Inherently Governmental Functions And Department Of Defense Operations

An ¿inherently governmental function¿ is one that, as a matter of law and policy, must be performed by fed. gov¿t. employees and cannot be contracted out because it is ¿intimately related to the public interest.¿ This report provides background, issues, and options for Congress on defining inherently governmental functions within the context of U.S. Dept. of Defense (DoD) operations. The report focuses upon DoD because of the specific functions that it performs; its prominent role in fed. contracting; its unique workforce, which consists of military and civilian personnel; and recent allegations that DoD, among other agencies, has improperly contracted out inherently governmental functions. Charts and tables.

An "inherently governmental function" is one that, as a matter of law and policy, must be performed by federal government employees and cannot be contracted out because it is "intimately related to the public interest." Concerned that the existence of multiple and/or inconsistent definitions of "inherently governmental functions" might be partly responsible for the alleged contracting out of inherently governmental functions by the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agencies, the 110th Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 110-417) requiring the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a "single consistent definition" of "inherently governmental functions." This definition is to "ensure that the head of each ... agency is able to identify each position within that department or agency that exercises an inherently governmental function." Congress has several options if it is concerned that deficiencies in the existing definitions of inherently governmental functions may lead agencies to improperly contract out inherently governmental functions. Options include (1) relying upon recent statutory changes and/or the policies of the Obama Administration, which proposes to limit contracting out generally, to effect desired changes in agency contracting; (2) changing the existing definition of "inherently governmental functions"; (3) placing limits on contracting out or use of appropriated funds; (4) addressing structural factors potentially prompting agencies to rely on contractors; (5) providing for more effective oversight of executive branch contracting decisions; and (6) focusing more on questions of contracting policy (i.e., what functions should the government perform?) than on contracting law (i.e., what functions must the government perform?).

Reviews the use of contract consultants by federal agencies. Discusses a broad range of contract services obtained by the government, such as professional, administrative, and management support services. Charts and tables.

This book develops a new approach to the analysis of civil-military relations by focusing on the effectiveness of the armed forces in fulfilling roles & missions, and on their efficiency in terms of cost. The approach is applied to the United States using official documents and interviews with policy-makers. In addition to analyzing the impact of defense reform initiatives over the past thirty years, the book includes the recent phenomenon of "contracting-out" security that has resulted in greater numbers of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan than uniformed military personnel. While the book demonstrates that democratic civilian control of the military in the U.S. is not at issue, it reveals that there is little public control over Private Security Contractors due to a combination of the current restricted interpretation of what is an "inherently governmental function" and limited legal authority. This is despite the fact that PSCs have taken on roles and missions that were previously the responsibility of the uniformed military. Further, despite numerous efforts to redress the problem, current political and institutional barriers to reform are not likely to be overcome soon.

The use of private security contractors (PSCs) to protect personnel and property in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a subject of debate. While PSCs are viewed as being vital to U.S. efforts in the region, many are concerned about transparency, accountability, and legal issues raised by the use of armed civilians to perform security tasks formerly performed by the mil. Contents of this report: Legal Status and Authorities: (a) Internat. Law: Can Contractors be Combatants?; Are They Mercenaries?; (b) Iraqi Law, and Afghan Law, and Status of U.S. Forces; (c) U.S. Law; ¿Inherently Gov¿t. Functions¿ and Other Restrictions on Gov¿t. Contracts; Prosecution of Contractor Personnel in U.S. Fed. or Mil. Courts; Uniform Code of Mil. Justice.

Contents: (1) Intro.; (2) Background: Services Provided by Private Security Contractors (PSC); Number and Profile of PSCs Working in Iraq and Afghanistan; Congressional Focus on PSCs; (3) Private Security Co. Working for the U.S. Gov¿t.: Why the U.S. Gov¿t. Uses PSCs; DoD PSCs; Iraq; Afghanistan; Can the Use of PSCs Undermine U.S. Efforts?; DoD Mgmt. and Oversight of PSCs; (4) Options for Congress: Define the Role that Private Security Contractors Can Play in Support of Mil. Operations in Unsecure Environments; Prohibit armed security contractors from being deployed in combat zones; Restrict armed security contractors to performing static security; Restrict armed security contractors to static security, with an exception for local nationals.