- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 47,161
- Likes
- 834
February 21, 2006
GAO announced it was awarding the contract to IAP after years of hearings and protests. That decision noted:
On January 17, 2006, the Army revised its September 29, 2004, conclusion, and announced that it would be more economical to perform base operations support services at Walter Reed using a contract awarded to IAP World Services, Inc., than to have these services continue to be performed in-house using government employees. Mr. King, an Army employee, filed this protest 10 days later. Shortly thereafter, the Army and IAP asked that the protest be dismissed on the ground that Mr. King is not an interested party to challenge the Walter Reed cost comparison study in this forum.
That decision was reported in Home -- Government Executive including more explanations about the process and why concerns should have been reported more widely.
February 24, 2006
The American Federation of Government Employees, which provided funding to back the protest, said the impetus to appeal came from Walter Reed managers who were disappointed to see how the competition process played out. While the initial employee bid was $7 million less than that of IAP Worldwide Services, a mid-stream solicitation change resulted in a recalculation of the bids by all parties and in IAP's bid coming in $7 million lower, said John Threlkeld, a lobbyist for AFGE.
Threlkeld said the process for recalculating the employee bid was flawed, resulting in the inflation of the estimate that rendered it uncompetitive with IAP's bid.
In addition to challenging the validity of the cost recalculation process, the employee group argued that the competition lasted longer than is allowed, and should be canceled. The fiscal 2006 Defense appropriations act, like previous appropriations acts, stipulates that an A-76 competition should last no more than 30 months.
March 23, 2006
A new govexec.com story reported efforts by Eleanor Holmes Norton to fight against privatization:
Employees at Walter Reed Army Medical Center earlier this week lost their final administrative appeal of a decision to outsource base operations work as the result of a public-private job competition.. . .
Even though the appeal was denied, Army officials have yet to sign the contract with IAP Worldwide Services, [Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.] said. She said at the rally that she had secured a postponement of up to six months, pending an inquiry into irregularities in the almost six-year public-private job competition. More on the story and a nice photo of the protest are here.
May 3, 2006
Congress Subjects Privatization Review at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Additional Scrutiny - Congressional Interest Continues to Grow over Controversial Initiative
Washington—The base operations support services privatization review at Walter Reed Medical Center is receiving additional Congressional scrutiny. The review, part of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-76 initiative, has gone on for six years.
Walter Reed employees, represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), initially won the $120 million base operations support services contract in 2004. However, the Army failed to complete the privatization review in the time allowed by law. The Army tried to cancel the privatization effort, but DoD officials refused the request. Earlier this year, over the objections of Walter Reed managers, the Army reversed its earlier decision and awarded the work to a contractor.
June 23, 2006
The protests continued through the summer.
A-76 AND OUTSOURCING: House votes to block Walter Reed outsourcing; Army moves forward
Foes of a controversial public-private job competition at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scored a victory this week when the House approved language to strip funding for a contractor to take over base operations at the facility, complicating Army plans for a transition slated to begin in August.
In a June 7 letter to Sarbanes, William Armbruster, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for privatization and partnerships, estimated that the competition will cost $7.07 million. An additional $5.72 million expected to be incurred in transition costs, including incentives for voluntary separation and retirement, severance pay, and administrative costs.
"The contractor's cost proposal for the five-year term was almost $17.5 million less than the government workforce's cost proposal," Armbruster said. "Even with the extraordinary expenses of this competition, the resultant savings are significant." Based on Armbruster's figures, the savings would total $4.71 million.
John Threlkeld, a lobbyist for the American Federation of Government Employees, wrote in an analysis of the competition that the Army's cost estimate is "demonstrably flawed." It fails, he said, to take into account the $10 million "minimum cost differential" that federal rules require must be applied to contractor bids to account for costs associated with disruption and loss of productivity related to the competition process.
According to a subscription-only BNA story, the American Federation of Government Employee's Legislative Representative John Threlkeld lists some of the ways in which the DOD manipulated the decision-making process in this privatization "competition", including going past the legal time limit for competitions by selectively including only some of the time the competition actually lasted.
However, Threlkeld said that because the congressional waiver of the 30-month limit expired at the end of FY 2004, in FY 2005 and FY 2006 the Army "was in actual violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act."
He also noted that at one point during the 16-month period between the initial decision in favor of the MEO and its subsequent reversal in favor of an award to IAP, the Army asked DOD if it could cancel the competition and DOD instructed the Army to finish the competition.
"They just can't have it both ways," Threlkeld told BNA.
Nov. 7, 2006
Defenselink.com an organ of the privatizers of military services reported:
IAP World Services, Cape Canaveral, Fla., was awarded on Nov. 7, 2006, a $25,800,095 cost-plus-award-fee contract for Base Operations Support at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Work will be performed in Washington, D.C., and is expected to be completed by Nov. 3, 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on June 4, 2003, and one bid was received. The U.S. Army Medical Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, is the contracting activity (W81K04-07-C-0003).
