Opinion ID: 528395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1979.

Text: 43 In addition to the 1921 Act, OMB Circular A-76 cites as authority the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1979 (OFPPAA), as amended, 41 U.S.C. Secs. 401-424. See OMB Circular A-76 para. 3, J.A. at 12. In 1974, Congress created the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 24 to implement recommendations of the Commission on Government Procurement to establish a central body to provide overall direction of procurement policy for Federal executive agencies. H.R.REP. No. 178, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 1, reprinted in 1979 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN. NEWS 1492, 1492. In OFPPAA, Congress amended and extended the life of this Office. 44 After a thorough review of the OFPPAA and its legislative history, we have found nothing to suggest a congressional purpose more than marginally related to the interests of federal employees vis-a-vis procurement policy. Throughout the legislative history of OFPPAA and its amendments, Congress emphasized economy and efficiency in government operations. Specifically regarding contracting out, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs recognized that there had been a long-standing executive branch policy of reliance on the private sector to improve governmental efficiency as expressed in earlier versions of OMB Circular A-76. S.Rep. No. 144, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1979), U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 1979, p. 1492. Congress specifically validated this Executive branch policy favoring the private sector in its enactment of the OFPPAA: 45 The new [contracting out] policy is built on three principles: 46 1. Rely on the private sector. The Government's business is not to be in business. If private sources are available, they should be looked to first to provide the commercial or industrial services needed by the Government. 47 2. Retain certain governmental functions in-house. Certain functions are inherently governmental in nature being so closely related to the public interest as to demand performance by Federal employees. 48 3. Aim for economy. Use cost comparison. When private performance is feasible and no overriding factors require in-house performance, the taxpayer deserves and expects the most economical performance and therefore rigorous comparison of contract cost versus in-house cost should be used when appropriate to decide how the work will be done. 49 Id. See also H.R. REP. No. 146, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 8-9 (1983), U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 1983, p. 2027 (quoting the above government[ ] policy on contracting out and stating that [t]hese are wise principles, and in their applicability to all agencies they are entirely consistent with the goal that the Federal procurement system be standardized.). The policy endorsed in the Report does not merely favor the private sector; it endorses reliance on the private sector. The obvious presumption is that private sector performance is more economical and efficient. Only if the goods or services required are inherently governmental, 25 as none of the services in question are, should the procuring agency look away from the private sector. The third principle's call for rigorous comparison of contract cost versus in-house cost, read in the context of the whole policy, illustrates that Congress wanted in-house costs estimates to be strictly reviewed, so as not to frustrate the first principle's emphasis on the private sector. 50 Since the legislative history of the OFPPAA endorses the Executive branch policy of reliance on the private sector and the Circular finds authority in the OFPPAA, it is difficult to conclude anything but that the interests of federal employees are inconsistent with the purposes of OFPPAA. As previously discussed, appellants' real interest in this case is the protection of the federal jobs of its members, not efficiency in governmental operations. If appellants' real interest in this case was governmental efficiency, they might very well be within the zone of interest of the purposes of the OFPPAA. But again in the assertion of that interest of efficiency, they have no greater claim to standing than any taxpayers. See pp. 1046-1048 supra. Their real interest of job protection flies in the face of a policy that federal departments and agencies, through OMB Circular A-76, should rely on the private sector. Thus appellants' interests are inconsistent with the purposes of the OFPPAA and not within the zone of interest of that Act. Cf. Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. at 757. 51 Because we hold that appellants' interests are not within the zone of interest of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 or the OFPPAA, the statutory authority for OMB Circular A-76, appellants may not assert standing based on those statutes. 52