NAATS HEADQUARTERS EMAIL UPDATE
Volume 2, #34
June 7, 2002
As of today we still have
no agreement on the pay rules. The outstanding issues remain the pay band
caps, progression through the bands, OSI and SCI. While not many in number
these differences are nevertheless significant and must be addressed. We'll
talk again the first part of next week.
As mentioned last week, I'll next meet with Don Young on June 11. We're also
busy with other congressional meetings including Rothman (NJ) and Landrieu
(LA), Watts (OK), Sanchez (CA) and Solis (CA).
This week I attended a union meeting at MCN. In addition to the MCN
membership, present were SO Regional Director Dave Hoover, SO Regional
Coordinator Tom Forte, MIA FacRep Al Osborn, GWO FacRep Jeff Smith and ANB
FacRep Jim Rippen. Larry Schultz hosted the meeting at his beautiful house and
it was a great turnout. Thanks to MCN FacRep Karey Hall for his invitation and
to all for a very productive discussion on several issues.
The Facrep training scheduled for October has been delayed until next spring.
The reason for the delay was the close proximity to the FMCS ruling on pay and
the time necessary to coordinate the training.
I'm continuing to have email problems with the mirror addresses. The only sure
way to reach me on email is to use the [email protected] address.
Wally Pike
The following are two updates from NAATS National OASIS Representative
Jeff Barnes and an article on OMB Circular A76 by NE Regional Director Kurt
Comisky.
06/04/02 - I recently learned that the FAA is negotiating a new MOU
with the NWS. This affects us directly in that the FAA will assume
responsibility for ALL pilot weather briefings. The NWS will continue to
provide data packages to those who request them, but will no longer do any
PWBs. This includes the international PWBs they used to do. All whether comes
in to OASIS under WMO headers (in M1FC it comes in via catalogue numbers).
These are basically collectives of weather. Those headers that contain
products we use regularly are broken down, allowing us to look at the BNA
METAR instead of looking through the collective that contains the BNA METAR
(for example). To this point a lot of the WMO headers containing international
weather are not broken down in OASIS. This means that if you need to look up
the Franfurt TAF you'll have to call up the WMO header it's in and pick it out
from the other products in there (all weather is stored in OASIS, but not all
of it is broken down). On hearing the news about the MOU and sharing it with
my management counterparts I stated that all weather products need to be
broken down in OASIS because at any time at any station we could get a
briefing request to Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. It's not my job to determine
the I&I of these briefings, but it is my job to ensure that the information is
readily available to briefers in an easy-to-use way in OASIS.
This morning I attended an all-hands meeting for ARU in which they talked
about the Terminal Business Unit (ATB). That organization has been around for
over a year now, but apparently is getting ready to crank up into high gear
somewhere in the October-November timeframe. This affects us because the FAA
is moving all projects they consider to be primarily Terminal in nature into
this unit. This includes weather products like ASOS, ITWS (Integrated Terminal
Weather System), ACE-IDS, etc. In typical FAA management style, it appears
that they have given no thought to the role NAATS will play in this
organization. I asked the question in the meeting and was met by blank looks
and mumbled "uh, I'm sure they have something in mind." NAATS is a player in a
lot of these programs and it looks like the organizational blinders are
on..."It says Terminal Business Unit, so we don't need to talk to NAATS." They
are going to find out different. I know that Bill Dolan and Jim Perkins are
taking the action to work this issue for us. One thing disturbing I heard
ARU-1, John Staples, say today was in describing how they determined a weather
system was terminal versus enroute or Flight Service. He talked about how the
information generated by the equipment was geared for a specific terminal
environment rather than broader coverage, and that it was primarily for use by
the terminal controllers and dispatchers... That's right, no mention of Flight
Service Controllers, but he did say airline dispatchers. Is it any wonder we
feel like step children when upper level FAA management pays more heed to
airline dispatchers than us? I did what I could to address the inequity in the
meeting, but he seemed not to grasp what I was trying to communicate.
