This comparison may result in outsourcing federal jobs to the  private sector. The Forest Service Does Not Have a Realistic Strategic Plan or Adequate Guidance to Effectively Implement Its Competitive Sourcing Program

The Forest Service lacks a realistic strategic plan and adequate guidance  to help ensure that it can effectively and efficiently implement its  competitive sourcing program. In addition, the Forest Service does not have a  strategy on how to assess the cumulative effect that competing activities  could have on its ability to fight wildland fires and respond to other  emergencies, even though outsourcing a large number of federal jobs to  the private sector could reduce the availability of certified responders in  the long term. The Forest Service’s Strategic Plan for Managing Its Competitive Sourcing Program Is Not Realistic

The Forest Service’s December 2005 Green Plan for managing its  competitive sourcing program is not realistic because it does not take into  account the personnel and funding resources that are likely to be available  to implement the plan, even though it proposes to subject all commercial  activities—performed by approximately 24,500 FTEs—to feasibility  studies during fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Furthermore, agency employees may be tempted to classify an activity as  either inherently governmental or core-commercial to exempt it from  competition. For fiscal years 2004 through 2006, we found that the Forest Service   (1) narrowly interpreted the spending limitations to exclude certain costs  and (2) lacked sufficiently complete and reliable cost data to demonstrate  its compliance with the appropriations acts’ spending limitations on its  competitive sourcing activities. The Forest Service’s Interpretation of Costs That Are Subject to Statutory Spending Limitations Was Too Narrow

For fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the Forest Service did not attempt to  collect cost data on all competitive sourcing activities because it believed  that some costs associated with these activities were not subject to the  spending limitations of $5 million, $2 million, and $3 million, respectively,  as established in its appropriations acts. In consultation with Forest Service officials, we agreed that it was not  feasible to reconstruct cost data for competitive sourcing activities  between fiscal years 2004 and 2006 to determine if the Forest Service  exceeded the appropriations acts’ spending limitations. Figure 1 shows how savings from competitions are calculated. The Forest Service Did Not Include All Costs Associated with Its Competitive Sourcing Program When Calculating Savings Reported to Congress

While the Forest Service could not substantiate the savings it reported to  Congress using OMB’s guidance, the guidance itself allows agencies to  exclude some costs associated with A-76 competitions, which, if excluded,  may not provide Congress with an accurate measure of the savings  produced by the competitions. We are also concerned about the usefulness of the cost savings that the  Forest Service reported to Congress. The Forest Service responded. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report discusses the extent to which the U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service has (1) plans and guidance to help  implement its competitive sourcing program effectively and (2) sufficient  cost data to ensure that it complied with its competitive sourcing statutory  spending limitations and accurately reported its competitive sourcing  savings to Congress for fiscal years 2004 through 2006. Finally, we  examined the guidance currently available to Forest Service employees  responsible for scoping competitive sourcing competitions and  interviewed Forest Service officials familiar with the agency’s competitive  sourcing activities. Without clear guidance, we do not believe that the Forest Service’s  current process can offer sufficient safeguards to ensure that key work  activities are excluded from A-76 competitions, especially in light of  the agency’s plan to examine the activities of two thirds of its  workforce.
Why GAO Did This Study

Competitive sourcing is aimed at promoting competition between federal employees and the private sector as a way to improve government operations. Key work activities--those that are either inherently governmental or core to the agency's mission--are generally exempt from competitions. In fiscal year 2004, Congress began placing spending limitations on the Forest Service's competitive sourcing program because of concerns about how the program was managed. Also, like other agencies, the Forest Service must report annually to Congress on the savings achieved from any competitions it conducted. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the Forest Service has (1) plans and guidance to help implement its competitive sourcing program effectively and (2) sufficient cost data to ensure that it complied with its spending limitations and accurately reported its savings to Congress for fiscal years 2004 through 2006. To answer these objectives, GAO examined the agency's strategic plan, guidance, and available cost data for competitive sourcing and interviewed key agency officials.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service lacks a realistic strategic plan and adequate guidance to help ensure that it can effectively implement its competitive sourcing program. For example, the Forest Service's current strategic plan is unrealistic because it does not take into account the likely availability of personnel and funding resources needed to implement the plan. Furthermore, the Forest Service lacks sufficient guidance on identifying key work activities that should be excluded from competitions. Although Forest Service officials do not believe that inappropriate work activities have been included in competitions that it has held, without clear guidance the Forest Service remains at risk of doing so. The agency also lacks a strategy on how to assess the cumulative effect that competitions could have on its ability to fight wildland fires and respond to other emergencies. Outsourcing a large number of federal jobs to the private sector could, over time, reduce the number of available responders. For fiscal years 2004 through 2006, the Forest Service lacked sufficiently complete and reliable cost data to (1) demonstrate its compliance with statutory spending limitations on its competitive sourcing activities and (2) accurately report competitive sourcing savings to Congress. Regarding compliance with spending limitations, the Forest Service did not collect cost data on all activities related to competitive sourcing because it believed that some costs were not subject to the limitations. For example, the Forest Service did not collect data on employees' salaries related to studying the feasibility of conducting a competition--a key component of its competitive sourcing process. GAO has interpreted the statutory spending limitations to generally apply to all costs attributable to the Forest Service's competitive sourcing program. Moreover, because the Forest Service's cost data used to determine compliance with statutory spending limitations were not reliable, the Forest Service cannot know if it exceeded the limitations. Regarding the savings achieved from its competitions, the Forest Service reported to Congress a savings totaling over $38 million between fiscal years 2004 and 2006. However, the Forest Service could not provide GAO with sufficient data or the methodology it used to calculate savings derived from competitions. In addition, GAO found that the Forest Service did not consider certain costs, which were substantial, in its savings calculations. As a result, Congress may not have an accurate measure of the savings from the Forest Service's competitive sourcing competitions during this period.