Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities: Competitive Sourcing Targets

Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities: Competitive Sourcing Targets

Order Code RL32079
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities:
Competitive Sourcing Targets
Updated January 12, 2005
L. Elaine Halchin
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Federal Contracting of Commercial Activities:
Competitive Sourcing Targets
Summary
The Bush Administration initiated a distinctive program of competitive sourcing
in 2001. The thrust of this reform is to subject commercial activities to public-
private competition, using the policy and instructions contained in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76. (Commercial activities are defined
as federal activities that could be performed by the private sector.) As required by
the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act (P.L. 105-270), agencies
compile lists of their commercial activities (and associated full-time equivalents
(FTEs)) and submit them to OMB by June 30 of each year.
An important component of the Administration’s initiative has been the
introduction of goals or targets. In 2001, OMB announced a long-term goal for
competitive sourcing: submit 50% of the FTEs listed on FAIR inventories to
competition. No deadline accompanied this goal. OMB also established interim
goals for agencies: compete 5% in FY2002 and an additional 10% in FY2003. OMB
also developed an executive branch management scorecard to rate agency progress
on the President’s Management’s Agenda (PMA), of which competitive sourcing is
one component.
In 2002, some critics of the competitive sourcing targets suggested that they
were arbitrary. Congressional interest in the competitive sourcing targets, and how
they were developed, was reflected in two legislative measures in 2003. Section 647
of P.L. 108-7, Division J (H.J.Res. 2, 108th Congress) required OMB to “provide
considered research and sound analysis” in support of its goals or face the possibility
that funds made available in the bill (which was the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution) could not be used to apply, enforce, or establish any goal or target for
competitive sourcing. The House Committee on Appropriations report (H.Rept. 108-
243) that accompanied H.R. 2989, the FY2004 appropriations bill for Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies, directed OMB to submit reports to the Senate
and House Appropriations Committees on any new competitive sourcing targets.
H.R. 2989, as amended and passed by the Senate, also included two provisions on
competitive sourcing, though neither addressed the issue of targets or goals.
An OMB report, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-Private Competition
in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, issued on July 24, 2003, explains
competitive sourcing strategy. Although the report did not explicitly state that it was
responding to Section 647 of P.L. 108-7, Division J, it did note that OMB had
dropped its numerical targets, opted for a collaborative (OMB-agency) process in the
development of competition plans, and revised the competitive sourcing criteria for
the executive branch management scorecard. A second OMB report, dated
September 2003, focused on agency competitive sourcing activities. In December
2003, OMB released guidance on the preparation of agency competition plans. This
report will be updated if additional guidance regarding competitive sourcing plans
or targets is released.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Competitive Sourcing Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2000 Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2001 Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2002 Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2003 Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2, 108th Congress)
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
OMB Projection for Competitive Sourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
OMB’s July Report on Competitive Sourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
H.R. 2989, Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Providing “Considered Research and Analysis” to Congress . . . . . . . 18
OMB’s Expectation: Compete 416,000 FTEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
OMB’s September Report on Competitive Sourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
OMB Guidance on Green Competitive Sourcing Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Revised Scorecard Criteria — Green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2. Revised Scorecard Criteria — Yellow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 3. OMB Estimates of Commercial Activities FTEs at Agencies
and Departments Tracked under the PMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 4. Number of Positions in Agency Competition Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 5. Executive Branch Management Scorecard:
Competitive Sourcing Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Federal Contracting of
Commercial Activities:
Competitive Sourcing Targets
Introduction
Competitive sourcing, a term coined by the Administration of President George
W. Bush, refers to a government-wide initiative to subject activities or functions
performed by federal agencies that are deemed commercial to public-private
competition. A commercial activity is defined by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) as “a recurring service that could be performed by the private sector,”
whereas “an inherently governmental activity is an activity that is so intimately
related to the public interest as to mandate performance by government personnel.”1
As explained by the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP) in early 2002:
Competitive sourcing is a means to an end, with the means being competition
(generally public-private competition) and the end being better management of
our government and better service for our citizens.2
OMB expects competitive sourcing to result in “significant performance
improvements,” such as reducing costs, improving accountability, or increasing
efficiency.3
1 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76 (Revised), May 29, 2003, pp.
D-2 and A-2. Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a076/a76_incl_tech_
correction.pdf], visited Jan. 3, 2005.
2 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military
Readiness, statement of Angela B. Styles, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement
Policy, unpublished hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 13, 2002, available at
[http://armedservices.house.gov/schedules/2002.html#mar02], visited Jan. 6, 2005, p. 5.
Angela Styles resigned as Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator effective
Sept. 15, 2003. Robert Burton served as interim Administrator until Nov. 21, 2004, when
David Savian was confirmed as the Administrator.
3 Testimony of Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Angela Styles, in U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Who’s Doing Work for the
Government?: Monitoring, Accountability and Competition in the Federal and Service
Contract Workforce, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 6, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002),
p. 49.

CRS-2
The policy and instructions for conducting public-private competitions are found
in OMB Circular A-76 and accompanying attachments. Initially issued in 1966, the
circular was released in its most recent revised form on May 29, 2003.4
Inventories of commercial functions and inherently governmental activities are
another component of the competitive sourcing initiative. The Federal Activities
Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of 19985 requires federal agencies to compile lists of
their commercial activities and submit them to OMB by June 30 of each year. The
first set of inventories was produced in 1999. The requirement for agencies to
prepare lists of their inherently governmental activities and to submit them to OMB
along with their FAIR inventories was established in an OMB memorandum dated
April 3, 2001.6

This report examines OMB’s competitive sourcing targets and the executive
branch management scorecard, and shows how they have changed over time.
Competitive Sourcing Targets
2000 Targets
The Bush Administration’s interest in competitive sourcing apparently began
during the 2000 presidential campaign. Then-Governor George W. Bush reportedly
said in a speech on June 9, 2000:
Today, hundreds of thousands of full-time federal employees perform tasks that
could be done by the private sector. I will put as many of these tasks as possible
up for competitive bidding. If the private sector can do a better job, it should get
the contract.7
2001 Targets
Shortly after the inauguration of President Bush, OMB issued two memoranda
on government reform, which included references to Circular A-76 competitions.
These two documents constituted the initial public announcement of what would later
be designated the Administration’s competitive sourcing initiative. The first
memorandum, dated February 14, 2001, notified agencies and departments that the
President envisioned a government that would be citizen-based, results-oriented, and
4 See also U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Performance of Commercial Activities,”
Federal Register, vol. 68, no. 103, May 29, 2003, pp. 32134-32142; CRS Report RL32017,
Circular A-76 Revision 2003: Selected Issues, by L. Elaine Halchin.
5 P.L. 105-270 (Oct. 19, 1998); 112 Stat. 2382; 31 U.S.C. 501 note.
6 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Year 2001 Inventory of Commercial Activities,”
Memorandum M-01-16, April 3, 2001, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
memoranda/index.html], visited Jan. 5, 2005.
7 Tichakorn Hill, “OMB Plans to Compete 400,000 More Jobs,” Federal Times, vol. 37, no.
3, Feb. 19, 2001, p.1.

CRS-3
market-driven. The five government-wide reforms announced in the memorandum
were:
delayering management levels to streamline organizations; reducing erroneous
payments to beneficiaries and other recipients of government funds; making
greater use of performance-based contracts; expanding the application of on-line
procurement and other E-Government services and information; and expanding
A-76 competitions and [developing] more accurate FAIR Act inventories.8
A second memorandum from OMB, issued March 9, 2001, provided additional
guidance, setting specific competitive sourcing targets for FY2002. The
memorandum directed agencies to compete or convert a minimum of 5% of the full-
time equivalents (FTEs)9 listed on their FAIR inventories using Circular A-76
procedures.10 This memorandum also included a long-term goal for competitive
sourcing:
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.11
No deadline accompanied the long-term goal. In a memorandum prepared for the
July 11, 2001, meeting of the President’s Management Council, OMB reportedly
applied the 50% target to the 2000 FAIR inventories.
Review of the 2000 FAIR Act inventories identified 850,000 civilian Full-Time
Equivalents (FTE) performing commercial work. This figure represents 53% of
the government’s civilian workforce. The President has committed to
incrementally opening one-half of these 850,000 FTEs, or 425,000 of the FTE[s]
identified on the 2000 FAIR Act inventories, to public-private competition or
direct conversion to private sector performance.12
8 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Performance Goals and Management Initiatives
for the FY 2002 Budget,” Memorandum M-01-11, Feb. 14, 2001, p. 2. Available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/index.html], visited Jan. 5, 2005.
9 A full-time equivalent (FTE) is “[t]he staffing of Federal civilian employee positions,
expressed in terms of annual productive work hours (1,776 [hours]) rather than annual
available hours that includes non-productive hours (2,080 hours)” (U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76 (Revised), p. D-5).
10 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Performance Goals and Management Initiatives
for the FY 2002 Budget,” Memorandum M-01-15, March 9, 2001, p. 1, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/index.html], visited Jan. 5, 2005. The direct
conversion option, which could be used only under certain circumstances, allowed agencies
to convert work from the public sector to the private sector without holding a competition
between the government and private contractors. Direct conversions are no longer
permitted. This alternative was eliminated by OMB when it wrote the 2003 revision to
Circular A-76.
11 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Performance Goals and Management Initiatives
for the FY 2002 Budget,” p. 1.
12 “July 11 OMB Review of Agencies’ FAIR Act Lists,” Government Executive, Daily
(continued...)

