hands meetings. Several additional briefings
were held with staff in functions reviewed in 2003. Additional briefings will be scheduled in the future, particularly for functional groups
identified for a competitive sourcing review. In the interim, you can find
additional information on the A-76 process on the NIH A-76 web page at:
http://a-76.nih.gov/. In addition, if you would like to provide comments
or suggestions on how this process is applied at NIH, you can submit ideas
to: A76@od.nih.gov. |
| Q: |
Has anyone identified for NIH and DHHS the real impact of A-76 on employees,
customers, and the long-term reputation of NIH? Employees would like to
see cost/benefit data that makes a clear argument for competitive sourcing. |
| |
| A: |
Since this is the first time NIH (and most civilian agencies) have conducted
A-76 reviews in the past 15 years, there is not much hard data related to
the “real impact.” |
| Q: |
How do the Institutes and our customers feel about going to contractors? |
| |
| A: |
Although there is a risk that contractors may win these reviews, it is
not a given. NIH is doing everything it can, within the requirements, to
give the government bid every opportunity for success. Based on what we
have heard from the ICs, they are primarily concerned for the welfare of
the staff, and that regardless of who wins the bid, that the level of service
continue. |
| Q: |
What are the jobs for which people will be competing in 2004? |
| |
| A: |
The functions/categories that will be reviewed in 2004 are:
(1) information technology
(2) logistics and material handling
(3) material management
(4) visual and medical arts
(5) veterinary and animal support
Four other functions originally identified for review (laboratory safety, fire protection and suppression, committee management, and the intramural research fellow program/category 2 senior scientists) were removed from the list as a result of the pre-planning process.
|
| Q: |
What jobs are being considered for outsourcing in the next 5 years? |
| |
| A: |
In addition to the functions to be reviewed in 2004 listed in the answer to the previous question, NIH is working on a list of functions to be reviewed for 2005. Once the 2005 decisions have been finalized, an announcement
will go out to the NIH community.
|
| Q: |
What are the "safe" careers to train towards? |
| |
| A: |
That depends on how you define “safe.” The activities that
meet the definition of “inherently governmental” (IG) are
the safest as far as avoiding inclusion in a competitive sourcing review.
Keep in mind, however, that NIH prepares its inventory of commercial and
IG activities based on an individual’s preponderance of duties (where
they spend most of their time), so just because someone is listed in an
IG function, does not mean that they do not also do work in commercial
areas. Anyone performing any commercial activities could potentially be
included in the scope of a competitive sourcing review. |
| Q: |
What positions are available and inherently governmental? |
| |
| A: |
An inherently governmental activity is an activity that is so intimately
related to the public interest as to mandate performance by government
personnel. These activities require the exercise of substantial discretion
in applying government authority and/or in making decisions for the government.
Inherently governmental activities normally fall into two categories:
the exercise of sovereign government authority or the establishment of
procedures and processes related to the oversight of monetary transactions
or entitlements. An inherently governmental activity involves:
(1) Binding the Unites States to take or not to take some action by contract,
policy, regulation, authorization, order, or otherwise;
(2) Determining, protecting, and advancing economic, political, territorial,
property, or other interests by military or diplomatic action, civil or
criminal judicial proceedings, contract management, or otherwise;
(3) Significantly affecting the life, liberty, or property of private
persons; or
(4) Exerting ultimate control over the acquisition, use, or disposition
of United States property (real or personal, tangible or intangible),
including establishing policies or procedures for the collection, control,
or disbursement of appropriated and other federal funds.
|
| Q: |
Is it anticipated that any minority groups (including women and persons
with disabilities) will be disproportionately affected by the A-76 Process?