The saga of equipment placement in the consoles continues. I heard this
morning third hand that a decision had been made not to support any deviation
in equipment placement in the new consoles. The quote I heard was they had
said "We are tired of being nickel and dimed to death and we aren't going to
let it happen with this." I met with the program manager (ARU-300) and asked
that he investigate this and come back to me with substantive answers. We have
past practice to show that differing needs can be accommodated in the console
equipment placement. The main problem has been at OAK where the ANI Team said
at site survey that no variance could be accommodated due to Human Factors
Team decision. This was in error, but was caught too late and now the OAK
consoles have been installed with equipment placed as ANI dictated, not as
desired by the facility. I am working to get OAK retrofitted when funding is
available, but so far I'm not getting definitive answers from anyone. So I
have turned up the heat to get answers that will either get us what we want or
require us to take further action.
In another update I mentioned that the program office wants to know what
annual events that OASIS remote workstations would be used at so they can
estimate a budget for them. The same request went out through the management
chain of command. I have gotten no response from anyone in the field, so I
have to assume that you all are satisfied with the responses given by your
management. If you haven't talked to your manager about this, or given it
serious thought you should. OASIS has the capability to be used via remote
workstations. Computers you set up on site to access your OASIS through phone
lines. You have full access to OASIS capabilities this way with the only
limitation being the poor bandwidth involved in connecting via modem as
opposed to being on the local network. This is much easier to accomplish than
with any briefing tool we have had in the past. This makes supporting events
in your flight plan area much more possible than it is now. Because of this
the program office wants to know what these annual events are so they can plan
their budget for remote workstations This is an opportunity to get more
exposure and familiarity with the flying public for Flight Service and your
facility. Feel free to e-mail me a list of annual events your facility would
like to support if your management hasn't included you in their response.
[email protected]
06/05/02 - With the problems that have crept up on us regarding the
OASIS consoles and equipment placement within them I was searching for help in
remedying the situation. What I found was the MOU we signed with the Agency on
OASIS Consoles (dated June 8, 2000)...specifically Section 2. Here it is in
its entirety:
Section 2. The Parties agree that during the site survey process, the
local facility manager and NAATS Representative will be briefed on the process
and activities involved with OASIS console installation. Local bargaining
shall be completed prior to the conclusion of site survey activities. Local
bargaining includes, but is not limited to, floor plan utilization, position
locations, equipment placement deployment plan, console sizes for each
position, and staffing and call transfer needs during installation.
As you can see there is a requirement to negotiate the consoles at the local
level. Equipment placement is specifically addressed here. Management has to
negotiate with you. Dictating is not an option for the site survey people. The
MOU is available on the NAATS website. This info has been shared with
management here at headquarters (who had forgotten that we had negotiated a
separate console MOU). This should dry up many of our console problems and
gives you a tool to ensure that your facility is set up to your satisfaction.
Fraternally,
Jeff Barnes
June 6, 2002
A76 Study
Recently, the FAA has informed the Union of the agency's intent to explore
conducting an A-76 study on functions performed by members of our Bargaining
Unit. The Union has begun the task of researching the A-76 issue, beginning
with the history and legislative intent, then examining the process and how
the federal government implemented the process in other governmental agencies,
and finally the issues and impact on our bargaining Unit. The intent of this
article is to provide a brief background and description of the concept.
First, this concept is not new, this has been a national policy since 1955,
which was disseminated and implemented through the Bureau of the Budget
Bulletins and subsequently in 1966 through the OMB Circular A-76. Further, a
few laws have been enacted to provide authority for the concept, the most
recent and important is The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998.
(FAIR Act) Public Law 105-270.
The OMB Circular A-76 gives the basis and articulates the foundation of the
concept:
In the process of governing, the Government should not compete with its
citizens. The competitive enterprise system, characterized by individual
freedom and initiative, is the primary source of national economic strength.
In recognition of this principle, it has been and continues to be the general
policy of the Government to rely on commercial sources to supply the products
and services the Government needs.