CRS-4
Congressional testimony provided by the OFPP Administrator in 2002 confirmed
these figures:
The aggregate government-wide goal, established at the outset of the initiative,
envisions the competition of 425,000 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) —
i.e., 50 percent of commercial FTEs.13
In June 2001, a second interim target was established. In correspondence sent
to federal agencies, OMB advised agency heads that the competition/conversion
target for FY2003 was an additional 10% of the FTEs listed on their FAIR
inventories.14
A third OMB memorandum, which was issued on April 3, 2001, effected a
significant change. Whereas FAIR required the compilation of lists of commercial
activities, OMB Memorandum M-01-16 directed agencies to prepare inventories of
their inherently governmental functions and submit them with their annual FAIR
inventories to OMB.15
In August 2001, President Bush released the President’s Management Agenda
— FY 2002 (PMA).16 The agenda consisted of government management reforms in
five areas: competitive sourcing, human capital, financial performance, electronic
government (e-government), and budget and performance integration.17 The
executive branch management scorecard, which was introduced in the President’s
FY2003 budget proposal, and the accompanying standards for success are used to
assess and rate an agency’s status on the Administration’s five government reforms.18
The ratings are green (successful), yellow (mixed results), and red (unsatisfactory).
To achieve a green rating, an agency would have to:
12 (...continued)
Briefing, July 23, 2001, available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0701/072301p1a.
htm], visited Jan. 5, 2005.
13 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Technology
and Procurement Policy, Oversight Hearing to Review the Findings of the Commercial
Activities Panel, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 27, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2003),
p. 43.
14 Information provided electronically by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Jan. 14,
2003.
15 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Year 2001 Inventory of Commercial Activities,”
Memorandum M-01-16, April 3, 2001, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
memoranda/index.html], visited Jan. 5, 2005, p. 1.
16 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, The President’s Management Agenda — FY
2002, (Washington: OMB, Aug. 2001).
17 See CRS Report RS21416, The President’s Management Agenda: A Brief Introduction,
by Virginia A. McMurtry.
18 Ibid., p. 10.

CRS-5
[Complete] public-private or direct conversion competitions on not less than 50%
of the full-time equivalent employees listed on the approved FAIR Act
inventories;
[Conduct] competitions and direct conversions ... pursuant to [an] approved
competition plan; [and]
[Ensure that] commercial reimbursable support service arrangements between
agencies ... [were] competed with the private sector on a recurring basis.19
An agency that achieved some, but not all, of the green criteria, and avoided any red
conditions, would earn a yellow rating. An agency that met one or more of the
following criteria would earn a red rating:
Completed public-private or direct conversion competition[s] on less than 15
percent of the full-time equivalent employees listed on the approved FAIR Act
inventories.
[Did not conduct] competitions and direct conversions ... in accordance with
approved competition plan.
No commercial reimbursable support service arrangements between agencies ...
[were] competed with the private sector.20
Information about agency ratings on the competitive sourcing initiative, from 2002
through 2004, is available in Appendix A.
2002 Targets
No additional interim goals were announced in 2002, but two notable
developments concerning competitive sourcing targets occurred during the year.
Initially, agencies were expected to compete a total of 15% of their commercial FTEs
by the end of FY2003. Congressional testimony provided by the then-Administrator
of OFPP in March affirmed that this had been the original goal.
We put 15 percent up over 2 years as a goal that we thought was appropriate for
almost every department and agency to meet because they had not subjected, as
a general proposition — particularly at the civilian agencies — they had never
subjected any of these jobs that are clearly commercial in nature to the pressures
of competition.21
19 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 1, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/comp_sourcing_072403.pdf], visited Jan.
5, 2005, Attachment B.
20 Ibid.
21 Testimony of Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Angela Styles, in U.S.
Congress, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Who’s Doing Work for the Government?:
Monitoring, Accountability and Competition in the Federal and Service Contract
(continued...)

CRS-6
However, the Administrator also noted that OMB had begun working with
agencies to develop goals suited to their particular circumstances.
[W]e sat down with each department and agency over the period of the past, I
would say 6 to 9 months, to determine what was an appropriate plan for that
agency. There are agencies where it is not appropriate right now for them to be
competing 15 percent.22
Next, at a hearing in September, the Administrator explained that the combined
target of 15% was a government-wide goal, not a goal that each agency was required
to meet.
I would like to take an opportunity to clarify what is a tremendous amount of
confusion and misrepresentation about our goals. First, it’s an aggregate 15
percent governmentwide goal. It’s not 15 percent at each agency.23
Criticism of OMB’s competitive sourcing targets surfaced in 2002. The primary
allegation was that the goals or targets were arbitrary. In March, for ex ample,
Senator George V. Voinovich voiced his concerns about OMB’s targets.
I am concerned that the benchmarks the administration has adopted for its
competitive sourcing are arbitrary and potentially damaging, as were the Clinton
Administration’s downsizing efforts. What measurement criteria did the
administration use to come up with a 50 percent figure? What is the logic behind
it?24
In April, the Commercial Activities Panel (CAP) issued its report on Circular
A-76 and related issues.25 One of the panel’s recommendations was that the
government adopt 10 sourcing principles developed by CAP. The sixth principle
was: “Avoid arbitrary full-time equivalent (FTE) or other arbitrary numerical goals.”
While the panel did not comment explicitly about the Administration’s competitive
sourcing targets, it did explain its rationale for avoiding arbitrary goals.
21 (...continued)
Workforce, p. 18.
22 Ibid.
23 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Technology
and Procurement Policy, Oversight Hearing to Review the Findings of the Commercial
Activities Panel, p. 139.
24 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Who’s Doing Work for the
Government?: Monitoring, Accountability and Competition in the Federal and Service
Contract Workforce, pp. 19-20.
25 The Commercial Activities Panel (CAP) was established at the direction of Section 832
of P.L. 106-398. Convened in spring 2001 by the Comptroller General, the panel was
charged with examining Circular A-76 and FAIR. Members included senior federal
government officials, industry and union representatives, and competitive sourcing experts.
After a year-long study, CAP released its report, Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the
Government, on April 30, 2002.