If so, what steps are being taken to prevent this? |
| |
| A: |
The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Management (OEODM) has
been involved with A-76 initiatives from the start. OEODM has been evaluating
the potential effects of outsourcing in an effort to predict and prevent
any unintentional adverse impact. In addition, the NIH Diversity Council
has formed a subcommittee to coordinate workforce issues related to restructuring,
and that subcommittee continues to meet on a regular basis in order to
remain aware of the latest developments.
|
| Q: |
How does NIH intend to account for the institutional knowledge that will
be lost as a result of outsourcing? |
| |
| A: |
This issue is not new. Regular staff turnover and attrition can lead
to a loss of valuable knowledge, and NIH is always seeking to retain as
much of it as possible. Because the A-76 process requires a schedule of
functions to be studied, staff can anticipate and begin to prepare for
changes that may come. This will allow adequate time for sharing knowledge
and experiences, as well as proper training. Federal project officers
who oversee these new contracts must take the necessary steps to acquire
the knowledge and skills necessary for proper oversight and management.
|
| Q: |
Can the Department provide assurances that the A-76 Process will not compromise
the mission of NIH? |
| |
| A: |
Yes, but much of the responsibility for preserving NIH’s programs
lies within its own staff. All employees must do all they can to minimize
any disruption brought by A-76 and any other restructuring initiatives
while still ensuring that we meet our requirements under the President’s
Management Agenda, including competitive sourcing. |
| Q: |
Why is NIH still hiring from outside the Government for commercial-related
functions when we know A-76 is not going away? |
| |
| A: |
As long as NIH retains the function, a viable workforce has to be maintained.
The Agency does not assume that a function will be outsourced merely because
a cost-comparison study is planned. However, NIH management will continue
to limit hiring in areas where outsourcing could occur in order to minimize
the number of displaced employees. |
| Q: |
How does NIH plan to recruit the best people while publicly stating that
it intends to contract out a percentage of the workforce? In other words,
why would anyone start a new career in the federal government with A-76
issues as a future threat to any position? |
| |
| A: |
NIH does not have a target for contracting out work to the private
sector. A-76 targets only require that a percentage of the NIH commercial
workforce be reviewed. NIH continues to offer an exceptional opportunity
for scientific and administrative staff to be part of a respected and
successful Federal program. |
| Q: |
Provide all ORS/ORFDO employees with a visual time line of A-76 (a calendar,
diagram, flow chart, etc.) from its inception to its current status to its
final implementation). This could show dates of various A-76 initiatives
under various Presidential Administrations, number of Federal Government
positions outsourced at each initiative, date when current A-76 initiative
began, deadline dates for completion of CART reviews for each of the functions,
and approximate dates after the review is completed when employees will
learn whether their function has been outsourced or will be retained. |
| |
| A: |
It’s not evident how this will help NIH meet its requirement
under the current Presidential Management Agenda, of which competitive
sourcing is a part. For each review conducted under the current OMB Circular
A-76, a full generic A-76 review can take 12 months from announcement
that the review has begun to announcement of a tentative decision on whether
the function will be kept in-house or outsourced. The announcement of
the tentative decision is a public announcement, so everyone will know
at the same time. As stated previously, there has been little A-76 activity
in the past 15 years so there is very little historical data that would
be of significance for this Department. |
| Q: |
Call a brainstorming meeting of employees to identify the real impact
of A-76 on employees, the organizations, and on NIH and to identify questions
that need to be asked. Then arrange a meeting of about 1000 employees and
invite a Congressional representative or Tommy Thompson to respond to these
questions. |
| |
| A: |
We believe that this administration has a full understanding and appreciation
of the issues and concerns involved in competitive sourcing reviews. The
goal of the competition is to make sure that the taxpayer is not paying
more for government programs that are commercial in nature if private
industry can do the same job cheaper. In order to minimize the potential
for negative impact on the employees, Secretary Thompson has determined
that everyone will continue to have a job. |
| Q: |
Why can’t HHS (like EPA and DOD) get a time extension on A-76? |
| |
| A: |
Currently, there is no indication that we require a time extension.
