Oursourcing reply

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:27:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Henry <thenry@umaryland.edu>
To: lsiegel@cpeo.org
Subject: Re: Outsourcing

Lenny,

With regard to your outsourcing question, it has been discussed at APG
but
has not happened (at least from my position in the process) as of yet.
Regardless, I should point out that there has been and remains a serious
question as the the level of oversight for APG contractors as the
process
exists now. The contractors time and time again have been influenced by
1)
saving current money, such as reducing the quality of RAB minutes
despite
the request of the IRP not to do so, or 2) interests in procuring future
funds, which is evident by contractors giving the IRP presentation
materials/information they think the IRP wants instead of more factual
material. There are many examples.

 Certainly, the IRP has played a role is accepting and/or using such
information, but the drive of the dollar is clear. With a reduction of
the
number of government employees to conduct oversite of the contractors or
manage projects, I think things would become inherently worse. I
believe
the contractor's interests in increasing profit margin are much stronger
than the military employee drive to not find contamination.
Additionally,
from the community's perspective, I believe there is more pressure on
the
military to include the public than would be exerted on a major
contractor
under the proposed outsourcing approach. Do you agree?

TH

Theodore (Ted) J. Henry, MS
Managing Director
Community Health Assessment & Public Participation (CHAPP) Center
737 West Lombard Street, Room 540
Baltimore, Maryland 21201-1041
(410) 706-1767 - phone
(410) 706-6203 - fax
thenry@umaryland.edu