GAO announced it was awarding the contract to IAP after years of hearings and protests. That decision noted:
On January 17, 2006, the Army revised its September 29, 2004, conclusion, and announced that it would be more economical to perform base operations support services at Walter Reed using a contract awarded to IAP World Services, Inc., than to have these services continue to be performed in-house using government employees. Mr. King, an Army employee, filed this protest 10 days later. Shortly thereafter, the Army and IAP asked that the protest be dismissed on the ground that Mr. King is not an interested party to challenge the Walter Reed cost comparison study in this forum.
That decision was reported in Home -- Government Executive including more explanations about the process and why concerns should have been reported more widely.
February 24, 2006
The American Federation of Government Employees, which provided funding to back the protest, said the impetus to appeal came from Walter Reed managers who were disappointed to see how the competition process played out. While the initial employee bid was $7 million less than that of IAP Worldwide Services, a mid-stream solicitation change resulted in a recalculation of the bids by all parties and in IAP's bid coming in $7 million lower, said John Threlkeld, a lobbyist for AFGE.
Threlkeld said the process for recalculating the employee bid was flawed, resulting in the inflation of the estimate that rendered it uncompetitive with IAP's bid.
In addition to challenging the validity of the cost recalculation process, the employee group argued that the competition lasted longer than is allowed, and should be canceled. The fiscal 2006 Defense appropriations act, like previous appropriations acts, stipulates that an A-76 competition should last no more than 30 months.
March 23, 2006
A new govexec.com story reported efforts by Eleanor Holmes Norton to fight against privatization:
Employees at Walter Reed Army Medical Center earlier this week lost their final administrative appeal of a decision to outsource base operations work as the result of a public-private job competition.. . .
Even though the appeal was denied, Army officials have yet to sign the contract with IAP Worldwide Services, [Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.] said. She said at the rally that she had secured a postponement of up to six months, pending an inquiry into irregularities in the almost six-year public-private job competition. More on the story and a nice photo of the protest are here.
May 3, 2006
Congress Subjects Privatization Review at Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Additional Scrutiny - Congressional Interest Continues to Grow over Controversial Initiative
Washington—The base operations support services privatization review at Walter Reed Medical Center is receiving additional Congressional scrutiny. The review, part of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular A-76 initiative, has gone on for six years.
Walter Reed employees, represented by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), initially won the $120 million base operations support services contract in 2004. However, the Army failed to complete the privatization review in the time allowed by law. The Army tried to cancel the privatization effort, but DoD officials refused the request. Earlier this year, over the objections of Walter Reed managers, the Army reversed its earlier decision and awarded the work to a contractor.
June 23, 2006
The protests continued through the summer.
A-76 AND OUTSOURCING: House votes to block Walter Reed outsourcing; Army moves forward
Foes of a controversial public-private job competition at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scored a victory this week when the House approved language to strip funding for a contractor to take over base operations at the facility, complicating Army plans for a transition slated to begin in August.
In a June 7 letter to Sarbanes, William Armbruster, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for privatization and partnerships, estimated that the competition will cost $7.07 million. An additional $5.72 million expected to be incurred in transition costs, including incentives for voluntary separation and retirement, severance pay, and administrative costs.
"The contractor's cost proposal for the five-year term was almost $17.5 million less than the government workforce's cost proposal," Armbruster said. "Even with the extraordinary expenses of this competition, the resultant savings are significant." Based on Armbruster's figures, the savings would total $4.71 million.
John Threlkeld, a lobbyist for the American Federation of Government Employees, wrote in an analysis of the competition that the Army's cost estimate is "demonstrably flawed." It fails, he said, to take into account the $10 million "minimum cost differential" that federal rules require must be applied to contractor bids to account for costs associated with disruption and loss of productivity related to the competition process.
According to a subscription-only BNA story, the American Federation of Government Employee's Legislative Representative John Threlkeld lists some of the ways in which the DOD manipulated the decision-making process in this privatization "competition", including going past the legal time limit for competitions by selectively including only some of the time the competition actually lasted.
However, Threlkeld said that because the congressional waiver of the 30-month limit expired at the end of FY 2004, in FY 2005 and FY 2006 the Army "was in actual violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act."
He also noted that at one point during the 16-month period between the initial decision in favor of the MEO and its subsequent reversal in favor of an award to IAP, the Army asked DOD if it could cancel the competition and DOD instructed the Army to finish the competition.
"They just can't have it both ways," Threlkeld told BNA.
Nov. 7, 2006
Defenselink.com an organ of the privatizers of military services reported:
IAP World Services, Cape Canaveral, Fla., was awarded on Nov. 7, 2006, a $25,800,095 cost-plus-award-fee contract for Base Operations Support at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Work will be performed in Washington, D.C., and is expected to be completed by Nov. 3, 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on June 4, 2003, and one bid was received. The U.S. Army Medical Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, is the contracting activity (W81K04-07-C-0003).