The A-76 teams have made great progress. NIH has put intelligent people
on our teams who know the programs under review. We have dealt with problems
and concerns in a timely and direct fashion. We have added additional
resources and reviews in the form of mock bids, additional review team
support, and blue panel reviews, all of which have indicated that NIH
has done a good job and that the materials developed to date as part of
the review process are good. The review teams have made modifications
to the requirements or the government bids where risks have been identified. |
| Q: |
Is the information even true? |
| |
| A: |
The information NIH management conveys is true. However, given the
changing environment and changing requirements, what may be true one day,
may be revised the next day. NIH management is making every effort to
convey the most accurate information in a thoughtful and timely manner.
Information posted on the A-76 website ( http://a-76.nih.gov/) is kept
as current as possible and is a good source to verify information. |
| Q: |
Why is it that when we go to meetings with upper management, there is
no concrete information communicated? |
| |
| A: |
NIH management tries to communicate the information that is known at
the time of the discussion. However, the issues are complicated and there
are many variables that are still unknown. NIH management is trying to
deal with many, often competing, requirements. Another obstacle is trying
to clearly convey complex information with many subtleties in simple and
straightforward language. NIH management is dealing with this in the best
way it knows how. NIH management is making every effort to convey the most accurate information in a thoughtful and timely manner. Information posted on the A-76 website (http://a-76.nih.gov/) is kept as current as possible and is a good source to verify information. |
| Q: |
I am a Project Officer and have responsibility for managing an NIH contract.
I have been recorded on the FAIR inventory as Inherently Governmental (IG).
Is it therefore accurate to say that I am exempt from the cost comparison
process? |
| |
| A: |
No. It is the function of the Project Officer that is IG, not the individual.
NIH is restricted from outsourcing the oversight of government contracts
(IG functions). However, the individual generally has assignments that
are made up from both IG and commercial functions. NIH has the authority
to restructure the functions that make up an individual’s assignments
to meet the mission regardless of whether they are commercial or IG. Just
because an individual has been designated as IG for the FAIR Act inventory
because the preponderance of their duties are currently considered IG,
does not mean the function is exempt from review and restructuring. It
is entirely possible that a given individual’s responsibilities,
both IG and commercial could be reorganized to support a more efficient
and effective structure. |
| Q: |
Can contractors be involved in the reviews and answer questions about
their role in meeting the NIH mission? |
| |
| A: |
Contractors can provide information, but should not be involved in
the decision making process. Once a contractor is involved in the decision
making process, they will be restricted from competing for the work. |
| Q: |
What changes were made to the functions originally scheduled for review?
|
| |
| A: |
Previously, On October 30, 2002, we sent out an all-hands memo outlining
the functions to be reviewed in 03 and 04. It listed a number of smaller
reviews that we thought we would conduct. However, due to difficulties
in finding comparable contracts for many of these reviews, the number
of reviews, and the changes being made to Circular A-76, Warden Associates
and the Commercial Activities Review Team (CART) recommended a shift to
two or three large reviews. Performing the larger reviews will also allow
NIH the opportunity to submit a Most Efficient Organization (MEO) proposal
that will allow the NIH employees currently in those jobs a better opportunity
to compete against the private sector. This change of review strategy
was approved by the A-76 Steering Committee.
Changes in the Real Property Management and Installation Services functions:
The majority of the changes involved a repackaging to combine most of
the Real Property Management and Installation Services reviews scheduled
in both 03 and 04 to now compete them in 03.
Changes in the Extramural Administrative Support Review functions: The
current plan is to review the Extramural Administrative Support Review
Tech and admin support functions in Program, Review and Extramural Administrative
Support Review Management areas all in 03. Previously the Extramural Administrative
Support Review Management Tech function was scheduled to be reviewed in
03 and the review functions were identified for review in 04. However,
in discussions with, several EOs, Chick Leasure, and the Extramural Administrative
Support Review Co-chair Working Group there was a consensus that it did
not make sense from a programmatic perspective to compete these similar
functions separately and potentially end up with separate contracts if
the outcome of the review resulted in a decision to outsource.
