As a general rule, the public benefits whenever private companies bid to perform tasks once done only by government. Competition reduces costs, and the desire to keep contracts keeps the quality of work high.
But this works only when true competition is allowed among all parties capable of performing the task. That's why a proposal made this week by the Pentagon - one offered in the name of privatization - should be rejected.The plan is little more than an effort by aerospace executives to save their industries, which are suffering because of military cutbacks. Rather than save money, it would remove competition from much of the maintenance work done on armed forces' equipment.
It also would negate the heavy investment of tax dollars in recent years to build five Air Force logistics centers, including one at Hill Air Force Base in Ogden.
It could force Hill to close without a chance to fight for its survival.
The plan, the brainchild of a task force composed of aerospace executives and some military representatives, calls for all but the military's "non-core" maintenance work to be given to private business. The Department of Defense would decide which jobs are considered "core" and should be left for the military to do. Those jobs likely will involve little more than fixing ships for the Navy, airplanes for the Air Force and tanks for the Army. Any items common to different branches, such as jets used by the Air Force and Navy, would be serviced by private business.
This particularly would hurt Hill, which often performs work on such aircraft.
The plan is disturbing because it prohibits the military branches from bidding on the work. Conceivably, only one or two companies may bid on some jobs, and the public may end up spending more than if the military were allowed to bid as well.
Hill has performed well when allowed to compete. Last August, it won a $61 million contract to repair Navy fighter jets, beating out other branches of the military and several private companies. One month earlier it beat out Lockheed for a $25 million F-16 contract.
The prohibition against military bidders would not protect the public from fraud or costly overpayments. The government hardly has a monopoly on such problems. For evidence, one need look no further than a settlement in January of a case in which the government had accused two major ordnance manufacturers of conspiring to drive up the price of cluster bombs.
Supporters of the plan say private industry can't compete fairly with government because government doesn't account for costs the same way. Apparently, they discount the "Department of Defense Cost Comparability Handbook," which is generally accepted as an accurate way of putting private and public costs on an equal footing.
The readiness and quality of the armed forces shouldn't be tinkered with in the name of economic development for a few companies.
The public has had enough of waste and greed in both the private and public sectors. True competition should be allowed to thrive, even if that means government sometimes wins a bid.