One thing lacking from the last couple of posts on privatization was good old-fashioned data. Well, here's one place to start- a thoughtful analysis of a couple of cases studies where local and state services were privatized. Apparently, privatizing certain services turned out to be much more expensive than when government did the work. How come? First, contracted services can be complex (emph. mine).

A quick comment on the CAP report- it focuses on the surge in non-competitive contracts. But non-competitive bids are just the most obvious example of how market forces are not being applied in government contracting. The most damning observation that the CAP report makes is that even if these bids were competitive, the work wouldn't be done efficiently. Agencies need resources to hold contractors accountable, but they often don't have them.

In a new report to be released next Monday, the Center for American Progress details the horrendous state of the federal contracting process. The report examines what is presently known about the potential size and scope of wasteful and corrupt contracting within the federal government, provides the new Congress with useful guidance for developing a broader understanding of the problem, and outlines some steps that might be taken to restore greater transparency and accountability to the use of public funds in the procurement process.

In one of the more common-sense moves of the 110th Congress, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement unanimously approved a bill yesterday to prevent companies who owe federal taxes from being considered for government contracts. The bill (H.R. 1870) would target companies that owe at least $2,500 and have not paid the IRS or started a payment plan within 180 days of getting an assessment. During the mark-up, the bill's sponsor and subcommittee chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) offered an amendment that would help assuage concerns expressed by the Bush administration during hearings on the bill. The amendment would change the bill to incorporate the tax deliquency provisions into the regular contracting process. This change would still bar companies who owed taxes from receiving new contracts from the government, but would grant those companies due-process rights and opportunities to contest the government decision to bar them. Seems fair enough. The bill moves now to the full House Oversight and Government Reform committee, where it may encounter opposition ($) from ranking member Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), who apparently thinks it's alright for companies not to pay taxes.