CRS-7
This principle reflects an overall concern about arbitrary numbers driving
sourcing policy or specific sourcing decisions. The success of government
programs should be measured by the results achieved in terms of providing value
to the taxpayer, not the size of the in-house or contractor workforce. Any FTE
or other numerical goals should be based on considered research and analysis.
The use of arbitrary percentage or numerical targets can be counterproductive.26
Later in 2002, the Comptroller General commented, in correspondence and in
congressional testimony, on OMB’s targets.
I have seen no evidence to indicate that [OMB’s] numerical FTE goals were
based on considered research and sound analysis.... In addition, I am not aware
that OMB’s FTE goals took into full account the capacity of agencies,
particularly civilian agencies, to conduct public-private competitions.27
... I believe the administration’s current quotas, targets, call it whatever you want,
violate the [sourcing] principles [recommended by CAP], because they are
arbitrary.28
OMB’s response to these charges was that the interim goals were an effort to
prompt agencies to establish the infrastructure necessary to conduct competitions.
At a hearing in September, the then-Administrator of OFPP elaborated on this point.
Let me be clear about the application of this aggregate government-wide goal [of
15%]. It is not intended as an arbitrary quota, such as the ones that were put into
effect through most of the 1990s when the workforce was reduced by 324,580
FTEs .... Like you, Mr. Chairman [Representative Thomas M. Davis], I have
always opposed arbitrary FTE cuts and caps. As this Subcommittee has heard
me say before, competitive sourcing is not about outsourcing or downsizing the
workforce. To the contrary, it is about creating incentives and opportunities for
efficiency and innovation through competition.... Thus, as we work with agencies
and evaluate their progress, the real issue is whether an agency’s plan first builds
an infrastructure for public-private competition and then implements
competitions over the long-term. While OMB will presume that an agency has
built such an infrastructure if it competes 15 percent of its commercial FTEs, we
have been careful not to apply this goal in a rigid or arbitrary manner.29
2003 Targets
P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2, 108th Congress) Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003. Congressional interest in the Administration’s competitive
26 Commercial Activities Panel, Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the Government
(Washington: GAO, 2002), p. 47.
27 David M. Walker, Comptroller General, “Commercial Activities Panel: Use of Numerical
Goals,” letter to Senator George V. Voinovich, Aug. 9, 2002, GAO-02-1022R, p. 2.
28 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Technology
and Procurement Policy, Oversight Hearing to Review the Findings of the Commercial
Activities Panel, p. 137.
29 Ibid., pp. 43-44.

CRS-8
sourcing targets, and the question of whether the goals were arbitrary or were the
result of research and analysis, were reflected in Section 647 of P.L. 108-7, Division
J, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. The legislation was signed by
the President on February 20, 2003.30 In an effort to prevent the use of arbitrary
quotas and to learn more about OMB’s development of its competitive sourcing
targets, Congress included this provision in P.L. 108-7:
While nothing in this section shall prevent any agency of the executive branch
from subjecting work performed by Federal Government employees or private
contractors to public-private competition or conversions, none of the funds made
available in this Act may be used by an agency of the executive branch to
establish, apply, or enforce any numerical goal, target, or quota for subjecting the
employees of the executive agency to public-private competitions or for
converting such employees or the work performed by such employees to private
contractor performance under the Office Management and Budget Circular A-76
or any other administrative regulation, directive, or policy unless the goal, target,
or quota is based on considered research and sound analysis of past activities and
is consistent with the stated mission of the executive agency.
The accompanying conference report provided additional guidance:
If any goals, targets, or quotas are established following “considered research
and sound analysis” under the terms of this provision [Section 647], the
conferees direct the Office of Management and Budget to provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations no later than 30 days following the announcement
of those goals, targets, or quotas, specifically detailing the research and sound
analysis that was used in reaching the decision.31
OMB Projection for Competitive Sourcing. In April 2003, the
Administration reportedly revised the executive branch management scorecard
criteria and its goals for competitive sourcing and the other four PMA reforms. Clay
Johnson III, who was the nominee for the position of Deputy Director for
Management at OMB at the time, and was confirmed subsequently, sent a
memorandum dated April 17, 2003,32 to the President’s Management Council that
included projections from the managers of the five government-wide initiatives for
their respective reforms. The projections listed revised scorecard criteria and the
accomplishments that each manager expected for his or her program by July 1, 2004.
The revised criteria for a green rating on the executive branch management scorecard
were:
30 P.L. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003); 117 Stat. 11, at 474; Consolidated Appropriations Resolution,
2003.
31 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, 2003, Making Further Continuing Appropriations
for the Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany H.J.Res.
2, H.Rept. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 1343.
32 Jason Peckenpaugh, “OMB Sets New Targets for Management Agenda,” Government
Executive, Daily Briefing, May 21, 2003, available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/
0503/052103p1.htm], visited Jan. 5, 2005.

CRS-9
Agency has initiated plans to complete competitions on 50% of federal
government’s commercial activities (appropriate percentage and timing
determined for each agency individually);
Agency has completed at least 10 standard competitions since January ‘01;
Agency completes 90% of all standard competitions in 12-month timeframe since
June ‘03;
Agency completes 95% of all streamlined competitions in 90-day timeframe
since June ‘03;
Agency cancels less than 10% of publicly announced standard and streamlined
competitions since June ‘03;
Agency consistently identifies commercial and inherently governmental
activities; [and]
All commercial activities exempt from competition have OMB-approved
justifications.33
The revised criteria for yellow were:
Agency has completed the implementation of an OMB approved competition
plan for 2002-2003;
Agency has completed one standard competition or has publicly announced
standard competitions that exceed approved competition plans for 2002-2003;
Agency completes 75% of streamlined competitions in 90-day timeframe;
Agency cancels less than 20% of publicly announced standard and streamlined
competitions; [and]
Agency has initiated plans to consistently identify commercial and inherently
governmental inventories throughout the agency.34
The 2004 projection for competitive sourcing included these goals:
[50% of all agencies will have] people, systems and resources ... in place to
conduct more than five public/private competitions a year in each agency;
75% of all agencies will have completed competitions within an average of 12
months;
33 “OMB ‘Proud to Be’ Assessment for Competitive Sourcing,” Government Executive,
Daily Briefing, Nov. 4, 2003, available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0503/0503p1a.
htm], visited Jan. 5, 2005.
34 Ibid.

CRS-10
Competitions for 15% of government’s commercial activities will have been
initiated or completed;
$1.5 billion in annual savings from completed competitions will have been
realized;
60% of all agencies will have demonstrated improved productivity;
Stretch goal: If DOD commits to subject an additional 130,000 positions to
competitions, the civilian agencies will subject additional positions to
competition.35
These revised criteria and goals were in place for only a few months before OMB
opted for a different approach to competitive sourcing.
OMB’s July Report on Competitive Sourcing. In July 2003, OMB
announced that it had abandoned its numerical goals and that agencies would develop
customized competition plans. However, the Administration’s executive branch
management scorecard remains in place, and OMB issued new criteria for the
competitive sourcing portion. These changes were provided in congressional
testimony by the then-OFPP Administrator on July 24, 2003, and were presented in
an OMB report, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-Private Competition in
a Reasoned and Responsible Manner (hereafter referred to as the “competitive
sourcing report”), which was released the same day.
In its July 24, 2003 report, OMB described the Administration’s “strategy for
institutionalizing public-private competition ...” and explained how its approach
toward the establishment and application of goals had changed. The strategy
includes:
1. Agency-specific competition plans that are customized, based on considered
research and sound analysis, to address the agency’s mission and workforce mix;
and will be continually refined to reflect changed circumstances, improved
insight into agency programs, and experiences with conducting competitions;
2. A dedicated infrastructure within each agency to promote sound and
accountable decision making; and
3. Improved processes for the fair and efficient conduct of public-private
competition.36
In an explanation of its initial decision to use competitive sourcing goals and its
subsequent decision to eliminate these targets, OMB stated:
35 Ibid.
36 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 1. (italics in
original)

CRS-11
To begin the process of opening commercial activities identified on workforce
inventories to competition, OMB instructed agencies to complete competitions
on 5 percent of these activities by the end of fiscal year 2002 and an additional
10 percent by the end of fiscal year 2003. These figures were intended to ensure
a level of commitment that would help institutionalize use of the tool within each
agency.... With experience, OMB recognized that its initial numerically-based
directions were inadequate. The guidance provided no management incentives
or disincentives, no process for evaluating progress, and no mechanism for
interacting with the agencies to reinforce strengths and correct weaknesses. To
address these concerns, OMB created scorecards to measure progress using a
traffic-light (i.e., “red-yellow-green”) grading system.... Under the scorecard
approach, numerical mandates were converted to incentives: an agency would
move from a “red” score to a “yellow” score if it completed competitions for
15% of the total commercial positions listed on their inventories.... The 50%
figure was meant to ensure that the dynamics of competition would be brought
to bear on a significant portion of commercial activities over time.... Through
individual interactions with the agencies to evaluate progress, OMB learned that
baselines would need to vary based on mission needs and conditions unique to
the agency. Through individual interactions with the agencies to evaluate
progress, OMB learned that baselines would need to vary based on mission needs
and conditions unique to the agency.37
In congressional testimony provided the same day that the OMB report was
issued, the then-Administrator of OFPP described how agencies prepare their
competition plans.
The preparation of competition plans begins with the development of workforce
inventories, as required by OMB guidance and the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform (FAIR) Act. Agencies first differentiate inherently governmental
activities from commercial activities.... Agencies then separate commercial
activities that are available for competition from those that are not. In deciding
whether a commercial activity is inappropriate for potential performance by the
private sector, agencies take various factors into consideration, such as the
unavailability of private sector expertise, preservation of core competencies, or
the need for confidentiality in support of senior level decision making.... Once
an agency has identified commercial activities available for competition, they
consider, in a disciplined way, which of these might benefit most from
comparison with the private sector. Agencies are generally focusing use of
public-private competition on commonly available routine commercial services
where there are likely to be numerous capable and highly competitive private
sector contractors worthy of comparison to agency providers. They also consider
factors such as workforce mix, attrition rates, capacity to conduct reviews, the
percentage of service contracts, and the strength of the agency’s contract
management capabilities.38
37 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, pp. 4-5.
38 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Then
and Now: An Update on the Bush Administration’s Competitive Sourcing Initiative, hearing,
108th Cong., 1st sess., July 24, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2004), pp. 59-60.