Fire Protection function: We are continuing the review of the Fire Protection
function as mandated by the budget pass back and with an expected completion
date in FY 04.
|
| Q: |
How far down the management structure is management protected from the
A-76 Process? |
| |
| A: |
Nobody is “protected” from A-76. Once a function is identified
for review at NIH, all staff in that function are included in the review.
|
| Q: |
What performance measurements and consequences will be put in place to
hold contractors to performing the work for the price, standard, and within
the timeframe of the original bid? |
| |
| A: |
Any contractor who wins a competition under the A-76 competitive sourcing process would be held to the same standards and requirements as any other contractor under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Specifically, contractors are evaluated based upon a number of criteria, including their performance relative to the Statements of Work to which they bid. It is, therefore, imperative that the Performance Work Statement on which the contractor and federal employees compete accurately describes the requirements of the function, and that these requirements be translated into a common, measurable set of performance criteria.
|
| Q: |
What performance measurements and consequences will be put in place to
ensure that contractors are held to the same standards as Federal employees?
|
| |
| A: |
Contractors are in fact held to performance standards. Contractors
are evaluated based upon a number of criteria, including their performance
relative to the Statements of Work to which they bid. It is therefore
imperative that the Performance Work Statement on which the contractor
and federal employees compete accurately describe the requirements of
the function, and these requirements be translated into a common, measurable
set of performance criteria.
|
| Q: |
I read that now bids will be awarded based on "best value"
rather than lowest cost. Can you please elaborate on how this is supposed
to make the bidding process fairer and when will these new guidelines take
effect at NIH? |
| |
| A: |
Under the old circular A-76, under which the 2003 and previous competitions were conducted, the competitive sourcing review was determined based solely on the lowest cost of those proposals that were determined to be technically acceptable. Under the revised circular A-76, under which the 2004 competitions and beyond will be conducted, the Source Selection Authority or SSA (the agency official who decides who has won the competition) may consider factors other than cost in making this determination. This process, commonly known as a "best value" approach, is referred to in the new circular as a "tradeoff souce selection process." Where such a process is used, the SSA must include in the performance decision document: (1) a narrative explanation of the tradeoffs performed; and (2) a rationale for the decision to award to other than the low-cost provider. No matter what type of process is used, however, if there are performance requirements they must be included in the Performance Work Statement (similar to a Statement of Work) and both the contractor offer and the federal offer are compared against the Performance Work Statement.
|
| Q: |
How much advance notice will employees receive if it is determined their
function is going to be contracted out? |
| |
| A: |
We are trying to give employees as much notice as possible, generally
two to four weeks before a review is begun, but
it is possible that the timeframes could be much shorter as the scope
of the review is clarified and additional employees are added or removed
from the scope. Once the review is completed, employees will be notified
of the results. As part of the review process, the government must develop
a transition plan (for converting either to a Most Efficient Organization
or to contract). In the event that a function is to be converted to contract,
the government generally has one year to convert the function.
|
| Q: |
Will the cost of doing background checks and maintaining campus security
be incorporated into workload estimate? |
| |
| A: |
Background checks and campus security are a requirement regardless
of who is performing the function. Therefore, it would only be included
as a cost factor if it were unique to the contractor of federal employees.
|
| Q: |
Will attrition and/or contractors currently at NIH count towards the A-76
requirements? |
| |
| A: |
If the functions being reviewed
have vacancies, those will count toward the review for credit. However, contractors currently at NIH only counted in 2003 if we had directly converted all or part of the function during the review period (under the revised circular, this is no longer an issue as direct conversions are no longer permitted). Current contractors
(already conducting
the function at the beginning of the review) are not credited toward the
review.
