Abercrombie fights
Army job move

Privatization would cut 200
civilian jobs at isle military areas

---

By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com

Rep. Neil Abercrombie says the nation's war on terrorism triggers a law that suspends the Army's attempt to privatize 200 jobs at Schofield Barracks, Fort Shafter and the Pohakuloa Training Area.

However, Lt. Col. Mark Samisch, Army spokesman, said Abercrombie is in error because of a March 7 memo from Undersecretary of Defense E.C. Aldridge, who said that after considering the current levels of the ongoing military mobilization, the Pentagon has decided to allow such privatization actions to continue by all the services.

Aldridge added that "ongoing initiatives may not be canceled due to mobilization without prior approval" from the Pentagon.

But Abercrombie characterized the Army's latest response as "nonsense" and believes the union and the workers "have grounds for action."

"Since when does a memo trump federal law," Abercrombie added. The Hawaii Democrat believes that any contract awarded by the Army or any of the other military services after Sept. 14 is illegal.

Maria Santiago-Lillis, spokeswoman for Machinist Union 1998, said union lawyers are reviewing both the law and the DOD memo as well as "new improprieties" in the contract process and may sue the Army.

Last week, after two years of controversy, the Army decided to award a nearly $60 million service contract to BAE Systems Inc. of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., which means that 200 civilians who work for the Army here may lose their jobs.

The move was based on the decision by the U.S. Army Pacific Administrative Appeals Board, which upheld a Jan. 10 decision to transfer maintenance, supply and transportation functions of the Army's Directorate of Logistics to the private Florida company.

However, Abercrombie said federal law prevents such actions because of "the national emergency" declared by President Bush on Sept. 14 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Two years ago, the affected 200 civilian workers protested because the Army's in-house bid was $1.3 million less than BAE's proposal. In January 2001 the Army reversed its decision, and BAE appealed to the U.S. General Accounting Office.

Last year, the Army again was forced to restart the evaluation and cost comparisons using revised offers from BAE and the in-house organization. The second cost comparison, conducted on Jan. 10, resulted in the contract being awarded to BAE.