GovCentral

6 Ways to Turn a Job Fair into a Job

Steve Berman — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 07:29:00 -0700

When you’re young and the world is seemingly your oyster, going to a job fair sounds like a no-brainer. A bunch of agencies looking to hire? And all in the same place? As long as you bring enough copies of your resume and pass them out to everyone, you’re certain to get a callback. Right?

Not necessarily. Without the right approach, job fairs can be less than fruitful for those looking to hook up with their dream agency, or any organization for that matter. Spending the time to travel to a job fair and putting in tons of legwork — only to receive no feedback at all — has frustrated many a job seeker. But don’t swear them off all together.

Here are six ways to take advantage of federal job fairs:

Next Page: Dress for Success →

[page]

Tip No. 1: Look the part

Clearly you’re looking for work, but you don’t want to look too unemployed. You want to look professional, dynamic, and put together. Agencies aren’t looking to perform charity work at job fairs. They’re looking to meet and snag the best candidates before their competition does.

What does that mean? Treat the job fair like an interview in all ways, including how you look. Women shouldn’t wear clothing that looks too casual or revealing, while men should leave the sneakers and five o’clock shadow at home. Part of the advantage of a job fair is that hiring managers are able to put a face to a name. You want to make the best first impression you can. In other words, wear a suit unless the type of work you’re seeking is extremely casual.

Next Page: Don't Forget Important Docs →

[page]

Tip No. 2: Be prepared

If you show up to a job fair with a bunch of resumes in your hand and nothing else, you’re doing it all wrong. A resourceful job fair attendee will appear to be a resourceful employee, too. Make sure that you bring more copies of your resume than you would ever plan on handing out, and make sure they’re in a protective portfolio of some sort. Bring different versions of your resume if there’s a wide range of agencies at the fair.

Other things to remember include letters of recommendation, business cards, a notepad, and a professional looking briefcase to carry it all. If the recruiter or hiring manager hands you brochures or business cards of their own, you want to look like you’re taking special care of these documents and not simply shoving them in your pocket.

Next Page: Don't be a Wallflower →

[page]

Tip No. 3: Be aggressively friendly

You don’t want to come on too strong or seem desperate, but job fairs aren’t for wallflowers. Quietly passing by each agency’s booth and leaving a resume on the table isn’t any more effective than emailing your credentials to the hiring manager from home.

Along with paying attention to your clothes and hygiene, you need to make yourself memorable to the person(s) at each booth you visit. State your name, shake hands and let them know how much you appreciate the opportunity to speak them. Direct eye contact is a must, as well as a warm smile and upbeat personality. You’re selling yourself here. The job seeker afraid to be noticed is the first job seeker they’ll forget after the fair is over.

Next Page: Study Up →

[page]

Tip No. 4: Do your homework

Arriving prepared and treating job fairs like preliminary interviews means more work than most people are willing to put in. It’s not enough to know the list of agencies appearing. You should know what each agency does, what job openings they have listed, and (most importantly) your selling point for each agency.

Remember, hiring managers are like anyone else — the easier the better. They aren’t going to go out of their way to find you a job just because you put on some nice clothes and drove to a convention center. Make their lives easier by having something ready to say when you hand them your resume (and business card, if you have one). Here’s an example for someone speaking with the hiring manager for a tech agency:

Job Fair Attendee: “Hello, my name is Jane Smith, nice to meet you.”

Hiring Manager: “Hi, nice to meet you.”

Job Fair Attendee: “I’m particularly interested in the executive assistant position I saw listed on your agency website. I have several years of experience working for software agencies, both in office management and arranging travel for executives, so I’m aware of the expertise a growing IT firm like yours needs.”

Next Page: Ask Questions →

[page]

Tip No. 5: Get the 411

As the cliché goes, knowledge is power. If you leave a job fair with the same amount of knowledge you came in with, the exercise will be a waste of your valuable time. When you get that valuable face-time with a hiring manager, make sure you respect his or her time, but at the same time find out information any job seeker should know by asking questions such as, “When are you looking to bring candidates in for interviews?” and “Can I follow up with you on this position?”

The second question is key. While agencies may use recruiters to weed through job fair applicants, the person you want to reach is the hiring manager.

Next Page: Don't Forget the Last Step →

[page]

Tip No. 6: Finally, follow up!

Yes, we all know you’re wonderful. You have tons of skills and the resumes you handed out were free from coffee stains.

Still, there’s no way the recruiters and/or hiring managers you spoke with will remember you. And even if they did, they want you to make the next move. After all, the employment landscape is littered with qualified candidates. It takes diligence and resourcefulness to land a position, even if it seems like you really hit it off with the agency rep you spoke with at the job fair.

After you find out who the hiring manager is and how to contact that person, make sure you do so. And quickly. Don’t let more than a day go by without an email or phone call thanking him or her for the opportunity to get to know more about the positions available at their oh-so-wonderful place of business. And once again, provide your contact info and reiterate your desire to speak further about the position.

Don’t assume the person you spoke with has your resume at their fingertips. If they do, that’s great news, but they probably also have dozens — if not hundreds — of other resumes in a stack with yours. You need to jump through several hoops to get noticed during your job search. Attending a job fair and introducing yourself to several agencies is a good first step. Following up afterward could be the key to getting the big break you deserve.

Follow these six tips to make the most of your time at a job fair. Even if you don’t walk away with an offer, you’ll have the industry information, networking experience, and relevant contacts to put you ahead of the competition.

Related Reads:

The Bottom Line on Seat Belts for Law Enforcers

10 Domestic Violence Reminders for Veteran Officers

Traffic Stops
&
Control of Passengers

Governments Still Need Talent...What Are They Looking For?

Chris McConnell | GovCentral — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:00:00 -0800

Job seekers interested in a public service career in government have reason to be discouraged by what they see right now. Government employees are under a lot of scrutiny (fairly or not) and in many cases, state and local governments have had to institute furloughs or staff reductions to balance budgets. Of the states that have released budget proposals, 28 states are projected to have shortfalls.

Despite these limitations, governments are still looking for talent to join the ranks of public service and have job openings right now! Just take a look at the number of job openings in states like California, Nebraska, or Virginia.

If you work in government, what type of skills and talent are they looking for? Why should someone still consider working for the government right now?

If you are looking for a government job, why do you want to work a career in public service?

Leave your comments below or contribute to the discussion in our forums.

photo | flickr

Feds Rally Against Becoming Scapegoats For Fiscal Woes

George A. Warner | Government Executive — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:53:00 -0800

Nearly 1,000 American Federation of Government Employees members marched on the Capitol on Tuesday, urging Congress not to target the federal workforce in efforts to reduce government spending.

