Feral Jundi

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Industry Talk: Legislation Would Federalize Private Guards Who Protect US Government Buildings

“Again, it’s because you can fire a bad contractor, but you can’t fire the government. I think TSA stands for Thousands Standing Around.” -John Stossel

****

     Interesting move, but I have this picture in my head of TSA-like guards standing post at these buildings. Whatever forces that cause TSA folks to do a poor job, will also impact these federalized private guards. A lack of leadership, a lack of funding, a lack of motivation to do well, and a feeling of being part of a government machine that has numerous loopholes that allow bad employees to continue working.

     It would not surprise me if this move will cost more as well.  With federal employees, you have a lot of benefits the government has to pay for.  I would love for these guys to get good pay, and great benefits, but if these legislators start going over the cost of such a thing, I think they might get some sticker shock. Especially when they look at the retirement costs or medical insurance costs.

     Politically speaking, this has all the trappings of government just trying to get bigger.  Candidates who are running on anti-big government platforms will have plenty of ammunition if this type of stuff passes.  Especially if it costs more than what is currently going on and if the unions are involved.

     Now I do like the ‘nationwide training and certification standards for private guards’ concept.  That makes sense, and it also makes sense to ‘hire contract oversight staffers to monitor the firms employing private guards’.  Both of those actions will pay real dividends. But I would still like to see private industry do this stuff, because once government takes it over it just seems to get even worse. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Legislation would federalize private guards who protect U.S. government buildings

By Ed O’KeefeTuesday, September 14, 2010

Private security guards protecting the nation’s federal buildings might one day earn a government paycheck and could face new national training and certification standards if legislation introduced Monday advances in the coming months.

The proposals unveiled by members of the House Homeland Security Committee come more than a year after government auditors embarrassed the beleaguered Federal Protective Service by penetrating 10 major federal facilities with materials to construct a bomb. The FPS provides security for about 1.5 million federal workers at 9,000 federal facilities with a mix of about 800 full-time federal inspectors and 15,000 private security guards.

The legislation would require the FPS to hire 550 new federal inspectors, a figure that is “really not enough,” but all that the agency can handle right now, said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.). The new hires should help the agency move toward federalizing most, if not all, of its private guards, she said.

(more…)

Friday, June 4, 2010

Call To Action: Give Your Input On What Is ‘Inherently Governmental’

     This is a simple one.  If you think your work as a security contractor overseas is not an ‘inherently governmental’ job, then let these folks know what you think.  There is little consensus going on with this debate, and I think the one voice that is missing in this discussion are the guys out in the field who are doing the job. I think security contractors and private industry are capable of doing this work, and have been doing so for awhile.  Government should focus on regulation and law making, and enforce those regulations and laws so private industry can be put in check.-Matt

——————————————————————

Go here in order to submit a comment about what you think is inherently governmental.

*****

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Regulations.gov is your online source for U.S. government regulations from nearly

300 federal agencies.

We are committed to improving your access to and participation in the federal regulatory process. On this site you can:

-Search for a regulation such as a proposed rule, final rule or Federal Register (FR) notice

-Submit a comment on a regulation or on another comment

-Submit an application, petition or adjudication document

-Sign up for e-mail alerts about a specific regulation

-Quickly access regulations that are popular, newly posted or closing soon-directly from the homepage

-Subscribe to RSS feeds by agency of newly posted FR notices

——————————————————————

Inherently governmental rule sparks little consensus

By Robert Brodsky

June 3, 2010

More than 100 individuals and organizations have offered public comments on a proposed rule change that would help clarify the types of government functions that are suitable for outsourcing.

On Tuesday, June 1, the comment period ended for a proposed policy memo by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy that would establish a single definition of inherently governmental functions, or those duties forbidden from outsourcing.

The notice, which was posted in the Federal Register in late March, also instructs agencies to avoid an overreliance on contractors for functions that are “closely associated with inherently governmental” or are “critical” for their missions. Contractors can perform work that fits into these two categories if agencies are capable of providing increased oversight and management, the rule said.

In the past three months, trade groups, labor unions, contracting attorneys and citizens with an interest in government contracting have offered 118 suggestions and comments on the proposal.

(more…)

Powered by WordPress