Home / Acquisition & Procurement / The Administration’s Shifting Tactics on In-sourcing

The Administration’s Shifting Tactics on In-sourcing

Director of the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Shay Assad, Photo: acq.osd.mil

The Defense Department and the White House are recalibrating their public stances on in-sourcing plans.

Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Dan Gordon said this week at an Integrated Resources Management Conference that confusion and misconceptions have long plagued the administration’s plans to bring current private-sector positions in house.

“There have been a lot of misunderstandings,” he said, according to Federal Computer Week. “A year ago, I think people thought we were on the verge of massive in-sourcing.”

But, according to Gordon, that was never the attention, “and I think the record now demonstrates that,” he added.

Director of DoD’s defense procurement and acquisition policy Shay Assad went a step further, saying that the slow down in in-sourcing was an intentional move.

“We’re changing tactics just a little bit,” he said at the spring conference of the Coalition for Government Procurement.

DoD’s original plans originally called for 10,000 positions to be brought in house. So far, DoD has in-sourced about 3,000, Federal Computer Week reported.

Last month Army Secretary John McHugh issued a memo to his acquisition workforce seeming to put the brakes on large-scale in-sourcing efforts.

Going forward all in-sourcing proposals must be “fully documented and justified,” the memo said. That includes a manpower-requirements determination, an analysis of the alternatives and a legal review.

Check Also

Watchdog Details Top Management Challenges for DOT in FY19

The Department of Transportation’s inspector general released a new report outlining the department's management challenges in fiscal year 2019. 

 

2 comments

  1. Secretary McHughs memo requiring some forethough,and justified to insourcing is right on time,Last year my company lost two years off our contract,and put more than 120 workers on unemployment when the government insourced those positions. my employees had to train the gov. workers to do the job (90 days) all of the replacements are paid at a higher rate than the contract employees (no cost svings) Justification: “we have over hires and need a place for them to work” there was no default in the contract performance and this was a contract operation for some 15 years.

  2. NAS Fallon. Insourcing is continuing and poorly justified. FISC provided figures, by cutting the number of personnel..which will work as long as no one goes on vacation or is sick. Local folks will join the unemployment roles while out of town folks are brought in. Supply has been contract for more than 25 years and now? Documented and justified? I guess that depends on who is looking at the figures. They told us thank you, you have done a great job, there are no complaints against you, it’s just a navy decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *