Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Use of Private Consultation Services by the Federal Government

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

In a continuing search for ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the executive branch, I have become aware of a need for improved management of the excessively large volume of consulting and expert services used by the Federal Government. A recent survey by a Senate subcommittee of the use of personal and non-personal consultant and expert services identified more than 30,000 contract arrangements and 10,777 individual appointments. Additionally, there are such services provided by grant arrangements and through advisory committee memberships.

There has been, and continues to be, evidence that some consulting services, including experts and advisors, are being used excessively, unnecessarily, and improperly.
This must be corrected without delay. Some areas of concern include:

--Use of consultants to perform work of a policy-making or managerial nature which should be retained directly by agency officials.

--Repeated appointments or contract extensions which raise questions whether the work is better suited to other more appropriate arrangements.

--Use of consultants to provide studies and analyses which have no useful impact on agency operations, either because the subject itself is non-essential or because there are no disciplined agency procedures to (a) check priorities and (b) insure follow-up on the results.

--Use of consultant arrangements as a device to bypass or undermine personnel ceilings, pay limitations, or competitive employment procedures.

--"Revolving door" abuses whereby former Government employees may be improperly favored for individual or contracted consulting arrangements.

--Intra-agency duplication of consultant efforts, especially in large, multiagency departments such as Defense and Health, Education and Welfare, because there is no central coordination of consulting efforts or dissemination of results.

--Conflicts of interest between consultants' advice and their other outside financial interests and affiliations.

In order to improve the use of consultants, I want you to:

1. Review all data that is available or can be readily assembled to describe:

--The principal purposes for which consulting services are being used;

--The types of consulting arrangements being used (Civil Service Commission appointment, contract, grant, advisory committee membership, other); and

--The number of such arrangements in effect and the total dollars involved.

2. Review and revise the management controls and decision criteria used for consultants which will effectively prevent abuses.

3. Eliminate those consultant arrangements found to be neither appropriate nor necessary.

4. Report the results of the above items to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by June 30, 1977.

I am asking the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to review your reports and, where appropriate, to suggest additional measures that you might apply to strengthen your management control of the purposes and arrangements for consulting and expert services.

JIMMY CARTER