|
| Q: |
If I am reassigned to a new function within NIH are there guidelines that
protect me from having my new function reviewed within a certain time period?
|
| |
| A: |
No. If you are reassigned to another commercial function that is then
identified for review, all staff in the function will be included in the
review. It is necessary that the full scope of the function be reviewed.
|
| Q: |
Are there guidelines about reviewing a function more than
once within a certain time period? |
| |
| A: |
Once a function has been reviewed, OMB guidelines state that it should
be reviewed again within 5 years.
|
| Q: |
How do the employees know the FAIR Act Inventory process was
done fairly? |
| |
| A: |
It is our goal to have a process that is transparent and accountable.
Proper documentation is kept for all stages of the review process. Thousands
of staff across NIH are involved in the process. Once a review is completed
it is subjected to independent review to ensure that all factors in the review
are conducted fairly and equitably.
|
| Q: |
My job involves activities that cover more than one function.
How is this reflected in the FAIR Act Inventory? How am I affected if only
some of my job activities fall under a function that is being outsourced? |
| |
| A: |
Under Competitive Sourcing, NIH reviews functions, not individual FTEs. Most of
us conduct more than a single function. However, NIH ran several pilots
and determined that the best way to calculate the function an individual
was assigned to was to list them based on their primary duty (based on
the majority of their time).
|
| Q: |
Who at NIH is involved in implementing the A-76 Process and
conducting the actual reviews? |
| |
| A: |
There are thousands of people involved in the competitive sourcing
(A-76) program at NIH. Some of the key groups include the following: (1) The
Commercial Activities Steering Committee is chaired by the NIH Deputy
Director for Management and includes several IC Executive Officers as
well as key management officials in the Office of the Director; (2) The Commercial
Activities Review Team (CART) in the Office of Management Assessment,
has primary responsibility for coordinating the reviews across NIH; (3) Teams
of program staff (Co-chair workgroups) are involved in reviewing the inventory
of commercial functions at NIH and ensuring that it is being applied uniformly
and consistently across the ICs; and (4) Numerous program offices are involved
in reviewing the functional definitions and assisting the Co-chair groups
with revisions of the inventory as necessary.
|
| Q: |
Were the number of positions to be studied from each IC determined
relative to the absolute size of the IC or was it based on a percentage
of the total number of NIH employees overall? |
| |
| A: |
In 2002, NIH assigned cost comparison requirements to each IC based
on their relative size at NIH (based on total FTE). NIH completed these
reviews and received a passing grade. In 2003 and beyond, NIH is conducting
reviews in a corporate fashion, meaning that a given function is completely
reviewed wherever it exists at NIH, regardless of the size of the IC.
|
| Q: |
How did NIH arrive at its current FAIR Act Inventory of approximately
9000 commercial positions when inventories at other federal agencies (within
HHS and across the government) are only about 20-25% of their total employees?
|
| |
| A: |
NIH worked with program offices to develop definitions of functions
in accordance with the requirements of the FAIR Act which requires the
inventory. ICs then placed their employees in the appropriate function.
Many agencies, including other DHHS operations divisions, have inventories
of commercial activities greater than NIH. We are currently reviewing our inventory to ensure that it accurately reflects the nature of the positions listed, and have already identified functions, such as Fire Protection Services, that we will ask the Department to move from the commercial competitive category.
|
| Q: |
Want more employee input to A-76 process. |
| |
| A: |
The A-76 process itself is dictated through OMB circular A-76. If you
would like to provide comments or suggestions on how this process is applied
at NIH, you can submit those comments to: A76@od.nih.gov.
|
| Q: |
Remind employees by email and hard copy of the telephone number
and email address of the A-76 hotline to call for answers to A-76 questions. |
| |
| A: |
If you would like to provide comments or suggestions on how this process
is applied at NIH, you can submit those comments to: A76@od.nih.gov.