It is the policy of the United States Government to:
Achieve Economy and Enhance Productivity. Competition enhances quality, economy, and productivity. Whenever commercial sector performance of a Government operated commercial activity is permissible, in accordance with this Circular and its Supplement, comparison of the cost of contracting and the cost of in-house performance shall be performed to determine who will do the work. When conducting cost comparisons, agencies must ensure that all costs are considered and that these costs are realistic and fair.
Retain Governmental Functions In-House. Certain functions are inherently Governmental in nature, being so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance only by Federal employees. These functions are not in competition with the commercial sector. Therefore, these functions shall be performed by Government employees.
Rely on the Commercial Sector. The Federal Government shall rely on commercially available sources to provide commercial products and services. In accordance with the provisions of this Circular and its Supplement, the Government shall not start or carry on any activity to provide a commercial product or service if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial source.
The Introduction to the
OMB A-76 Supplemental Handbook provides some good insight to the
implementation of the concept:
The August 1983 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76,
"Performance of Commercial Activities," establishes Federal policy for the
performance of recurring commercial activities. This Supplement . . . provides
updated guidance and procedures for determining whether recurring commercial
activities should be operated under contract with commercial sources, in-house
using Government facilities and personnel...
As noted in the Vice President's Third Report of the National Performance
Review, "Common Sense Government: Works Better and Costs Less," (September
1995), Americans want to "get their money's worth" and want a Government that
is more businesslike and better managed. The reinvention of Government begins
by focusing on core mission competencies and service requirements. Thus, the
reinvention process must consider a wide range of options, including: the
consolidation, restructuring or reengineering of activities, privatization
options, make or buy decisions, the adoption of better business management
practices, the development of joint ventures with the private sector, asset
sales, the possible devolution of activities to State and local governments
and the termination of obsolete services or programs. In the context of this
larger reinvention effort, the scope of this Supplemental Handbook is limited
to the conversion of recurring commercial activities to or from in-house. . .
Circular A-76 is not designed to simply contract out. Rather, it is designed
to:
(1) balance the interests of the parties to a make or buy cost comparison,
(2) provide a level playing field between public and private offerors to a competition, and
(3) encourage competition and choice in the management and performance of commercial activities. It is designed to empower Federal managers to make sound and justifiable business decisions.
Reliable cost and
performance information is crucial to the effective management of Government
operations and to the conduct of competitions between public or private sector
offerors. Unfortunately, this information has not been generally available and
has often been found to be unreliable. The Chief Financial Officers Act of
1990 (CFO Act) includes among the functions of chief financial officers "the
development and reporting of cost information" and "the systematic measurement
of performance." This includes performance by in-house, contract or ISSA
resources. In July 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), which mandates performance measurement by Federal
agencies. The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1,
"Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting (1993)," stated that one of the
objectives of Federal financial reporting is to provide useful information to
assist in assessing the budget integrity, operating performance, stewardship,
and control of the Federal Government. In 1995, the Federal Accounting
Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) recommended standards for managerial cost
accounting, which were approved by the Director of OMB, the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Comptroller General. These standards were issued as the
Statement of Federal Accounting Standards No. 4, "Managerial Cost Accounting
Standards for the Federal Government." This Supplement relies on the
managerial cost accounting and performance standards established in support of
the CFO Act, GPRA, and the Federal Accounting Standards, as they are developed
and implemented. Cost and performance information developed for cost
comparisons required by the Circular and this Supplement should be drawn from
the data base established by these standards and adjusted as appropriate. . .
.
The FAIR Act provides the structure and procedure to develop and make public a
list of governmental functions that may be supplied by commercial means. The
OPM provides an overview of the FAIR Act:
The FAIR Act directs Federal agencies to issue each year an inventory of all
commercial activities performed by Federal employees, e.g., those activities
that are not inherently governmental. OMB is to review each agency's
Commercial Activities Inventory and consult with the agency regarding its
content. Upon the completion of this review and consultation, the agency must
transmit a copy of the inventory to Congress and make it available to the
public. The FAIR Act establishes a limited administrative appeals process
under which an interested party may challenge the omission or the inclusion of
a particular activity on the inventory as a commercial activity. With
completion of the inventory, including the challenge and appeals process, the
FAIR Act requires agencies to review the activities on the inventory.