AFGE members from all 50 states delivered petitions to their senators, arguing that freezing federal salaries, cutting benefits and reducing the government workforce were not good ways to balance the federal budget. The petitions stated the budget deficit is not the result of issues with federal compensation.

"It's not like we're retiring rich," said Bob Snelson, who works for the Bureau of Prisons at a super-maximum security facility in Colorado Springs, Colo., and is chief steward of AFGE Local 1322. Snelson, a 25-year veteran of the government, said an extended pay freeze would affect him "quite a bit," especially with the rising costs of health insurance. The average amount that federal employees pay for health care coverage is increasing 7.2 percent this year.

Other attendees agreed moves such as extending the current two-year salary freeze to five years, as Republicans proposed in January, would cause real hardship for public employees, especially those at the bottom of the federal pay scale. "They don't make a lot of money as it is," said Robena Reid, a member of AFGE Local 3313 and an economist at the Transportation Department.

Government employees are being asked to "foot the bill for the nation's overspending and undertaxing," Snelson said.

The rally comes a week before President Obama will deliver to Congress his fiscal 2012 budget request, which is expected to reveal more details about potential changes to the federal workforce.

Since President Obama announced a two-year federal pay freeze in late November 2010, lawmakers have been discussing additional options for reducing the deficit through cuts in government benefits and jobs. In early December 2010, the president's fiscal commission proposed reducing the federal workforce by 10 percent, adjusting health and retirement benefits, and extending the pay freeze for another year. And in their January proposal, GOP lawmakers called for a 15 percent reduction in the federal workforce along with the three-year extension of the pay freeze. Obama has not said whether he intends to act on those proposals, but during his State of the Union speech last month, he announced a five-year freeze on discretionary nonsecurity spending and a major reorganization of the federal government.

Some rally attendees said cuts targeted at government employees would result in diminished or inadequate federal services. LaVerne English, a member of AFGE Local 2028 in Pittsburgh, said shrinking the federal workforce would lead to staffing shortages at the Veterans Affairs Department facility where she works. For English, the outcome is obvious. "If you don't have enough nurses or nurse practitioners," she said, "the veterans don't get good care."

AFGE President John Gage said in an interview during the march that the public has misconceptions about what government employees do. Federal employees are "[staffing] your VA hospitals, inspecting mines, watching the border [and] manning our prisons," he said. "It's time we really stand up and defend ourselves and defend the work we do."

Gage and other attendees expressed concern over the way politicians and the media have portrayed civil servants during the recent debate over the size and role of the federal government.

"It's coming from all angles for federal employees," he said. "We're upset with the president for reinforcing these terrible myths that our people are overpaid [and] that [we have] a bloated government, when really many of our agencies are short-staffed."

Some of the rally attendees went further, expressing frustration over the government's bailout of the financial sector and the recent extension of the George W. Bush administration tax cuts. "They had so much money to bail out the banks, and we're being asked to accept less," Reid said.

"I think [Congress] should go to Wall Street" to make cuts, said Johnnie Gatling, a social worker at the Baltimore VA Medical Center and a member of AFGE District 4. "They're millionaires."

See the original article at GovExec.com

photo | flickr | AFGE Legislative Conference

Promotions and Pay Increases Decline for Many Workers

Emily Long | Government Executive — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:32:00 -0800

Opportunities for promotions and related salary increases have declined in the federal workforce, forcing managers to use other incentives to recognize good work and help employees advance, according to a human resources organization.

A survey, released this month by WorldatWork, a human resources association focused on compensation, benefits and work-life issues, found that opportunities for promotions in the public sector have decreased, along with the average size of the pay raises associated with more senior positions.

Respondents from 720 government and private sector organizations reported that only 7 percent of the employee population received promotions in 2009 compared to 8.1 percent in a typical year. Employees at all levels have received smaller salary increases during the past few years, but officers and executives saw the biggest decline, from 11.4 percent in 2005 to 9.5 percent in 2010.

Public sector respondents reported promotions declined from 7.7 percent in a typical year to 6.8 percent in 2009. In 2010, hourly wage employees received an average raise of 6.9 percent, compared to 8.4 percent for salaried workers and 8.7 percent for officers and executives.

Promotions signal to employees that there are opportunities for recognition to advance in their career and to receive financial rewards, said Jim Stoeckmann, senior practice leader for WorldatWork. For federal workers facing a two-year pay freeze, the number of advancement opportunities and the size of promotional increases will go down, he said.

President Obama in December 2010 issued an executive order freezing federal civilian pay for two years. According to the Office of Personnel Management, however, workers still will be eligible for some raises, including performance awards, promotions, periodic within-grade step increases based on fully successful level of performance, and quality step increases for outstanding performance.

"The freeze is going to limit promotional options," Stoeckmann said. "The opportunity to recognize employees and to advance is a way to motivate the workforce. Especially with the pay freeze, it's going to be a significant issue."

According to Stoeckmann, federal managers would be smart to look for opportunities to reward employees with both cash and noncash incentives, such as praise from leadership and recognition of workers' accomplishments. While promotions have stalled, those opportunities are still there, he added.

The survey also found that most organizations do not communicate promotional opportunities to current employees or potential hires. Nearly two-thirds of respondents share promotion policies only when employees ask, while just 35 percent use promotional guidelines as a tool to attract new employees.

"Many organizations don't do a good job of communicating the kinds of promotional opportunities, what the guidelines are when you are promoted, how raises will be determined, or recognizing employees after being promoted," said Stoeckmann. "You are really missing an opportunity as an employer if you're not taking the time to look at that number or giving visibility to those who have recently been recognized."

See the original at GovExec.com

Obama to Propose Five-year Spending Freeze

Aamer Madhani | GovExec.com — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:27:00 -0800

President Obama will call for a five-year freeze in non-security, discretionary spending during his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, according to a White House official.

The spending freeze will save roughly $400 billion through 2015, according to White House estimates.

"In areas outside the freeze, we also will be looking for cuts and efficiencies," a White House official said. "For instance, the president is putting forward a five-year plan developed by [Defense Secretary Robert Gates] to achieve $78 billion in defense savings.

In his briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs revealed only scant details about Obama's speech, but he made it clear that the president will "spend most of his time talking about the economy, talking about the challenges that we face both in the short term, in terms of doing whatever we can to help create jobs, in the medium and long term to continue working on issues like competitiveness and innovation."

GOP lawmakers have been proposing a $100 billion cut from this year's budget.

See the original at GovExec.com

Obama Pledges Massive Overhaul of Government

Emily Long | Government Executive — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:19:00 -0800

In addition to a five-year discretionary spending freeze, President Obama on Tuesday night announced a reorganization effort to consolidate duplicative federal programs and reduce government waste.