CRS-12
OMB’s competitive sourcing report provided sample profiles of agency
competition plans. For each agency listed, the profile identified the number of
positions and examples of commercial activities in the competition plan, and also
listed examples of commercial activities excluded from the plan. The report also
noted that OMB would provide information by September 26, 2003, on agencies it
tracks.39
OMB also used its 2003 competitive sourcing report to announce that it had
revised the competitive sourcing criteria for the executive branch management
scorecard. The first column of Table 1 is a verbatim listing of OMB’s criteria for a
“green” rating. The second column sets forth possible questions that could be raised
and comments that could be made by agencies seeking to earn a “green” rating.
39 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 6.

CRS-13
Table 1. Revised Scorecard Criteria — Green
Criteria
Analysis
An agency must have:
An approved “green” competition plan to
1. Does the criteria for a green
compete commercial activities available
competition plan differ substantially from
for competition.a
OMB’s initial plan to have agencies
compete 50% of their commercial FTEs?
2. What was the rationale for selecting
FY2008 as the target date to have
competitions publicly announced?
Publicly announced standard
1. Apparently, an agency will have to
competitions in accordance with the
announce publicly all standard
schedule outlined in the agency “green”
competitions listed in its competitive
competition plan.
sourcing plan in order to receive credit
for this standard.
2. Streamlined competitions are not
included in this standard.
Since January 2001, completed at least 10
1. Does this item refer to standard
competitions (no minimum number of
competitions, streamlined competitions,
positions required per competition).
or both?
2. Why does the measurement period
begin January 2001?
In the past year, completed 90% of all
1. An agency that announces and
standard competitions in a 12-month time
completes only one standard competition
frame.
within 12 months will receive credit for
this criterion. An agency that undertakes
10 standard competitions, but completes
only eight within the 12-month time
frame will not receive credit for this
criterion.
2. How many agencies have sufficient
resources and infrastructure to complete
90% of all standard competitions within
the time frame?
3. Apparently, an agency will not receive
credit for competitions for which the
competitive sourcing official has granted
a time limit waiver.b
In the past year, completed 95% of all
1. An agency that announces and
streamlined competitions in a 90-day time
completes only one streamlined
frame.
competition within 90 days will receive
credit for this criterion. An agency that
undertakes 10 streamlined competitions,
but completes only nine within the 90-
day time frame will not receive credit for
this criterion.
2. How many agencies have sufficient
resources and infrastructure to complete
95% of all streamlined competitions

CRS-14
Criteria
Analysis
An agency must have:
within the time frame?
3. If an agency decides to create a most
efficient organization (MEO) for a
function undergoing a streamlined
competition, what is the probability that
the agency will meet the 90-day deadline
and develop a competitive agency tender
and most efficient organization (MEO)?c
4. Apparently, an agency will not receive
credit for competitions for which the
competitive sourcing official has granted
a time limit waiver.d
In the past year, canceled fewer than 10%
An agency that announces and completes
of publicly announced standard and
one standard or one streamlined
streamlined competitions.
competition will receive credit for this
criterion. An agency that undertakes 10
standard or streamlined competitions, and
then cancels a minimum of two will not
receive credit for this criterion.
OMB-approved justifications for all
Circular A-76 does not state explicitly
categories of commercial activities
that agencies must obtain OMB approval
exempt from competition.
for written justifications for functions
assigned reason code A.e
Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-Private
Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 1, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/comp_sourcing_072403.pdf], visited Jan. 5, 2005, p.
8.
Notes:
a. OMB guidance on the preparation of green competition plans was issued December 22, 2003. The
document is available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/index.html], visited Jan.
5, 2005.
b. A competitive sourcing official (CSO) may grant a time limit waiver of up to six months for a
standard competition. Under the 2003 revision to Circular A-76, agencies are required to
designate a CSO (an assistant secretary or equivalent level official) who will have responsibility
for implementing the circular.. (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76
(Revised), May 29, 2003, pp. 1 and B-6, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
circulars/a076/a76_incl_tech_correction.pdf], visited Feb. 10, 2004.)
c. An agency tender is the government’s response to a solicitation. The MEO is the staffing plan of
the agency tender. It is the entity that would perform the work where the government wins the
competition. A competitive agency tender (or MEO) is one that has a reasonable chance of
being selected to perform the work.
d. A CSO may grant a time limit waiver of up to 45 days for a streamlined competition (U.S. Office
of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76 (Revised), p. B-5).
e. Ibid., p. A-3.
The first column of Table 2 is a verbatim listing of OMB’s criteria for a
“yellow” rating. The second column sets forth possible questions that could be raised
and comments that could be made by agencies seeking to earn a “yellow” rating.

CRS-15
Table 2. Revised Scorecard Criteria — Yellow
Criteria
Analysis
An agency must have:
An OMB approved “yellow” competition
1. Apparently, OMB and each agency
plan to compete commercial activities
will determine jointly how many FTEs
available for competition.
must be competed in order for a
competition plan to be approved by OMB
as a “yellow” plan.a What are the other
criteria, if any, for an approved yellow
plan?
2. What are the components of a yellow
plan?
Completed one standard competition or
Are these two criteria comparable?
publicly announced standard
competitions that exceed the number of
positions identified for competition in the
agency’s “yellow”competition plan.
In the past two quarters, completed 75%
1. How many agencies have sufficient
of streamlined competitions in a 90-day
resources and infrastructure to complete
time frame.
75% of all streamlined competitions
within the 90-day time frame?
2. Why is there no criterion for
completing a specific percentage of
standard competitions within the 12-
month time frame?
3. If an agency decides to create an MEO
for a function undergoing a streamlined
competition, what is the probability that
the agency will meet the 90-day deadline
and develop a competitive MEO?b
4. Why is the measurement period two
quarters instead of one year? (The
measurement period for the comparable
“green” criterion is one year.)
5. An agency that announces and
completes only one streamlined
competition within 90 days will receive
credit for this criterion. An agency that
undertakes 10 streamlined competitions,
but completes only 7 within the 90-day
time frame, will not receive credit for this
criterion.
6. Apparently, an agency will not receive
credit for competitions for which the
competitive sourcing official has granted
a time limit waiver.c
In the past two quarters, canceled less
1. An agency that announces and
than 20% of publicly announced standard
completes only one standard or one
and streamlined competitions.
streamlined competition will receive
credit for this criterion. An agency that

CRS-16
Criteria
Analysis
An agency must have:
undertakes 10 standard or streamlined
competitions, and then cancels a
minimum of three, will not receive credit
for this criterion.
2. Why is the measurement period two
quarters instead of one year? (The
measurement period for the comparable
“green” criterion is one year.)
Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-Private
Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 1, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/comp_sourcing_072403.pdf], visited Jan. 5, 2005, pp.
7-8.
Notes:
a. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-Private
Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, p. 6.
b. Under the 2003 revision to Circular A-76, an MEO is required for a standard competition, but it is
optional for a streamlined competition.
c. A competitive sourcing official (CSO) may grant a time limit waiver of up to 45 days for a
streamlined competition. Under the 2003 revision to Circular A-76, agencies are required to
designate CSO (an assistant secretary or equivalent level official) who will have responsibility
for implementing the circular. (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76
(Revised), May 29, 2003, pp. B-5 and 1, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
circulars/a076/a76_ incl _tech_correction.pdf], visited Jan. 5, 2005).
In summary, OMB’s initial competitive sourcing efforts, particularly those
efforts related to targets or goals, sought to institutionalize public-private competition
across the federal government and spur the development of sufficient infrastructure
within agencies for carrying out competitive sourcing tasks and activities. The initial
goals remained in place, with some modification — which lasted briefly, as a result
of Clay Johnson III’s April 17 memorandum — until the then-OFPP Administrator’s
congressional testimony on July 24, 2003. There does not appear to be any publicly
available information that documents whether OMB’s goals were successful in
prompting agencies to establish infrastructures sufficient for conducting competitions
and performing related tasks. If only some agencies were successful in this area, it
remains to be seen what means OMB might use to continue to promote infrastructure
development among federal agencies. Another related issue is whether OMB plans
to assess the capability of each agency to handle its competitive sourcing workload.
While the revised scorecard criteria may provide some insight into these issues, the
criteria alone may not be sufficient. The criteria tend to focus on output. However,
output-based criteria are not necessarily well-suited to measuring other features or
characteristics, such as agency capacity or the quality of competitions and
inventories.

