Semantics

DHS is moving into the second phase of its Department-wide Efficiency Review, which will include reviews of service contracts to ensure that inherently governmental work is not being outsourced.

Several things about this stuck out to me. It is clearly an extension of the tide turning against competitive sourcing, which we have written about at length. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail with unions and many lawmakers to hold as many public-private competitions as they did, and by the end they were facing congressionally mandated moratoriums on the practice almost governmentwide. The debate over competitive sourcing is extremely political, especially with advocates and detractors coming up with wildly disparate numbers on cost savings. In this heated environment, the term "inherently governmental" became almost a trump card.

No one thinks inherently governmental work should be outsourced to contractors. Not even contractors. The problem with this term is that it seems to be one of those "I'll know it when I see it" things. The existing definitions are vague to the point of including everything or nothing, depending on your interpretation. In order to go forward with these reviews, DHS - and all agencies - need a stronger working definition of "inherently governmental."

Obama has ordered OMB to take a fresh look at the term and clarify it. The DHS reviews are certainly in keeping with the administration's agenda, but given that the definition of the term is in flux, freezing renewals of service contracts pending assurance that no "inherently governmental" work is contracted out may be jumping the gun.