"Inherently Governmental" = Pornography?

Elizabeth Newell over at FedBlog had an interesting post up yesterday about some reviews being conducted at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In particular, DHS is reviewing service contracts to make sure no inherently governmental work is being done by contractors. Yet the poor definition of that term may inhibit any actual reforms from taking place.

Newell is right that this is yet another nail in the coffin of the Bush administration's competitive sourcing initiative - and we can all be thankful for that. But she raises a larger issue that gets to the crux of many of the problems with government contracting - the dividing line between what can be contracted out and what is by definition "inherently governmental." From Newell's blog post:

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."

Despite the fact that Justice Potter Stewart, the person who first quipped that obscene pornography was hard to define but "I know it when I see it," might be rolling over in his grave, Newell makes a great point here. The definition of inherently governmental work has been the gateway used to expand opportunities for contractors to get their paws on federal resources. Now how do we go about getting a stronger working definition of inherently governmental? If you have ideas, post them in the comments section below.

back to Blog