Government hasn't undergone a major restructuring in decades, leaving agencies with overlapping responsibilities, the president said during his State of the Union address. Efforts to cut waste haven't gone far enough, and administration officials in the coming months will develop a proposal to merge and reorganize the federal government, he said.

"There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked," said Obama.

The president also highlighted the role of technology in streamlining government. "We have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste," he said. "Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We're selling acres of federal office space that hasn't been used in years, and we will cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger."

As expected, Obama also announced a five-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. He called the freeze "painful" but said the proposals would reduce the deficit by $400 billion during the next decade. Cuts include the two-year freeze on federal civilian salaries approved in December, tens of billions in Defense Department spending and other federal programs. "Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years," Obama said.

"Now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in," the president said. "That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."

Obama expressed support for even deeper cuts, noting lawmakers and the bipartisan deficit commission have developed a number of proposals to reduce spending. Other efficiencies could be found in health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, beyond annual domestic spending, he said.

In addition, the president called for efforts to strengthen Social Security and emphasized his recent request for a review of government regulations. The White House last week issued an executive order mandating a regulatory review to improve or potentially repeal outdated, burdensome and inefficient rules that could be stifling private sector job growth.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., who delivered the Republican response to Obama's address, said the president did not go far enough, and pledged that the GOP would work to limit the government's reach and spending. "Limited government also means effective government," he said. "When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well. It's no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high."

See the original at GovExec.com

3 Attention-Getting Tactics for Cover Letters

How to Turn a Stranger into a Network Contact

Creative Ways to Improve Your Resume

Fact Sheet: Cutting the Deficit by Freezing Federal Employee Pay

Office of the Press Secretary | The White House — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:59:00 -0800

Because of the irresponsibility of the past decade, the President inherited a $1.3 trillion projected deficit upon taking office and an economic crisis that threatened to put the nation into a second Great Depression. He moved quickly to get the economy moving again. Now, the economy is growing, and we have gained private sector jobs for the past 10 months. But families and businesses are still hurting, and our top priority is making sure that we are doing everything we can to help boost economic growth and spur job creation.

Now, we need to turn our attention to addressing the massive deficits we inherited and the unsustainable fiscal course that we are on. Doing so will take some very tough choices. Just as families and businesses around the nation have tightened their belts so must their government. That must be done in a targeted way that focuses our investments in what works and in what will lay the foundation for job creation and economic growth for years to come while cutting back elsewhere in our budget.

That is why the President has decided to propose a freeze in civilian pay for federal employees for two years, 2011 and 2012.

* This two-year pay freeze will save $2 billion for the remainder of FY 2011, $28 billion over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years.

* It will apply to all civilian federal employees, including those in various alternative pay plans and those working at the Department of Defense – but not military personnel.

This was a decision that was not made lightly. From the doctors and nurses who care for our veterans to the scientists searching for better treatments and cures, the men and women who care for our national parks, and the thousands who make sure that the Social Security check is in the mail and that students get their scholarships, federal workers serve their fellow Americans. They do so often with great sacrifice and motivated by a patriotic love for their country. This freeze is not to punish federal workers or to disrespect the work that they do. It is the first of many actions we will take in the upcoming budget to put our nation on sound fiscal footing – which will ask for some sacrifice from us all.

This move also is another step in what the Administration has done as part of its Accountable Government Initiative to cut costs, save taxpayer dollars and do more with less in the federal government:

* Upon taking office, the President froze salaries for all senior White House officials; in last year’s budget, he proposed to extend this freeze to other top political appointees; and he eliminated bonuses for all political appointees.

* The President directed agencies to dispose of excess real estate to save $8 billion over the next two years.

* The President set an aggressive goal of reducing improper payments by $50 billion by the end of 2012.

* In each of his budgets, the President put forward approximately $20 billion in terminations and reductions, encompassing more than 120 programs all of which have strong supporters.

* The President put forward more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction in his 2011 budget, including a three-year freeze in non-security spending – which will bring non-security discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy in 50 years.

Ultimately, reining in our deficits will take tough decisions and sacrifices made by us all. We look forward to working with both sides on Capitol Hill over the next several months to forge a commonsense deficit reduction strategy that will rein in our deficits, keep our economy growing, and lay the foundation for American competitiveness for years to come.

See the original at the White House website.

Quicker Federal Hiring System On Track For November Start

Ed O'Keefe | The Washington Post via YellowBrix — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:59:00 -0700

Federal agencies are on course to start hiring new job applicants with a quicker, résumé-based system in November, government hiring managers said Tuesday.

President Obama in May ordered federal agencies to hit the gas on hiring, giving officials until November to cut the federal job-application process to an average of 80 days by switching from a reliance on lengthy essays to shorter application forms and résumés. The effort is part of Obama's campaign pledge to make the government an attractive employer to a wider pool of job seekers.

Most, if not all, agencies will be ready by November, but changes to overhaul the hiring system will continue for several years, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry said.

"November isn't the end date of hiring reform," Berry said. "That is the date that we'll be moving to a résumé-based world."

Hiring managers must keep focused on the issue in the coming years, because "Even when we do achieve and reach the goal of 80 days and good quality applicants, if [we] take our eye off that ball, we'll be missing it," he said.

Berry made the comments Tuesday at a meeting of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, a group representing most federal human resources officials.

Kathy Ott, acting deputy undersecretary for civilian personnel policy at the Defense Department, said the Pentagon's hiring reform plans "go out several years."

The department, the government's largest civilian employer, hired 163,000 new civilian workers this fiscal year, a process that averaged 119 days for new hires and 42 days to fill openings from within the department, she said.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, the government's second largest employer, is training more than 3,800 human resources officials about the new hiring policy, said Annie Spiczak, VA associate deputy assistant secretary for human resources.

The training should help agencies meet the tight 80-day turnaround and still hire qualified candidates, Berry said.

"I don't want people just making knee-jerk selections to artificially meet an 80-day deadline," he said. "The goal is to be able to improve our process so we can do a better job."

Berry also said he hopes the administration later this fall announces proposed changes to the Federal Career Internship Program, a two-year stint for college students who often get hired full time. Federal unions pan the program as a backdoor way to selectively hire applicants.

Obama's Speech Pays Tribute to Troops, Refocuses on Economy

Washington Post via YellowBrix — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:14:00 -0700

WASHINGTON, DC - President Obama Tuesday night told an American public weary of war that it is time to “turn the page” on the war in Iraq. And although he said the formal end of US combat operations in Iraq would allow the military to turn fuller attention to the war in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama also repeated his pledge to begin a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan next summer.