H.R. 2989, Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2004. The House Committee on Appropriations report that
accompanied the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies appropriations
bill for FY2004 (H.R. 2989, 108th Congress) included a recommendation concerning
competitive sourcing targets. The committee report stated:

CRS-17
The statement of the managers accompanying the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2003 [P.L. 108-7] directed OMB to “provide
a report to the Committees on Appropriations no later than 30 days following the
announcement of those [competitive sourcing] goals, targets, or quotas,
specifically detailing the research and sound analysis that was used in reaching
the decision.” Although the 15 percent competitive sourcing target has been
reiterated on several occasions since the enactment of that Act, OMB’s position
is that the reporting requirement has not been triggered because no new target
has been announced. The Committee notes that the 15 percent target is
government-wide, and separate targets could be established for individual
agencies depending on their circumstances. To the extent that OMB establishes
individual agency targets in its internal guidance, the agency is directed, within
30 days of establishing such targets, to submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations that indicates each agency’s competitive sourcing
target. The report should specifically detail the research and analysis that was
used in determining each agency’s individual target, goal or quota. To the extent
that such targets change over time, OMB is directed to maintain an up-to-date
record of such changes and convey the changes periodically to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the appropriate legislative
committees.40
H.R. 2989 was enacted as Division F of P.L. 108-199, which came to be known
as the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004.41 The competitive sourcing
provisions are found in Section 647. Section 647(a), which apparently applies only
to those federal agencies that receive appropriated funds under Division F, requires
agencies, for certain types of public-private competitions, to prepare a plan for a most
efficient organizations and to take into consideration how the conversion differential
would affect the contractor’s cost estimate. Sections 647(a) through (e) are thought
to apply government-wide. Section 647(b) requires agency heads to submit annual
reports to Congress on their competitive sourcing activities. Required elements
include the number of completed competitions; the number of announced, but not yet
completed, competitions; the number of FTEs associated with completed and
announced competitions; the cost of conducting competitions; estimated savings;
actual savings; the projected number of FTEs scheduled to be competed in the next
fiscal year; and a description of the agency’s competitive sourcing decision-making
process. The initial report is due 120 days after the date of enactment, which was
January 23, 2004. The remainder of Section 647 allows agency heads to establish a
performance period greater than five years for any agency function that was won by
federal employees in a public-private competition; permits agency heads to use
appropriated funds for monitoring the performance of any activity that has been
subjected to a public-private competition; and requires that any work converted to
contractor performance cannot be moved to a location outside the United States if the
work had previously been performed by federal government employees within the
United States.
40 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Transportation and
Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, report to accompany H.R. 2989,
108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-243 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 167-168.
41 H.R. 2673, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2004.

CRS-18
Providing “Considered Research and Analysis” to Congress. It is
unclear whether OMB’s 2003 report qualifies as an appropriate response to the
requirement for providing considered research and analysis on competitive sourcing
goals to Congress, as required by P.L. 108-7 and reaffirmed by House action on H.R.
2989 in 2003. Without explicitly stating that it was responding to Congress’s request
for information, OMB’s report provided an explanation for its initial goals of 5%,
10%, and 50%, and stated that OMB had dropped these goals in favor of targets
established through a collaborative process between itself and agencies.42 Should the
explanation for OMB’s interim and long-term goals be deemed insufficient, the fact
that OMB has abandoned these goals could possibly be construed as relieving it of
the responsibility to provide considered research and analysis for its original targets.
Nevertheless, it is possible that interest in competitive sourcing targets, and
OMB’s role in their development, could continue. Should Congress wish to obtain
the research and analysis used to develop agency competition plans, it may need to
contact federal agencies and departments, including OMB. Language in OMB’s
competitive sourcing report noted that
[a]gencies have developed competition plans using their commercial inventories
as a baseline.43 Specifically, agencies have considered, in a disciplined way,
which of the commercial activities available for competition might benefit most
from comparison with the private sector. Agency decisions have been informed
by a wide variety of factors, including, but not limited to: workforce mix,
attrition rates, capacity to conduct reviews, the percentage of service contracts,
and the strength of the agency’s contract management capabilities.44
OMB also acknowledged its role in agency competition plans.
Through individual interactions with the agencies to evaluate progress, OMB
learned that baselines would need to vary based on mission needs and conditions
unique to the agency.45 OMB reviewed all agency baselines and negotiated new
baselines with a number of agencies. These negotiations, in combination with
the continued broad discretion afforded to agencies to identify appropriate
42 However, in a written response to a July 24, 2003 letter from Senator Joseph Lieberman
on competitive sourcing targets, OMB Director Joshua B. Bolten stated that OMB’s
competitive sourcing report, also dated July 24, 2003, included “facts, rationale, and strategy
supporting competitive sourcing.” (Joshua B. Bolten, Director, U.S. Office of Management
and Budget, letter to Senator Joseph Lieberman, July 30, 2003.)
43 The use of past tense in this passage suggests that OMB had dropped its initial goals and
had begun working with agencies on customized competition plans prior to the release of
its July 24, 2003 report.
44 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 4.
45 The competitive sourcing report did not define or explain its use of the term “baselines.”
Apparently, the reference in the second passage concerned the number of FTEs sufficient
for an agency to earn a yellow rating on its scorecard. (Information provided by the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget by telephone to the author, Aug. 18, 2003.)

CRS-19
commercial activities, have allowed agencies to create customized plans for the
successful application of public-private competition.46
An agency develops its own competition plan, presumably following the process
described in OMB’s competitive sourcing report.47 However, it appears that this is
only an initial plan. The final plan is a product of negotiations between the agency
and OMB.48 The rationale for a final plan could include, in addition to an agency’s
documentation, the research and analysis OMB used in making its determination
about the contents of the agency’s plan and any changes that resulted from OMB-
agency negotiations.
The recommendation in the report accompanying H.R. 2989 notes that, in the
event that “OMB establishes individual agency targets in its internal guidance,” a
report on competitive sourcing targets is due to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. The question is how to interpret “internal guidance.” A broad
interpretation could include written and verbal guidance, including negotiations
between OMB and agencies. A possible benefit of increasing the visibility of OMB’s
guidance to agencies could be to dispel any concerns that OMB’s expectations or
instructions are communicated, treated, or perceived as targets. Encouraging or
requesting agencies to publicize their competition plans prior to entering into
negotiations with OMB also could shed light on this phase of the competition plan
process. On the other hand, increased visibility of the process, particularly
communications between agencies and OMB, could disrupt the development of
agency competition plans and provide an opportunity for outside parties to attempt
to influence the process.
OMB’s Expectation: Compete 416,000 FTEs. By dropping the 50%
target, it would appear OMB had abandoned its goal of ensuring that “the dynamics
of competition would be brought to bear on a significant portion of commercial
activities.”49 However, as OMB noted in its July 2003 report, “approximately 26%
of the workforce from agencies being tracked under the PMA are engaged in
commercial activities that should be available for competition.”50 This statement
could possibly be construed as a prescription for federal government agencies.
The 26% equates to 416,000 FTEs.51 OMB estimated that there are 751,000
inherently governmental FTEs and 858,000 commercial FTEs. The number of
46 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 5.
47 Ibid., pp. 3-4.
48 Ibid., p. 5.
49 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 5.
50 Ibid., p. 3.
51 In its competitive sourcing report, OMB did not specify whether the figures in its
aggregate workforce profile are FTEs, positions, or some other unit of measurement.
Because it is standard practice to use FTEs when discussing competitive sourcing issues and
policies, it is likely that OMB’s figures are FTEs.