. . .
For purposes of the FAIR Act, there are two kinds of activities that are
performed by Federal employees: those activities that are "commercial" in
nature (and are, therefore, included on an agency's FAIR Act inventory) and
those that are "inherently governmental" (and are, therefore, omitted from the
inventory). The FAIR Act requires each agency to prepare an inventory of its
activities that "are not inherently governmental functions" (i.e., are
"commercial"), and the FAIR Act defines an "inherently governmental function"
as one "that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require
performance by Federal Government employees."
What is "inherently governmental"? From the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP):
As a matter of policy, an "inherently governmental function" is a function
that is so intimately related to the public interest as to mandate performance
by Government employees. These functions include those activities that require
either the exercise of discretion in applying Government authority or the
making of value judgments in making decisions for the Government. Governmental
functions normally fall into two categories: (1) the act of governing, i.e.,
the discretionary exercise of Government authority, and (2) monetary
transactions and entitlements.
An inherently governmental function involves, among other things, the
interpretation and execution of the laws of the United States so as to:
(a) bind the United States to take or not to take some action by contract,
policy, regulation, authorization, order, or otherwise;
(b) determine, protect, and advance its economic, political, territorial,
property, or other interests by military or diplomatic action, civil or
criminal judicial proceedings, contract management, or otherwise;
(c) significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private persons;
(d) commission, appoint, direct, or control officers of employees of the
United States; or
(e) exert ultimate control over the acquisition, use, or disposition of the
property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, of the United States,
including the collection, control, or disbursement of appropriated and other
Federal funds.
Inherently governmental functions do not normally include gathering
information for or providing advice, opinions, recommendations, or ideas to
Government officials. They also do not include functions that are primarily
ministerial and internal in nature, such as building security; mail
operations; operation of cafeterias; housekeeping; facilities operations and
maintenance, warehouse operations, motor vehicle fleet management and
operations, or other routine electrical or mechanical services.
The next question is why is the A-76 study being to our Bargaining Unit now?
There are still some answers to the obvious questions that Wally Pike needs to
receive, however the A-76 process has been going on for many years and the
FAIR Act has been listing governmental functions since 1999.
In a March 2001 Memorandum, The Office of Management and Budget has provided
to Agency Heads:
. . .
For FY 2002, agencies will complete public-private or direct conversion
competitions on not less than 5 percent of the FTE listed on their Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act inventories. Agency plans will include the
number of FTE by function and location being competed, training requirements
and planned contract support. The President's commitment is to open at least
one-half of the Federal positions listed on the FAIR Act inventory of
commercial functions to competition with the private sector.
Agency plans should outline how the agency intends to meet these goals. If the
agency does not believe that it will achieve these goals within the FY 2002
Budget time-frame, the agency should describe the actions the agency intends
to take in order to mitigate this problem. Agencies should provide a time-line
showing when it expects to achieve this FY 2002 Budget goal.
. . .
Many government agencies have been listing functions available for commercial
sources, the Department of Defense is the most notable. The point is, there
have been many functions examined for potential commercial outsourcing, so we
have considerable data to review in terms of the process and the protection of
employee's rights through exclusive representation.
A search of the web provides an overwhelming volume of information concerning
OMB A-76 and the FAIR Act, my hope is to work with John Dibble for some links
for the NAATS Web Site, the task would be to limit to those links that are
relevant.
The A-76 study, if the agency decides to pursue, is a complex and
comprehensive study with many facets and requirements. The employees, through
the Union, has a right to participate in the process. It would be in our
interest and the interest of our customers to insure the study is thorough and
complete, regardless of how long it takes or how much it costs. We have only
begun to look at this issue, more information to follow.
Kurt