In what was only the second prime-time address of his presidency from the White House, Obama appeared to acknowledge that he was speaking to an audience that is now much more preoccupied with the state of the economy than with the two wars he inherited. From the outset of the Obama speech on August 31, the president set a theme of refocusing American energies on the home front.

“Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work,” Obama said in his 20-minute address. Paying tribute to the more than 1.5 million American service members he said have served in Iraq over the course of seven years of war, he said the nation must now “tackle [our] challenges at home with as much energy and grit and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad.”

“In the days to come,” he added, this restoration of America’s economic might “must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.”

Yet despite this focus on a return to “nation building at home,” Obama also emphasized that the US role in Iraq would continue – although now under a civilian lead. And, he said, this “milestone” of a transition from combat operations to civilian-led partnership with the Iraqis should “serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.”

Tuesday night’s Oval Office address appeared to offer a few hints as to the president’s position on several questions that have arisen recently around the US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What if Iraq destabilizes with the departure of US combat forces, and Iraqi officials ask for an extension to the December 2011 deadline for the departure of the remaining 50,000 troops serving in an advisory role? The president appeared to close the door ever tighter on any modification of the US-Iraq agreement signed under former President Bush.

And what if Afghanistan, where American casualties have recently spiked as Obama’s “surge” has taken place, is not ready a year from now for a drawdown of US forces? The president seemed adamant about keeping to his plan for a “transition to Afghan responsibility” for the country’s security beginning in August 2011.

“Make no mistake, this transition will begin” a year from now, he said.

As for Iraq, he stated unequivocally, “All US troops will leave by the end of next year.”

Some political analysts had fretted before the speech that Obama would use the occasion as a “victory lap” in the same way that Mr. Bush famously declared “mission accomplished” for Iraq in May 2003. But Obama seemed more interested in reminding the American people that he was keeping a campaign promise to “end” the war in Iraq responsibly.

In that sense, it seems all the more likely that Obama will stick to the pledges concerning Iraq and Afghanistan that he made in this speech – especially given that the end of 2011 will be less than year from his assumed reelection bid.

Watch Video of Obama's Address

Read The Speech Transcript

Agencies Getting Too Attached to Incumbent contractors

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:27:00 -0700

Federal agencies are failing to maximize opportunities to make contracts competitive, often because of poor management or because officials have grown comfortable with incumbent contractors, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

The watchdog reviewed trends in noncompetitive contracts during the past several years and discovered a number of questionable business practices by contracting officials and program managers. GAO found 44 percent of all federal contracts in fiscal 2009 either were not placed up for competition or attracted only one bid.

The report (GAO-10-833), which the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requested, highlighted contracts that appeared to be written with such narrowly defined requirements that only one company could reasonably compete. In other instances, program offices pressed for follow-on contracts to be awarded without competition to the existing company because it would be more expeditious since the offices already had formed a relationship with the firm.

"A Navy program official stated that, when one contractor has been performing a requirement for many years, it is easier to go back to the contractor personnel who understand the requirement rather than taking the time to find a new vendor," the report said.

From fiscal 2005 to fiscal 2009, the reported obligations for noncompetitive contracts declined from 36 percent of total procurement spending to 31 percent, investigators found. But contracts in which only one offer was received remained steady at around 13 percent.

The report cited a host of reasons for contracts with only one bid. Often, companies are scared off by a competent incumbent contractor considered an overwhelming favorite to continue with the work, the watchdog said. Other times, solicitations might appear to favor one company, the report noted. In addition, some vendors that might have competed for work are forming teams to submit one offer, industry officials told GAO.

"Given the nation's fiscal constraints, it is not acceptable to keep an incumbent contractor in place without competition simply because the contractor is doing a good job, or to resist legitimate suggestions that competition be imposed even though it may take longer," the report said.

GAO recommended the Obama administration assess the reasons contracts are receiving only one offer. Daniel Gordon, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget, has argued that one bid is not enough to constitute competition and that the practice limits agencies' ability to consider qualified alternatives.

Recent OFPP guidance requires agencies to begin separating data collected on these contracts and to code them as "noncompetitive procurements using competitive procedures." Gordon concurred with GAO's recommendation.

But, it might be difficult to get sound data on contract competition. GAO randomly selected a sample of 107 contracts and orders that were coded as noncompetitive or receiving one bid, and reviewed the contract files. Eighteen percent of the contracts were coded incorrectly -- as either not competed when they had been, or as competed with one offer received when they had not been competed at all, the report said.

In fiscal 2009, the Navy and the Air Force had some of the worst competition rates, with about 45 percent of contracts not competitive, GAO said. The Energy Department and Office of Personnel Management had among the lowest rates of noncompetition, at 7 percent and 5 percent, respectively.

The most common explanation for failing to conduct any competition was that "only one reasonable source" was available to perform the work, according to the GAO sample. In some cases, such as an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement contract for communications equipment and supplies, one contractor essentially owns the market.

In other instances, particularly with Defense Department weapons programs, the government is hamstrung by a lack of access to proprietary technical data, according to the watchdog. Companies' expertise, experience and reluctance to sell technical data for a reasonable price generally preclude the possibility of competition, the report said.

Several contracting officials blamed the lack of competition on receiving short notice from program offices for acquisitions. With little time to conduct market research or properly define requirements -- elements of a robust acquisition process -- contracting officials often turn back to the incumbent, investigators said.

The second most frequently cited exception to competition was the authority to award sole-source contracts to firms in Small Business Administration's 8(a) business development program. Through the program, agencies are encouraged to award participating 8(a) firms noncompetitive contracts worth less than $3.5 million when procuring services, or less than $5.5 million for manufacturing.

Agencies Could Be Passing Over Good Job Candidates

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:27:00 -0700

Federal agencies have room for improvement when it comes to assessing applicants for federal jobs, according to a new survey of government officials and observers.

The report, released Thursday by the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service and PDRI, a human resources consulting firm, found government does a poor job of evaluating applicants for federal positions. During discussions with seven focus groups and 20 additional interviews, representatives from veterans organizations, labor unions, the Office of Personnel Management and agency HR staffs, along with federal hiring managers, said a lack of collaboration among stakeholders is a key barrier to an effective assessment process.

Respondents said insufficient guidance from OPM, limited resources for training managers and a narrow focus on the formal assessment process also get in the way of hiring good candidates for federal jobs. Concentrating on writing clear position requirements, conducting reference checks and using internship programs effectively would improve applicant assessment, they said.