CRS-20
commercial FTEs includes 442,000 identified as commercial, but not available for
competition, and 416,000 identified as commercial and available for competition.52
OMB’s report does not identify the source of these figures, and it does not include
an explanation of how commercial functions were sorted into the “available” and
“not available” categories. FAIR inventories reportedly were the source of these
numbers, and reason codes were used to determine whether a commercial function
should be classified as available or not available for competition.53
According to OMB’s estimate, the number of commercial FTEs available for
competition is 416,000. This figure represents 48% of the total number of
commercial FTEs, and it is comparable to the original long-term target for
competitive sourcing, 50%, which equated to 425,000 FTEs. While OMB elected to
eliminate the 50% long-term goal, it apparently expects agencies to compete 100%
of the commercial functions identified as available for competition. In a media
interview, the then-Administrator of OFPP stated:
What we’re looking for is for an agency to have a plan in place — and a pretty
aggressive plan — to compete anything that’s open to competition. Look at the
green standard on the scorecard, which says we contemplate having a plan in
place at every department and agency to compete every activity that is
commercial in nature and open to competition. To get to green we want pretty
significant plans in place to compete any activity that is commercial in nature.
That’s about 418,000 [jobs].54
The Administrator also reportedly said, “We still expect agencies to compete
everything open to competition.”55 This statement might reflect the possibility that
the number of commercial activities available for competition could fluctuate from
year to year. Freed from blanket targets, such as the initial goals of 5% and 10% that
each agency was expected to meet, agency personnel might, in reviewing their
commercial and inherently governmental lists, determine that some functions had
been erroneously classified. While it is easy to move functions from an inherently
governmental inventory to a FAIR inventory, or to shift an activity on a commercial
list from reason code A to reason code B, to do the reverse requires more work.
52 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Conducting Public-
Private Competition in a Reasoned and Responsible Manner, July 2003, p. 3.
53 Information provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget by telephone to the
author, Aug. 8 and 18, 2003. Commercial functions listed on FAIR inventories are assigned
reason codes. A reason code indicates the status of a function with regard to competitive
sourcing. Reason code A indicates a function is not suited for private sector performance.
Reason code B indicates that a function is appropriate for private sector performance. All
six reason codes are described in U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Year 2003
Inventories of Commercial and Inherently Governmental Activities,” Memorandum M-03-
09, Mar. 14, 2003, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/index.html],
visited Jan. 5, 2005.
54 “‘No Two Agencies Are Alike’: Quotas Unworkable, But Competitive Sourcing Still a
Priority, Styles Says,” Federal Times.com. Aug, 4, 2003.
55 David Phinney, “OMB Backs Down. Now What? The Plan to Revise Competitive
Sourcing Expectations,” Federal Times.com, Aug. 4, 2003.

CRS-21
When a function is designated as inherently governmental, or is assigned reason code
A, a written justification is required. It is possible that this requirement could serve
as a deterrent to the reclassification of certain activities. Written justifications are not
required for commercial activities that are assigned reason code B, C, D, E, or F.56
The challenge and appeal process could result in the shifting of functions from one
list, or reason code, to another. For example, a challenge, and subsequent appeal,
filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) resulted in the
Department of Commerce moving its seafood inspection function from the agency’s
FAIR inventory to the inherently governmental activities list.57 It remains to be seen
how OMB and agencies might address differences, if any, that arise between
fluctuating agency inventories and OMB’s estimate or expectation of the number of
commercial FTEs that are available for competition.
OMB’s September Report on Competitive Sourcing. In September,
OMB released a supplement to its July 2003 report. In the supplemental report,
OMB described agency competitive sourcing efforts, explained how agency progress
is measured, outlined benefits associated with the 2003 revision to the circular, and
explained additional initiatives necessary for achieving success in competitive
sourcing.58
In the report’s section on agency progress, OMB again addressed the issue of
competitive sourcing targets, and yellow plans and green plans:
By eliminating government-wide goals, OMB hopes to dispel any
misunderstanding or perception that competition should be applied in a one-size-
fits-all manner to all agency commercial activities.... Focusing on the plans
agencies have developed will reinforce the tailored approach to competition that
is key for the successful use of competitive sourcing.
No agency is planning to compete all of its commercial activities. However, an
agency will be expected to lay out a reasonable plan (e.g., appropriately
sequenced and timed) for competing the activities that, after considered analysis,
it has concluded are suitable for competition. This plan will constitute the
agency’s “green” plan on the management scorecard used to measure agency
progress and status on PMA initiatives. Agencies continue to have “yellow”
plans that serve as an intermediate step to green....
A few agencies have already achieved yellow status. All positions in the yellow
plan need not have been competed in order to earn a yellow status. Nor must an
agency have competed all positions in a green plan to receive a green status. In
56 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Year 2003 Inventories of Commercial and
Inherently Governmental Activities.”
57 Amelia Gruber, “Union Pleased with Wins in 2002 FAIR Act Disputes,” Government
Executive, Daily Briefing, Aug. 4, 2003, available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/
0803/080403a1.htm], visited Jan. 6, 2005.
58 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Reasoned and
Responsible Public-Private Competition, Agency Activities, Sept. 2003, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/comp_sourc_addendum.pdf], visited Jan. 5,
2005.

CRS-22
addition, there are no predetermined times for moving from red to yellow or
yellow to green. Timeframes will be based on an agency’s analysis of its mission
and workforce mix and other factors.59
However, it is still not clear how a yellow competitive sourcing plan differs from a
green competitive sourcing plan. Restated, do agencies know, and understand, what
they must do to transform a yellow competition plan to a green plan?
OMB’s September report included two tables that provided information about
the 24 agencies and departments that it tracks. Table 3 shows how many FTEs in
each agency are eligible for public-private competitions. Column headings have been
modified slightly as an aid to understanding the information presented therein.
59 Ibid., pp. 6-7.

CRS-23
Table 3. OMB Estimates of Commercial Activities FTEs at Agencies and Departments Tracked under the PMA(a)
Agency or Department
Total FTEsb
Commercial FTEs
Commercial FTEs
Percentage of Total
Percentage of
Available for
FTEs That Are
Commercial FTEs
Competition
Commercial
That Are Available for
Competition
Dept. of Agriculture
98,500
46,500
35,600
36%
77%
Dept. of Commerce
26,500
8,400
4,800
18
57
Dept. of Defense
596,600
410,700
270,600
45
65
Dept. of Education
4,700
3,100
2,900
62
94
Dept. of Energy
15,100
7,800
4,700
31
60
Dept. of Health and
64,900
31,400
11,200
17
36
Human Services
Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development
9,200
8,000
3,600
39
45
Dept. of the Interior
70,200
33,900
23,000
33
68
Dept. of Justice
132,100
10,600
3,400
3
32
Dept. of Labor
16,400
6,200
2,600
16
42
Dept. of State
10,400
2,300
1,000
10
43
Dept. of
64,600
38,400
11,900
18
31
Transportation
Dept. of the Treasury
148,100
27,100
18,400
12
68

CRS-24
Agency or Department
Total FTEsb
Commercial FTEs
Commercial FTEs
Percentage of Total
Percentage of
Available for
FTEs That Are
Commercial FTEs
Competition
Commercial
That Are Available for
Competition
Dept. of Veterans
221,500
190,500
7,600
3
4
Affairsc
Environmental
17,400
600
400
2
67
Protection Agency
General Services
14,100
6,300
5,200
37
83
Administration
National Aeronautics
and Space
19,000
7,400
3,400
18
46
Administration
National Science
1,200
500
200
17
40
Foundation
Office of Personnel
3,000
1,700
600
20
35
Management
Small Business
4,200
3,000
2,900
69
97
Administration
Smithsonian
4,500
1,300
0
29
0
Institution
Social Security
63,900
11,100
4,000
6
36
Administration
U.S. Agency for
International
2,000
600
300
15
50
Development

