Senators Question Excessive
Reliance On Consultants
For Proposed Outsourcing Of Immigration Information Officers
WASHINGTON - Four senior Democrats sought information Wednesday
on the Department of Homeland Security’s excessive reliance on
outside consultants with regard to the proposed outsourcing of over
a thousand Immigration Information Officers.
Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.,
Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Pat Leahy, D-Vt., Appropriations
Committee Ranking Member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and the Judiciary
Committee’s Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Edward Kennedy,
D-Mass. - in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge -
noted that several consultants have been hired to work on various
aspects of the proposal.
“We are interested in the work that consultants have done… and
why DHS is unable to conduct a competition without the use of so
many consultants,” the senators wrote. “We are also concerned that
an excessive reliance on contractors may impede the ability of DHS
management to make an independent decision, one that maintains as a
primary focus the Department’s central mission of protecting the
nation.”
The Senators also asked Ridge to produce all reports,
presentations, and work products prepared by the consultants for the
Department.
Below is a copy of the letter:
# # # # #
October 22, 2003
The Honorable Tom Ridge
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528
Dear Secretary Ridge:
We are writing to inquire about the work done by several private
contractors regarding the potential outsourcing of 1,100 Immigration
Information Officers (IIO) at the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). In a letter to you dated September 4th, 2003, signed by 34
Senators, we stated our strong belief that subjecting the work
performed by IIOs to possible privatization was not an appropriate
or wise course of action.
In meetings this July with our staff, DHS officials stated that a
study was conducted by Grant Thornton LLP to examine the potential
benefit of outsourcing this group of employees. This study was
intended to collect raw data, with the purpose of assisting DHS
officials in deciding how to proceed. Our staff members learned that
this study was originally commissioned by the Department of Justice,
before the formation of the DHS, and that the study continued under
the supervision of DHS after the Immigration and Naturalization
Service was transferred.
The DHS announced in August that the IIOs' work would be
subjected to a competition. We understand that Department officials,
in a meeting with employee representatives, indicated that no final
written report had been prepared by Grant Thornton. If no written
report was prepared, we would like to know how this raw data and the
other results of the study were transmitted to the Department, and
what exactly the contractor did to earn its fees.
Furthermore, we have recently learned that several additional
consultants have been working on various aspects of this issue. For
example, Booz Allen Hamilton was hired to provide assistance during
the A-76 competition. We are interested in the work that consultants
have done on the IIO A-76 study, and why DHS is unable to conduct a
competition without the use of so many consultants. We are also
concerned that an excessive reliance on contractors may impede the
ability of DHS management to make an independent decision, one that
maintains as a primary focus the Department's central mission of
protecting the nation. As the Comptroller General has pointed out, [c]onducting
competitions as fairly, effectively, and efficiently as possible
requires sufficient agency capacity--that is, a skilled workforce
and adequate infrastructure and funding . . . Building this capacity
will likely be a challenge, particularly for agencies that have not
been heavily invested in competitive sourcing previously.
(GAO-03-943T, page 7)
Please respond to the following questions:
1. For each consultant retained by DHS to assist with the IIO
matter, please describe the work that is being performed, the
duration of the contracts, and the reasons the consultants were
needed.
2. What written materials have been provided to DHS by these
various consultants? Please include all reports, presentations, and
work product in your reply. Where consultants have provided oral
briefings to Department officials in lieu of written materials, we
request a summary or staff briefing on the information provided to
the Department.
3. How much has DHS paid to each of these consultants? If there
were no final written reports, please delineate what products DHS
received in exchange for the payments made by the Department.
4. Does the decision to hire several different contractors to
facilitate the IIO competition reflect a shortage of DHS officials
trained in conducting cost competitions?
5. Given the reliance of DHS on private contractors, as well as
the arguably inadequate DHS capacity at present to conduct
privatization reviews, how can Congress be assured that DHS managers
will be able to seriously evaluate the recommendations offered by
private contractors and make a truly independent decision that
emphasizes, first and foremost, the fulfillment of the Department's
all-important mandate to ensure homeland security?
Thank you for looking in to this matter, and we look forward to a
prompt response.
Sincerely,
# # # # #
Related Links:
Senators
Question DHS Decision To Throw Open Vital Immigration Functions To
The Lowest Bidder September 4, 2003