Josh Joseph, program manager for research at the Partnership, said the assessment process is particularly important in government because the private sector has other ways of adding to its applicant pool. If a candidate doesn't make it past the federal assessment, he or she won't be put in front of a hiring manager, he said.

"We often hear people say the hiring process is broken, but maybe that's the wrong analogy," he said. "I think what we're seeing is more of a set of hiring tools that are out of balance. I would count the merit principles [like veterans preference] as doing a good job of what they're supposed to do, but because the assessment system is weak it gets overwhelmed."

During a panel discussion following the report's release, federal officials said it is critical for HR professionals and hiring managers to understand the entire assessment process.

Brian Costlow, director of administration at the Energy Department, said HR staffs and managers must have a common set of expectations for how long it should take to publish vacancy announcements and conduct evaluations. "We can't afford to wait months and months to get new people on board," he said.

The report also found that information technology systems designed to track applicants and automate hiring are incompatible with one another and difficult to use, and data currently collected to determine whether assessments are effective aren't useful.

A Partnership report released last week found federal HR staffs lack the skills necessary to implement new federal hiring practices. In addition, the chief human capital officers surveyed said growing demands on HR personnel to improve agency hiring operations and workforce management could make the situation worse.

President Obama in May issued a memorandum requiring changes to the federal hiring system, including eliminating knowledge, skills and abilities statements, and giving hiring managers more responsibility. Agencies also must fill positions more quickly and update candidates on the status of their application.

"We're not pushing hard enough and fast enough to change the standards," said Elizabeth Kolmstetter, deputy chief human capital officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "We need to raise the bar and we need to have some investment to get our cadre up to the skill level they need. If they can't cut it, we can't just keep promoting them. We need a certain level of competency to address the needs that we have."

Joseph said OPM has begun to provide the tools and support agencies require, but there is still work to be done as hiring reform is rolled out. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, he added, but agencies need assessment processes that work and are affordable.

"There's not necessarily a high barrier in terms of spending tons of money to get solutions for those problems," he said. "You find the best tools and figure out a good way to get those in hands of managers."

Study to settle public-private pay debate still a ways off

Emily Long | Government Executive — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:24:00 -0700

A new analysis claiming federal employees earn twice as much as their private sector counterparts is fueling the debate over pay disparities, but a comprehensive study on the issue still could be a while in coming.

The analysis, conducted by USA Today, found that federal employees earned an average of $123,049 in pay and benefits in 2009 while private sector workers made $61,051. The report, which was based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, also revealed that the pay gap between federal and private sector employees has doubled in the past decade.

John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, has said part of the challenge with pay-related discussions is different groups have different metrics and methods of making public-private comparisons, and each wants to defend its approach as the most reliable. Berry in June announced he had asked statisticians from OPM, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and "neutral parties" such as the Administrative Conference of the United States and National Academy of Public Administration to develop a formula to compare federal and private sector pay that would be more universally accepted.

Edmund Byrnes, a spokesman for OPM, said the study still is being developed and he couldn't provide any further detail.

The study could eliminate what union leaders and federal observers have deemed "apples-to-oranges" comparisons of federal and private sector pay, which leave out factors like job function, skill level, age and location. Max Stier, president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, said USA Today's analysis was a "misuse of the information."

"If you're trying to decide how much you need to pay to get a lawyer at the [Securities and Exchange Commission], or an inspector for the [former Minerals Management Service] to inspect rigs, you have to be looking at job occupation [and] geography, because labor markets are sensitive to geographic location, experience and skill within that occupation group," he said. "If you're trying to determine the market for a particular job and talent, you need that information ... what we have now is these giant comparisons of the private sector and public sector.

"I believe that's John Berry's intent, and it makes a lot of sense. We need to understand a lot more about the cost of talent in government," Stier added, though he said he didn't think much progress has been made on the OPM study.

Ted Stevens, Longest Serving GOP Senator, Dies in Alaskan Plane Crash

Associated Press — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:00:00 -0700

JUNEAU, Alaska — A plane carrying former Sen. Ted Stevens and eight others crashed in remote southwest Alaska, killing the longtime Republican lawmaker and four other people, authorities said Tuesday.

Ex-NASA chief Sean O'Keefe was also believed to be aboard, but it was unclear whether he was among the dead.

Stevens' family has been notified that the 86-year-old was among those killed in the crash Monday night, family spokesman Mitch Rose told The Associated Press.

Rescuers arrived on helicopter early Tuesday and were giving medical care to survivors, Alaska National Guard spokesman Maj. Guy Hayes said. He offered no additional details, except that there were potential fatalities.

Alaska officials reported that nine people were aboard the aircraft and that "it appears that there are five fatalities," NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz told The Associated Press in Washington.

Lopatkiewicz said the NTSB is sending a team to the crash site outside Dillingham, located in northern Bristol Bay about 325 miles southwest of Anchorage. The aircraft is a DeHavilland DHC-3T registered to Anchorage-based GCI.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus said the plane took off at 2 p.m. Monday from a GCI corporate site on Lake Nerka, heading to the Agulowak Lodge on Lake Aleknagik. He didn't know if that was the final destination or a refueling stop.

The GCI lodge is made of logs and sits on a lake, and photos show a stately main lodge room with a large imposing stone fireplace, a leather sofa and a mounted caribou head on the wall.

Fergus said the plane was flying by visual flight rules, and was not required to file a flight plan.

Stevens and O'Keefe are fishing buddies and the former senator had been planning a fishing trip near Dillingham, friend William Canfield said. The flights at Dillingham are often perilous through the mountains, even in good weather.

Hayes said the Guard was called to the area about 20 miles north of Dillingham around 7 p.m. Monday after a passing aircraft saw the downed plane. But severe weather has hampered search and rescue efforts.

The National Weather Service reported rain and fog, with low clouds and limited visibility early Tuesday. Conditions ranged from visibility of about 10 miles reported at Dillingham shortly before 7 p.m. Monday to 3 miles, with rain and fog later.

At least three crash victims were being airlifted to Anchorage, Guard spokeswoman Kalei Brooks Rupp said. She said volunteers hiked into the crash site Monday night and provided medical aid until rescuers arrived.

Lawmakers, officials in both national parties and residents in Alaska were awaiting news of Stevens' fate.

The moderate Republican was appointed to the Senate in 1968 and served longer than any other Republican in history. He was beloved as a tireless advocate for Alaska's economic interests.

The White House said Obama administration officials were closely watching news out of Alaska.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked Alaskans to join her in prayer for all those aboard the aircraft and their families, as did Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska. He called the plane crash tragic.

Begich's father, Nick Begich, who was Alaska's only congressman in 1972, was killed when his plane disappeared over the Gulf of Alaska with then-House Majority Leader Hale Boggs of Louisiana.