|
| Q: |
Can we see a clear plan for what’s actually going to
happen? |
| |
| A: |
The overall plan for how NIH expects to meet the competitive sourcing
requirements of the President’s Management Agenda are under continuing
development and are rolled out in pieces. For example, the 2003
reviews were completed this Fall. The functional areas that were considered for review for
2004 were announced on July 9 and more information on those reviews will be made available closer to the date they are officially announced. Review plans for specific functions identified
for 2005 review will be announced once they are developed.
|
| Q: |
I need a short course in A-76 and what jobs are being competed. |
| |
| A: |
NIH identified the functions that will be reviewed in 2004 on July 9. (See http://a-76.nih.gov/A-76allhandsmemo7-9-03.pdf. NIH has conducted several overviews of the competitive sourcing (A-76) requirement and process, both at the past two NIH Director All-hands meetings and at two A-76 specific all-hands meetings. Several additional briefings were held with staff in functions currently under review in 2003. Most recently, on October 7, 2003, we held an all-hands meeting on the subject of the transition to the “most efficient organization” or MEO that recently won the Extramural Activities Support Services competition. Additional briefings will be scheduled in the future, particularly for functional groups identified for a competitive sourcing review. In the interim, you can find additional information on the A-76 process on the NIH A-76 web page at: http://a-76.nih.gov/.
|
| Q: |
Since NIH is a scientific community, what evidence exists
(scientific or otherwise) that supports this agenda? |
| |
| A: |
NIH has many functions that support the science at NIH that are commercial
in nature (i.e., they are provided by commercial sources as well). The
NIH is currently supported by hundreds of contracts that provide the service
due to their ability to offer services at a reduced cost and increased
efficiency.
|
| Q: |
What studies have been done to prove Competitive Sourcing
is effective in reducing the cost of performing a particular commercial
activity while maintaining or improving quality? |
| |
| A: |
The Department of Defense has been conducting competitive sourcing
(A-76) reviews for several years and has recorded millions of dollars
in savings. NIH has many functions that support the science at NIH that are commercial in nature (i.e., they are provided by commercial sources as well). The NIH is currently supported by hundreds of contracts that provide the service due to their ability to offer servvices at a reduced cost and increased efficiency. NIH has shown that in many cases, contract performance is
cheaper than performance by Federal employees.
|
| Q: |
Generally, contract employees cost more money than government employees. If this is true, how can the Government expect to save money through Competitive Sourcing? |
| |
| A: |
If the contract bid were shown to cost more than the Federal bid for the work, the contract would be awarded to the Federal offer. Circular A-76 requires tracking of contracts to ensure the contract meets the requirements upon which it bid and won. Under the revised Circular A-76, similar tracking is required for Federal personnel that win an A-76 cost comparison.
|
| Q: |
What does this Administration hope to accomplish through the A-76 Competitive Sourcing Process? |
| |
| A: |
The goal is to have a more responsive government that is cost driven and allows either commercial sources or in-house government personnel to provide the service, depending on who can do the job more cheaply.
|
| Q: |
Where can I find the schedule of functions and corresponding
FTE to be reviewed in FY03 and FY04? |
| |
| A: |
In Fiscal Year 2003 NIH reviewed functions in Real Property Management (RPM) and the Extramural Activities Support Services (EASS). On July 9, 2003, the NIH announced the functional areas under review for study in Fiscal Year 2004 (See http://a-76.nih.gov/A-76allhandsmemo7-9-03.pdf). For Fiscal Year 2004, NIH is completing the pre-planning stage for the following functional areas (1) information technology; (2) logistics and material handling; (3) material management; (4) visual and medical arts; and (5) veterinary and animal support. Four other functions originally identified for review (laboratory safety, fire protection and suppression, committee management, and the intramural research fellow program/category 2 senior scientists) were removed from the list as a result of the pre-planning process. Determining the number of FTE’s involved is part of this pre-planning process and has not yet been determined.
|
|