Tide Change in Langley's Blue-Green Sea?

The CIA has begun a project to be completed by July 1 to determine which jobs must be carried out by government employees and which are more suited for contractors, Stephen Barr reports in Monday's Washington Post.  (See also Barr & Pincus article.) Sorting the blue from the green in the aquamarine sea at Langley seems to be a response to an internal CIA study on industrial outsourcing which was very similar to the larger one conducted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI.)  To the Agency's credit, they seem to be taking their version of the study somewhat more seriously.

Until a week or so ago, contractors ruled, but suddenly someone panicked and the atmosphere shifted--at least for long enough to make a good, quick show of things.  The squeeze on contractors has begun--or at least the first wave of bureaucratic overreaction has hit. 

Now to sift through the thousands of Agency positions--green and blue--to determine which jobs are performing "inherently governmental functions" in such a short time seems more like a CIA CYA move, particularly with Congress breathing down their neck. 

The House's Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2008 released on May 7 took multiple shots at the Intelligence Community's reliance upon contractors:

A recent Intelligence Community contractor survey did not include a review of accountability mechanisms in cored contracts, nor any data to judge whether any contractors have committed waste, fraud, abuse, or criminal violations.  Based on this and other observations, the Committee has concluded that Intelligence Community leaders do not have an adequate understanding of the size and composition of the contractor work force, [sic] a consistent and well-articulated method for assessing contractor performance, or strategies for managing a combined staff-contractor workforce. 

Particularly key to this ongoing process is:

In addition, the Intelligence Community does not have a clear definition of what functions are, "inherently governmental" and, as a result, whether there are contractors performing inherently governmental functions.

The best way to keep Congress at bay is to define positions in relation to inherently governmental functions before someone wants a closer look.  Once the exercise is complete, things are covered in case someone is summoned to the Hill. 

As I've stated many times, the contractors are smart and they know that the question of "inherently governmental functions" has been ramping up for some time.  They're keenly aware of this when formulating statements of work, so I suspect almost all green badger positions will remain unchanged--by design.

But a very interesting question is, what about all those functions that are never written into the statement of work, but are agreed upon between the individual industrial contractor and the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR)?   Could it be this is how the ones are handled that are so obviously "inherently governmental" that no one wants to sign off on them...

 

If the comments by the ADD Michael Morell in the Post column are any indication as to the political flavor of this categorization effort, the little green mermaids have little to worry about:

"In no way is this something negative about contractors." The contract staff is just as passionate about the CIA's mission as the career cadre, he said.

Don't worry, guys.  We're managing this one.  Remember what the ODNI said, "We can't spy...if we can't buy." It's cool, Brad.

Now the poaching problem has become legendary and even this is being addressed.  First it was contractors headhunting Agency employees, then contractors began poaching one another, driving salaries for mid-level functions beyond what some senior Agency leadership was paid.  On this issue, Morell spun the dirty laundry like a seasoned Public Affairs Officer:

Morell said, individual offices have been hiring contract secretaries, which are in short supply at the CIA. "And as a result, they have been bidding up the price of these secretaries, sometimes bidding for exactly the same secretary," he said.

Right.  I'm sure that's why green badger salaries got capped in the six figures--the (covert) secretary wars, Spy vs. Spy at its worst.

-------------------

To my regular readers, this is my 100th post on The Spy Who Billed Me.  Whew! I had high expectations for this blog when I started it in late September 2006, but they have been long surpassed.  It made the New York Times Week in Review in April for the exclusive interview with Gary Jackson, president of Blackwater and it's made national headlines over the past week.

Despite all of this, my favorite post remains:

Why You Should Never Use Your Shoe Phone After Stepping in Polonium-210.

And the best things to come out of it is some of the friendships I've made.  Thank all of you for your support!

RJH

And it's only one more day until OUTSOURCED officially goes on sale! Be among the first to read the first spy thriller about this new wold of an OUTSOURCED CIA:

Comments

[Proud American Liberal]

I can tell you, as a contractor, that rampant contracting by both government and industry is destroying our economy, our infrastructure, our security, and our system of government. Regular employees who haven't been downsized or outsourced are carrying the load of four or five people. Projects don't get completed. Security (as in badges and computer access) is extended to thousands of workers who have no loyalty or stake in the company or agency they are ocntracted to. Critical infrastructure is being neglected due to cost considerations (read PROFITS). We are headed for collapse.

[Retired]

I have certainly witnessed overworked and inexperienced staffers trying to manage too many contracts in an attempt to efficiently and effectively accomplish what line government employees used to do. Adding to the problem is the fact that half of the contractor on-site supervisors working for the staffers are their ex-bosses! It would be bad enough having one ex-boss work for you. Three or four all at once, along with another four or so of your former contemporaries who previously ranked above you on the career service promotion list before scooting to pick up a paycheck almost twice your own, is just asking too much.