Stevens was one of two survivors in a 1978 plane crash at Anchorage International Airport that killed his wife, Ann, and several others. He remarried several years after the crash — he and his second wife, Catherine, have a daughter, Lily.

Over the years, Stevens directed billions of dollars to Alaska.

But one of his projects — infamously known as the "Bridge to Nowhere" — became a symbol of pork-barrel spending in Congress and a target of taxpayer groups who challenged a $450 million appropriation for bridge construction in Ketchikan.

Stevens' standing in Alaska was toppled by corruption allegations and a federal trial in 2008. He was convicted of all seven counts — and narrowly lost his Senate seat to Begich in the election the following week.

But five months after the election, Attorney General Eric Holder sought to dismiss the indictment against Stevens and not proceed with a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct by federal prosecutors.

O'Keefe, 54, was NASA administrator for three tumultuous years. He was deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget when President George W. Bush asked him in late 2001 to head NASA and help bring soaring space station costs under control.

But budget-cutting became secondary when the shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry in 2003.

O'Keefe's most controversial action at NASA was when he decided to cancel one last repair mission by astronauts to the Hubble Space Telescope. He said the mission was too risky. His successor overturned the decision. The Hubble mission was carried out last year.

O'Keefe left NASA in 2005 to become chancellor of Louisiana State University. He is now the CEO of defense contractor EADS North America and oversees the bid for the hotly contested Air Force refueling jet contract.

The company said O'Keefe was a passenger on the plane. The company said it had no further information about O'Keefe's status.

The contract competition, which pits EADS against rival plane maker Boeing Co., is for a piece of what could eventually be $100 billion worth of work replacing the military's fleet of aging tankers.

___

Associated Press writers Mark Thiessen in Anchorage, Alaska, and Pauline Jelinek, Matt Apuzzo and Natasha Metzler in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

U.S. Unemployment Rate Stuck at 9.5 Percent

Kansas City Star via YellowBrix — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:56:00 -0700

The nation's unemployment rate stayed flat at 9.5 percent -- with private hiring unable to outweigh government layoffs.

The number of government workers dipped by 202,000 -- mostly the loss of 143,000 paychecks as temporary employees hired to conduct the decennial census wrapped up their work. Meantime, private payrolls inched up by 71,000 people, according to the Labor Department.

Unemployment, which had been projected to tick up to 9.6 percent, is subject to the number of workers who re-enter the labor force. The number of those job seekers has teeter-tottered for several months as people toggle between discouragement over their prospects or restart their efforts to earn a living.

With a continuing net increase of people entering the work force, private payrolls would need to grow by 200,000 a month to start lowering the unemployment rate.

That left the number of unemployed people in the country, 14.6 million, and the jobless rate, 9.5 percent, unchanged from June to July.

July was the third month in a row of anemic growth in private payrolls, suggesting an economy that has yet to gain momentum and in increasing danger of tanking again.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic report released Friday morning said businesses made fewer hirings in June that the government had estimated previously. July's private sector gains were revised down to 31,000 from 83,000. May was revised up slightly to show 51,000 net new jobs, from 33,000.

The still-troubling jobless numbers could beget more problems for the economy. Without a resurgence in employment, consumers are prone to remain anxious about their incomes and less likely to spend money. So, too, businesses move cautiously to ramp up production and hiring if the economy continues on its wobbly ways.

Forecasters had expected the jobless rate to rise slightly to 9.6 percent in an economy shedding from 70,000 to 90,000 jobs -- a gain in private sector jobs overwhelmed by elapsing census and other government jobs.

Though the numbers revealed Friday were somewhat better than expected, they were far from rosy.

The federal government said earlier that first-time claims for unemployment benefits spiked in July to their highest level in four months. That was a discouraging indicator of how feeble the American market remained. It was all the more disturbing because analysts had projected jobless claims to dip slightly.

Predictably, Republicans laid blame for the weak job report on the White House. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said health care reform and doubt over whether the Bush-era tax cuts would be allowed to expire had injected stultifying doubt into the economy.

"President Obama has been more focused on growing government than growing jobs, and it shows," Steele said in a statement released within minutes of the unemployment report.

Men continued to remain unemployed -- defined as actively seeking but unable to find it -- than women. Joblessness of men over 20 slipped in July to 9.7 percent from 9.9 percent and down from 9.8 percent in July 2009. For women over 20, the July rate rose to 7.9 percent over 2.9 percent in June and up from the 7.6 level of July 2009.

White workers registered an 8.6 percent unemployment rate in July, compared to 15.6 percent for African Americans and 12.1 percent for Hispanics.

Of all unemployed, 3.8 million had been on the job hunt for five weeks or less and 6.5 million had been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Getting Through a Group Interview

Hamsa Ramesha — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:12:00 -0700

Group interviews are relatively easy if you work well in a team and are able to make your ideas heard in a crowd. However, they can be challenging if you have a quieter personality and prefer to keep to yourself.
Regardless of how you feel about group interviews, there’s no reason you should treat them any different, in most respects, than a standard, one-on-one interview. The same basic principles apply: Research the company, arrive on time, dress appropriately, practice answering common interview questions, and remember to follow up after the interview.

What's the Difference?

The key difference between individual interviews and group interviews is obvious: You’ll be questioned along with a bunch of other hopeful job seekers. Your objective isn’t just to show what a great employee you could be — you need to beat the competition face-to-face, too. The competition is in the room with you. Don't worry — you can use this to your advantage.

The challenge is to find the right balance between getting your opinion across and dominating the conversation. You don't want to be so close-mouthed that you're perceived as being passive or shy either. Be confident and don’t let yourself be bullied by others into staying quiet. At the same time, encourage your fellow interviewees to speak up and let their ideas be heard. You've got nothing to worry about, right? Let your knowledge and confidence speak for themselves. Keep yourself focused and calm and you'll blow away the competition.

Panel Interview vs. Project Interview

Group interviews can be conducted a few ways, depending on the quirks of the company. In a panel interview, a group of job seekers are asked several questions by a panel of people from the company. These people are usually from a variety of backgrounds, and can include someone from human resources, company executives, and/or employees you are most likely to work with should you get the job. The point of panel interviews is to make your voice heard without dominating the conversation. Are your responses memorable? Are you memorable? Be respectful, respond intelligently, and keep your cool to ace this kind of interview.