CRS-25
Agency or Department
Total FTEsb
Commercial FTEs
Commercial FTEs
Percentage of Total
Percentage of
Available for
FTEs That Are
Commercial FTEs
Competition
Commercial
That Are Available for
Competition
U.S. Army Corps of
27,900
23,300
16,500
59
71
Engineers (civil)d
Total
1,636,000
880,700
434,800
27
49
Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Reasoned and Responsible Public-Private Competition, Agency Activities, Sept. 2003, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement/comp_sourc_addendum.pdf], visited Jan. 5, 2005, p. 10. The column on the right (“Percentage of Commercial FTEs That Are Available
for Competition”) and the row of totals were added by the author.
Notes:
a. In its report, OMB stated that these figures are estimates based on initial 2002 inventories submitted to OMB. Because some agencies and departments submit separate inventories
for their Offices of Inspector General (OIGs), these figures may not include OIG inventories. The Department of Homeland Security is not listed because it did not exist when
the 2002 inventories were submitted to OMB. (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Reasoned and Responsible Public-Private Competition, Agency
Activities, p. 10.)
b.
. In the September report from OMB, there is no description or definition of what makes up the total FTEs. It is likely that this column includes inherently governmental FTEs and
commercial FTEs. A full-time equivalent (FTE) is “[t]he staffing of Federal civilian employee positions, expressed in terms of annual productive work hours (1,776 [hours])
rather than annual available hours that includes non-productive hours (2,080 hours).” (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76 (Revised), p. D-5.)
c. The relatively small number of FTEs identified as commercial and available for competition probably is due to the fact that 38 U.S.C. 8110(a)(5) prohibits the Dept. of Veterans
Affairs from using funds from three appropriation accounts (medical care, medical and prosthetic research, and medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses)
for public-private competitions. The Dept. of Veterans Affairs General Counsel issued a memorandum on April 28, 2003, affirming this prohibition. (Dept. of Veterans Affairs,
General Counsel, Use of Health-Care Accounts and the Revolving Supply Fund to Conduct Competitive-Sourcing Studies of VHA Activities, Memorandum VAOPGCADV 7-2003,
April 28, 2003.)
d. The Army Corps of Engineers provides services for both the public (for example, environmental management and restoration) and the military (for example, military engineering
and construction). The use of the term “civil” in this table indicates the FTEs are associated with work that the Corps does for the public. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
at [http://www.usace.army.mil], visited Jan. 6, 2005.

CRS-26
The aggregate figures presented by OMB in the September report are slightly
different from the numbers shown in the July report. The total number of FTEs was
1,609,000 in the July report; it was 1,636,000 in the September document. The
number of inherently governmental FTEs increased from 751,000 to 755,300.
However, the largest gain occurred among FTEs performing commercial activities.
In July, OMB reported there were 858,000 commercial FTEs, of which 416,000 were
available for competition. In September, the corresponding figures were 880,700 and
434,800. No explanation was provided for the discrepancy. However, OMB noted,
in both reports, that the figures were estimates. Thus, neither set of figures might be
accurate, and possibly the numbers could change again. The 2003 commercial
activities inventories, which have not been released to the public yet, could yield
figures that differ from what OMB has reported.
The percentage of total FTEs that are commercial ranges from a low of 2%
(Environmental Protection Agency) to a high of 69% (Small Business
Administration). Twenty agencies identified at least 10% of their FTEs as
commercial. Three agencies (Department of Education, Small Business
Administration, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil)) indicated that at least
50% of their FTEs are performing commercial activities. The percentage for the total
number of commercial FTES (880,700) was 27%.
Excluding the Smithsonian Institution, which does not have any commercial
activities available for competition, the percentage of commercial FTEs that are
available for competition ranges from 4% (Department of Veterans Affairs) to 97%
(Small Business Administration). Twelve agencies identified at least 50% of their
commercial activities as available for competition. Five additional agencies
classified 40% to 49% of their commercial activities as available for competition.
The aggregate percentage for this category is 49%, which is similar to the 2001 goal
of 50%.
As it did in its July report, OMB described a rigorous process that agencies
follow in managing their competitive sourcing efforts, including the classification of
functions (as commercial or inherently governmental) and the assignment of reason
codes to commercial activities.60 If agencies’ annual FAIR submissions are
modifications of the previous year’s submissions, then it is possible that the initial
inventories, which were submitted in 1999, are the baseline. If this is the case, did
civilian agencies in 1999 have the capability, and a sufficient understanding of FAIR
and Circular A-76, to undertake a well-informed, thoughtful, strategic review of their
activities and the associated FTEs? Verifying that agency employees, and contractors
hired to assist in developing inventories, adhere to the process described by OMB
would be difficult. Agencies have not publicized the methodology or procedures
they use, including research and analysis, to develop their inventories (or their
competition plans).

In its September report, OMB also presented profiles of agency competition
plans. The report does not explain whether there are any differences between a
60 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Reasoned and
Responsible Public-Private Competition, Agency Activities, Sept. 2003, pp. 2-5.

CRS-27
profile and a plan. A profile includes the number of FTEs in an agency competition
plan, examples of commercial activities included in the competition plan, and
examples of commercial activities excluded from the competition plan. A
competition plan might include more detailed information, such as the number of
public-private competitions an agency plans to conduct, the location of competitions,
the number of FTEs associated with each competition, and a tentative competition
schedule.
Table 4 displays the number of positions listed in each agency’s competition
plan. It is unclear why one table in the OMB report uses the term “FTEs” while the
other table refers to “positions.” To avoid misrepresenting OMB’s information, the
following table uses both terms as OMB used them. Because one position does not
necessarily equal one FTE, the calculation of percentages might not be completely
accurate, but, at a minimum, the figures in the right column are indicative of the
percentage of commercial positions that are included in agency competition plans.

CRS-28
Table 4. Number of Positions in Agency Competition Plans
Agency or
Number of
Number of FTEs
Percentage of
Department
Positions in
Available for
Commercial
Competition Plana
Competitionb
Positions Included
in Competition
Plans
Dept. of
5,822
35,600
16%
Agriculture
Dept. of
1,203
4,800
25
Commerce
Dept. of Defense
67,800
270,600
25
Dept. of
220
2,900
8
Education
Dept. of Energy
1,180
4,700
25
Dept. of Health
and Human
2,510
11,200
22
Services
Dept. of Housing
and Urban
870
3,600
24
Development
Dept. of the
3,041
23,000
13
Interior
Dept. of Justice
432
3,400
13
Dept. of Labor
420
2,600
16
Dept. of State
306
1,000
31
Dept. of
3,029
11,900
25
Transportation
Dept. of the
4,523
18,400
25
Treasury
Dept. of Veterans
2,500c
7,600
33
Affairs
Environmental
Protection Agency
215
400
54
General Services
734
5,200
14
Administration
National
Aeronautics and
921
3,400
27
Space
Administration

CRS-29
Agency or
Number of
Number of FTEs
Percentage of
Department
Positions in
Available for
Commercial
Competition Plana
Competitionb
Positions Included
in Competition
Plans
National Science
Plan under review
200
Not available
Foundation
Office of
Personnel
284
600
47
Management
Small Business
Plan under review
2,900
Not available
Administration
Smithsonian
0
0
0
Institution
Social Security
1,691
4,000
42
Administration
U.S. Agency for
Plan under review
300
Not available
International
Development
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
5,711
16,500
35
(civil)d
Total
103,412
434,800
24
Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Competitive Sourcing: Reasoned and Responsible
Public-Private Competition, Agency Activities, Sept. 2003, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/procurement/comp_sourc_addendum.pdf], visited Jan. 5, 2005, pp. 10-14. The column on the
right (“Percentage of Available Commercial Positions in Competition Plans”) and the row of totals
were computed by the author.
Notes:
a. In its September report, OMB used the term “FTEs” in one table, “positions” in another. To avoid
misrepresenting OMB’s information, this table uses both terms as OMB used them.
b. A full-time equivalent (FTE) is “[t]he staffing of Federal civilian employee positions, expressed in
terms of annual productive work hours (1,776 [hours]) rather than annual available hours that
includes non-productive hours (2,080 hours).” (U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Circular No. A-76 (Revised), p. D-5.)
c. The relatively small number of positions included in the Dept. of Veterans Affairs’ competition plan
probably is due to the fact that 38 U.S.C. 8110(a)(5) prohibits the department from using funds
from three appropriation accounts (medical care, medical and prosthetic research, and medical
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses) for public-private competitions. The
Dept. of Veterans Affairs General Counsel issued a memorandum on April 28, 2003 that
affirmed this prohibition. (Dept. of Veterans Affairs, General Counsel, Use of Health-Care
Accounts and the Revolving Supply Fund to Conduct Competitive-Sourcing Studies of VHA
Activities, Memorandum VAOPGCADV 7-2003, April 28, 2003.)
d. The Army Corps of Engineers provides services for both the public (for example, environmental
management and restoration) and the military (for example, military engineering and
construction). The use of the term “civil” in this table indicates the FTEs are associated with
work that the Corps does for the public. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at
[http://www.usace.army.mil], visited Jan. 6, 2005.