Project interviews are more hands-on. In these situations, a team of job seekers is given a group assignment which measures a variety of skills including teamwork, leadership, communication, interpersonal relationships, and project management. The interviewers want to see how well you work with each other and observe you in action — something that can’t be done in a passive, one-on-one interview. These types of interviews are difficult to prepare for, unless you’ve been told ahead of time what the assignment will be so that you can study up. In any case, turn the interview in your favor by showcasing your leadership ability. Don't just take charge and manage the whole group — make sure everyone is heard and keep the peace!

Next: What to Expect >>

[page]

What to Expect in a Group Interview

The challenge of any interview is to figure out specifically which kind of employee the company is looking to hire. You should have an idea of the skills the position requires, based on the job description and preliminary conversations with the company. Are you applying for a leadership position? Or will you be part of a team? If you know what skills the position requires of you, focus on emphasizing those traits in the group interview.

Follow Up After

Following up after the interview is especially important for group interviews. You want to do everything you can to set yourself apart from the crowd! Don’t forget to send a thank you note to every single person who interviewed you, so make sure you've got the right names and contact information of everyone you interviewed with. In the note, it might be a good idea to remind them of something specific you said that was memorable or impressive, so they can tie a face to your name.

Take it Easy

Still worried about the group interview? Don't be — it sounds more daunting than it is! Just treat it with the same sense of precaution and preparedness you would with a one-on-one interview. Employers are still looking for the most qualified candidates who best fit their company. If you do your research, come prepared, look professional, and answer the questions well, you've done all you can. If you don’t get the position, ask for feedback. Find out where you could have improved and learn from your mistakes. At the very least, the employer will be impressed with your request, and they may just keep you in mind for the next position that opens up!

Tight Budgets Mean Fewer Jobs, Services

Washington Post via YellowBrix — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:25:00 -0700

WASHINGTON — Local government revenue has withered so drastically that U.S. cities and counties will have to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs in the coming months, leaving communities without basic services and raising jobless rates, according to a survey.

The survey, released Tuesday by three government associations, aims to press Congress on pending legislation that would give them $75 billion over two years to save jobs.

Local and state government employment accounts for more jobs in the United States than construction and manufacturing combined. The survey by the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties and U.S. Conference of Mayors also found that they are the primary employer in many communities.

Those surveyed, 214 cities with populations of more than 25,000 and 56 counties of more than 100,000 people, reported they will cut 8.6 percent of their full-time positions from 2009 through 2011.

"If applied to total local government employment nationwide, an 8.6 percent cut in the work force would mean that 481,000 local government workers were, or will be, laid off over the two-year period," the report said.

Currently, the U.S. unemployment rate stands at 9.6 percent. In June, local governments had a net loss of 8,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Labor Department, and they have shed 18,000 jobs over the past three months.

Last week Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said state and local government budget woes are reducing the speed of the economic recovery and warned that governments will likely cut "several hundred thousand jobs."

More Job and Service Cuts Coming from Strapped Counties and Cities

Washington Post via YellowBrix — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:24:00 -0700

Local governments across the country are facing an intensifying fiscal crisis that is forcing them to make deep cuts in personnel and services just as more hard-pressed residents are seeking their help, according to a report released Tuesday.

These cities and counties -- which have cut jobs significantly since the start of the downturn -- could slash as many as 500,000 more jobs over the current and coming fiscal years. The cuts would affect schools, public safety, libraries, trash collection and social services, according to survey released jointly by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Combined with the fiscal stress confronting state governments -- which face a combined budget deficit of $89 billion this year -- the crisis faced by counties and cities hampers the struggling economic recovery, analysts have said.

The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group, estimates that for every 100 public sector jobs that are cut, an additional 30 jobs are lost in the private sector, which relies heavily on governments as customers.

Together, state and local governments are one of the nation's largest job sectors and economic drivers -- larger than the manufacturing and construction industries combined, the report said.

City and county government groups joined with supporters in Congress at the Capitol on Tuesday to repeat their call for Congress to pass $75 billion in aid for local governments over the next two years.

"Congress and the administration must act to create jobs now and help stabilize local government economies," the report said.

Many economists have endorsed targeted stimulus measures to boost the economic recovery in the short term. But the bill's prospects are in doubt, as Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress want action on deficit reduction and have grown resistant to new economic stimulus measures.

Burning Question: How Much Do You Make?

Government Executive — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:21:00 -0700

Under ordinary circumstances, it would be socially awkward at best to inquire about how much money someone makes. It's simply not a topic for polite conversation.

Unless, of course, you work in an environment in which salary data is a matter of public record--as it is in government. The leaders of Bell, Calif., learned that the hard way this month when the Los Angeles Times reported that the town's chief administrative officer was being paid nearly $800,000 a year, and its police chief was taking in more than $450,000.

These people may be public employees, along with their counterparts in state government and in federal agencies, but Andrew Krzmarzick of GovLoop still thinks asking what anybody makes, public or private, is a "rude question."

"Knowing what our neighbors earn fundamentally alters the nature of our relationship, especially if we had an expectation in our mind and the reality was far higher than what we deemed to be 'fair,' " Krzmarzick writes.

Rude or not, many federal employees say that salary rates are often a topic of open discussion in the workplace. Some try to avoid the subject, but when the information is contained in various searchable public databases, it can be hard to sidestep.

State Turning to Contractors for Support in Iraq

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:58:00 -0700

The State Department will have to hire thousands of contractors to provide security and logistical support as the U.S. military begins to withdraw from Iraq in 2011, according to new findings by a congressional commission.

Within 18 months, U.S. troops are scheduled to depart Iraq. But, the difficult work of rebuilding the war-torn nation will continue, with most of the responsibility falling on State.

"In most cases, State has no organic capability to perform the functions now provided by DoD, and support from the Iraqi government is generally not yet a practicable option," said Michael Thibault, co-chairman of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, during a hearing on Monday. "Assuming no change in State's Iraq mission, the department's only realistic option for dealing with the U.S. military's exit is to make much heavier use of contractors."

But, turning to the private sector for greater assistance is far from a panacea, panel members said. Recently, State has had trouble ensuring proper oversight, management and accountability of its war zone contractors. Meanwhile, Congress has to yet to give State the resources to carry out its new mission in Iraq, the commission wrote in a new report.

The Defense and State departments have developed a list of more than 1,000 tasks and functions that must be addressed during the transition of responsibility next year, ranging from portable toilets to environmental cleanup. State also must pick up the slack for 14 key security functions the military performs, including recovering killed and wounded personnel; clearing travel routes; and overseeing convoy security, tactical operations and communications support.

In an April 7 letter to the Pentagon, Ambassador Patrick Kennedy conceded State does not have the capability or the tools to perform many of these functions and likely will have to rely on contractors for support. "After the departure of U.S. forces [from Iraq], we will continue to have a critical need for logistical and life support of a magnitude and scale of complexity that is unprecedented in the history of the Department of State," wrote Kennedy, who serves as undersecretary of State for management.

State requested that Defense provide the agency with 24 Black Hawk helicopters, four refueling trucks and trailers, 50 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, and security equipment for perimeter security and observation.

Without the military equipment, Kennedy suggested State would "essentially have to duplicate the capabilities of the U.S. military" using less effective gear. "As a result, the security of [State] personnel in Iraq will be degraded significantly and we can expect increased casualties," the ambassador wrote.

State also wants access to the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contract and to continue receiving acquisition support from the Defense Logistics Agency. But, relying on the single-source LOGCAP III contract -- which provides meals, fuel, and laundry and sanitation services to U.S. troops in Iraq -- could be politically and bureaucratically tricky.

In May, the Army announced, much to the dismay of many on Capitol Hill, that it would not hold a new competition for LOGCAP work in Iraq and KBR would maintain control of the multibillion-dollar contract until U.S. forces withdraw from the country in December 2011. The Army had planned to hold a competition for the work in Iraq, much like it did in Afghanistan and Kuwait, but after consulting with military commanders, officials decided the transition would be too disruptive and costly.

The Army would face a difficult choice if it allowed State to continue using LOGCAP past 2011: extend the contract again or conduct a new competition for a contract another agency would use almost exclusively. The commission suggested the Army consider the latter option, but in either scenario, Defense would almost undoubtedly play a role in overseeing the contractor.

"[State] does not have within its Foreign Service cadre sufficient experience and expertise to perform necessary contract oversight," Kennedy wrote.

In a July 9 letter to Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, State said it would ask Defense to revive its LOGCAP IV competition plan. The Army did not respond to a request for comment.

"Due to the long acquisition lead time involved, the department has already initiated action to develop a competitive solicitation for the base life support services should it be unable to remain under the LOGCAP program," State said.

In addition to logistical challenges, State would have to more than double its 2,700-member private security force in Iraq to handle its future needs, officials told the panel.

State has been hiring specialists for its Diplomatic Security arm, but the clock is ticking and major decisions about interdepartmental efforts and contractor support remain unanswered, the commission said.

"The [Obama] administration and the Congress face a fast-closing window of opportunity to avoid unnecessary and tragic loss of life; to reduce the risks of unmet needs, weak oversight, and lost or misspent funds; and to avert damage to the U.S. mission in Iraq and to broader policy objectives," the report said.

4 Government Interventions: Did They Work?

San Francisco Chronicle via YellowBrix — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:30:00 -0700

Since the BP (NYSE:BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill on April 20, the American government has deployed 17,500 National Guard troops to respond to the environmental crisis. Over 484 miles of shoreline have been impacted, and 81,181 square miles of Gulf of Mexico waters have been closed to fishing. Many are wondering if, with stronger regulations, the incident could have been prevented. But increasing regulations doesn't come without controversy. When President Obama tried to implement a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling in response to the crisis (which was later overturned), the Independent Petroleum Association of America fought back, fearing the moratorium would be devastating to the economy. Bruce Vincent, chairman of the association and Swift Energy, a Houston based company, said, "Putting more job-creating American energy off-limits, and discouraging the production of our homegrown oil and natural gas, will only deepen our nation's foreign energy dependence, leading to even more unstable prices for consumers across the country."

How much the government should intervene in the economy is a debate for the ages. But has increased regulation worked in the past?

Cleveland's Railroad Dilemma
Workers at Chicago's Pullman Palace Car Company walked out one spring day in 1894 in protest of smaller wages. The American Railway Union supported the workers and announced that, after negotiations failed, no trains that had Pullman cars would be operated. President Grover Cleveland became involved in the dispute when routes beyond Chicago were disrupted. He deployed military soldiers to force the protesters to return to work, claiming that because the U.S. mail service had been disrupted, he had the constitutional right to do so. More than 30 people died in the violence between those on strike and the military, garnering sympathy from the public for the labor activists. (Unions are organizations that negotiate with corporations, businesses and other organizations on behalf of union members. Find out how beneficial they really are, in Unions: Do They Help Or Hurt Workers?)

Roosevelt's New Deal
When former President Franklin D. Roosevelt replaced his predecessor Herbert Hoover in 1933, the Great Depression had taken a firm, relentless grip on the nation. In his inaugural address, Roosevelt famously said, "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror, which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." The president unveiled his New Deal plan, which involved creating government programs that put people to work in a variety of fields, like building large-scale infrastructure. The New Deal was credited with reinvigorating the economy and was widely popular, and Roosevelt was re-elected for another term. (Read What Caused The Great Depression? to find out more.)

Truman and the Steel Industry
After contract negotiations between the United Steel Workers and steel producers deteriorated in 1952, former president Harry Truman seized control of the steel industry in an effort to avoid a strike while the Korean War continued. The move was highly controversial, according to the Miller Center of Public Affairs, 43% of those polled said they did not support the high level of government intervention in the matter. The U.S. Supreme Court found Truman's initiative to be unconstitutional; the steel industry was again a private one, and steel workers promptly went on strike for 53 days. An editorial in Life magazine from April, 1952 reads, "He showed outrageous partiality in a serious industrial dispute, and he gave his own constitutional powers a dangerous and quite unnecessary stretching." (Former U.S. President Harry S. Truman famously wanted a one-armed economist so he didn't have to hear "on one hand" followed by "on the other hand." Find out more, in 5 Common Misconceptions About "Free" Markets.)

Nixon's Oil Crisis
Between 1971-1973, former president Richard Nixon imposed the New Economic Policy, which, for a 90-day period, would freeze wages and prices in an effort to combat inflation. Although it looked like the move had a stabilizing effect, inflation again became a threat once the controls were relaxed. Nixon again imposed the controls, in part because of the OPEC oil embargo, but this time it didn't work. In The Commanding Heights, Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw write, "Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets." Although Nixon resigned just four months later, price controls on oil continued, and the U.S. began to try to free itself of dependence on foreign oil resources by increasing domestic exploration. (It's the 1970s, and the stock market is a mess. It loses 40% in an 18-month period, and for close to a decade few people want anything to do with stocks. Find out more, in The Great Inflation Of The 1970s.)

Conclusion
Which brings us full circle. While it's tough to say whether or not government intervention is always or never a good thing, it's easier to say this: Many-a-President before Obama has erred in his decision to intervene, or has blundered in his method of intervening in the private sphere. But there is an expectation for the President, whoever he or she may be, to act in some way when the country is in dire straits. But the way in which he acts, the circumstances, the other parties involved and unknown factors make it impossible to predict what the outcome may be.