CRS-30
From among the 21 agencies that have completed competition plans, 16 plan to
subject to competition at least 15% of the FTEs that are available for competition.
Three additional agencies plan to compete 13% or 14% of their commercial
activities. Excluding the Smithsonian Institution, which does not have any positions
in its competition plan, the lowest percentage is 8 (Department of Education) and the
highest percentage is 54 (Environmental Protection Agency).
The OMB report does not explain whether the number of competitions per
agency includes new competitions (not yet started), ongoing competitions, or
completed competitions, or a combination thereof. Without a list of competitions
for each agency, there is no way to know the size of each competition (in terms of
number of FTEs), or the geographic locations and particular units or offices
(including type(s) of functions) under consideration for public-private competition.
Also missing is any guidance or policy on how often agencies will update their
competition plans and whether updates will be instigated by the agency, OMB, or
through consultation between the two.
The percentage of available commercial positions in competition plans may
seem higher than expected, particularly in light of the elimination of the 15% and
50% targets. However, agencies possibly could have decided, despite the elimination
of these goals, not to change their competition plans. As reported in Government
Executive:
It is ... not clear that OMB’s move to scrap broad targets will result in fewer job
competitions. It seems to have had little, if any, effect so far. After her [July 24,
2003,] announcement, [Angela] Styles [then OFPP Administrator] went to a
meeting of the President’s Management Council, composed of the deputy
secretaries of each Cabinet department. She told them that OMB was willing to
renegotiate their initial competitive sourcing plans, designed when the White
House was still prodding agencies to compete 15 percent of their jobs deemed
“commercial” under the 1998 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act.
But few agencies took her up on the offer. “I haven’t had that many [agencies]
come back in to talk,” she said. “I think the agencies are pretty comfortable with
their plans.”61
Possibly, federal government agencies have not taken advantage of the opportunity
to revisit their competition targets and plans.
OMB Guidance on Green Competitive Sourcing Plans. In a
memorandum dated December 22, 2003, the Deputy Director for Management,
OMB, advised agencies on how to prepare a green competition plan.62 Developing
and implementing “a long-range competition plan [FY2004-FY2008] is a
fundamental standard for success in achieving a green rating” on the competitive
61 Jason Peckenpaugh, “Weighing In on Job Competitions,” Government Executive, Oct.
2003, p. 74.
62 Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, “Development of ‘Green’ Plans for Competitive Sourcing,” memorandum to the
President’s Management Council, Dec. 22, 2003, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/procurement/index.html], visited Jan. 5, 2005.

CRS-31
sourcing scorecard. A rationale offered by OMB for having (and implementing)
long-term plans is that the information contained therein will “ensure that
competitive sourcing is a carefully and regularly considered option for improving the
cost-effectiveness and quality of its [agency] commercial operations.”63 The
memorandum does not include guidance on how to prepare a yellow competition
plan.
A summary of the components, as required by the memorandum, is as follows:
a. General decision making process. Explain the general process the agency uses
to determine which commercial activities are competed.
b. Activities to be announced for competition. Identify the activities that the
agency is planning to announce for competition in FY2004 (or other period
negotiated with OMB).
c. Handling of other reason code “B” activities. For activities that are not
identified in item ... b [above], but have been designated as reason code B on the
2003 FAIR Act inventory, identify management’s plan for taking timely and
effective advantage of competition.
d. Potential constraints. Identify the most significant factors (up to three) that
limit the agency from giving greater consideration to competitive sourcing than
is reflected in its plan. Also identify what the agency is doing to minimize these
constraints and when it expects to have minimized the constraints.64
Additional, detailed guidance is provided in an attachment to the memorandum. No
deadline is provided for submission of initial agency competition plans. Updated
plans are to be completed by August 1 of each year, and if any changes have
occurred, agency management is expected to explain them. OMB’s instructions do
allow for an agency to identify (a) functions and associated FTEs that will not be
subjected to competition by the end of FY2008 (the agency must provide a rationale
for any activities that are excluded from competition plans) and (b) functions, and
associated FTEs, that need further study in order to determine whether they should
be subjected to competition by the end of FY2008.65
The notion of developing a long-term competition plan that includes all agency
functions with reason code B is consistent with OMB’s July 2003 and September
2003 competitive sourcing reports. The criteria for long-term competition plans, as
described in the December 22, 2003, memorandum, allows agencies to determine
which functions and how many FTEs to compete each year (that is, an agency tailors
a plan to its particular needs and circumstances), encourages agencies to compete all
commercial functions that carry reason code B, and relies on agencies to develop
rationales for carrying out public-private competitions. These were significant
features of the reports issued by OMB in 2003. The requirement for all commercial
63 Ibid., p. 1.
64 Ibid., pp. 2-3 (italics in original).
65 Ibid., Attachment A, p. 2.

CRS-32
activities carrying reason code B to be included on long-term competition plans
appears to reinforce the expectation that all of these functions eventually will be
subjected to public-private competition.
Conclusion
OMB’s approach to the establishment and application of competitive sourcing
goals has evolved since the inception of the Administration’s competitive sourcing
initiative in 2001. Originally, the goals of 5% and 10% applied to each agency.
Later, the cumulative goal of 15% was characterized as a government-wide,
aggregate target. Meanwhile, Congress passed legislation directing OMB to provide
a rationale for competitive sourcing targets. In summer 2003, OMB announced
publicly that it had abandoned its numerical goals and that it had begun collaborating
with agencies on the development of their competition plans. At that time, OMB
also revised the scorecard criteria for competitive sourcing. Additionally, although
OMB dropped the long-term goal of 50%, it indicated that it expected agencies to
compete all functions identified as commercial and available. Guidance issued by
OMB on green competition plans suggests that agencies should plan to compete
most, if not all, eligible commercial activities. It remains to be seen how successful
various agencies will be in meeting the revised scorecard criteria and in meeting
OMB’s expectation for competing all eligible functions.

CRS-33
Appendix A
Table 5. Executive Branch Management Scorecard: Competitive Sourcing Ratings
FY2002
FY2003a
FY2004
June 30
Sept.
Dec. 31
Mar.
June 30
Sept.
Dec. 31
Mar.
June
Sept.
30
31
30
31
30
30
Dept. of Agriculture
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Dept. of Commerce
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Dept. of Defense
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
green
green
Dept. of Education
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Dept. of Energy
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
green
green
green
Dept. of Health and Human Services
red red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
green
green
green
Dept. of Homeland Security
red
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
Dept. of the Interior
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Dept. of Justice
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Dept. of Labor
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
Dept. of State
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
state
Dept. of Transportation
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
green
green

CRS-34
FY2002
FY2003a
FY2004
June 30
Sept.
Dec. 31
Mar.
June 30
Sept.
Dec. 31
Mar.
June
Sept.
30
31
30
31
30
30
Dept. of the Treasury
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
Dept. of Veterans Affairs
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
Army Corps of Engineers
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
General Services Administration
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
green
Environmental Protection Agency
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
National Aeronautics and Space
red
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Administration
National Science Foundation
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
Office of Management and Budget
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
Office of Personnel Management
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
green
green
green
Small Business Administration
red
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
yellow
yellow
Smithsonian
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
Social Security Administration
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
yellow
yellow
U.S. Agency for International Development
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
red
Sources: President’s Management Agenda Scorecards, available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html], visited Jan. 5, 2005.
Note:
a. Comparisons between ratings received in FY2002 and subsequent fiscal years might not be valid since the criteria for green and yellow ratings were revised in 2003.