Private Firms to Bid on Navy Arms Handling

The Navy says it will seek private-sector bids for the bulk of its weapons-handling operations nationwide, raising the prospect that outside firms would load and inventory Tomahawk missiles, torpedoes and other powerful ammunition.

The bidding effort is still in its early stages at a half-dozen bases, including the sprawling Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach, which is the busiest munitions depot on the West Coast. Officials do not plan to review bids from private contractors for the delicate task of moving and storing weapons until January 2001.

But already, critics are raising concerns about the move toward privatization, saying it could compromise safety and national security in both wartime and peacetime.

“Handling ammunition is not like handling groceries. You need special skills, and you need special oversight,” said Wiley Pearson, defense policy analyst for the union representing civilian weapons handlers. “As a matter of national defense and national security, there is a huge risk here.”

Privatization is nothing new to either the military or the federal government, which has set up bidding between the private sector and public employees for a variety of services, including welfare case work. The bidding for weapons handling is part of a nationwide plan by the Navy to outsource up to 80,500 jobs. Officials hope the shift will save $8 billion by 2005.

But some experts believe weapons handling is a poor choice for outsourcing because of the potentially dire consequences if the munitions are mishandled or placed in the wrong hands. They point out that many weapons loaded from the bases are transported on freeways--heightening the public safety risk if they are mishandled.

“There is no reason to expect the same degree of loyalty from a contract worker as you expect from a staff worker,” said Jerrold Post, a professor of political psychology at George Washington University who studies privatization. His research indicates that while government workers undergo continual security reviews, private contract workers receive “far less attention.”

Navy officials stressed that any privatization will occur with safety and security in mind and that all private employees will likely undergo extensive background checks.

“What it comes down to is we all work for the American taxpayer,” said Gregg Smith, public affairs officer for the Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach. “And we owe it to them to find the most effective and efficient way to accomplish our mission here.”

Some military experts see no problem with the Navy’s proposal, saying private competition can only make operations more efficient.

“There is absolutely no question that the competitive private sector can do the job of loading weapons, and can do it well,” said retired Navy Adm. Luther Schriefer, now with Business Executives for National Security in Washington. “There is not any more risk of sabotage with them than there is with government workers. They are American citizens too.”

The Pentagon instructed weapons depots across the country 13 months ago to prepare for bidding on weapons handling. Seal Beach and other naval weapons stations on the West Coast are preparing detailed studies of nearly every aspect of their work, to be used by private contractors in preparing bids.

Besides Seal Beach, other bases involved include Concord and Fallbrook in California and facilities in Washington state, New Jersey, Virginia and South Carolina.

The studies cover munitions workers who load and unload tons of missiles, rockets, torpedoes and other weaponry from scores of warships each year, and store and inventory them securely.

Current government employees will also have a chance to bid for the contracts. If they submit more efficient bids, they can keep the jobs. Pentagon officials said in a written statement that the final choice would be made by the command staff at each base.

The proposals worry longtime weapons workers.

“In all loading of ammunition, our bottom line is safety. The contractor’s bottom line is money,” said David Gentry, a “block and brace” carpenter who for 12 years has secured weapons on warships as well as trains and trucks that transport munitions cross-country from Seal Beach.

Union leaders also question the legality of privatizing weapons handling, saying that general military law prohibits contracting out “inherently governmental” functions that are key to national defense.

Pentagon officials involved in the privatization did not respond to repeated requests for interviews. In a written statement, however, the Office of U.S. Navy Information said a special unit of the Pentagon “monitors the contractor’s compliance with all security provisions as defined in the contract.”

Officials from the Seal Beach base also discounted critics’ concerns about possible security breaches.

“The companies we are talking about are very security-conscious,” said Smith. “ . . . One employee could not steal a weapon off this base unless [he or she] is extremely strong. You can’t take a Tomahawk missile and stick it in your truck and drive it off the base.”

Schriefer, the retired admiral, agreed: “You could drop one of those weapons from 100 feet, and not a thing will happen,” he said. “You wouldn’t believe what chemicals private companies are already shipping safely down the highway right next to you.”

The Seal Beach base has already seen its staff dwindle from nearly 2,000 civilians and many more military personnel in 1990 to 430 civilians and 120 military personnel now. The 50-year-old base has also won Vice President Al Gore’s “Hammer” Award for “building a government that works better and costs less” in 1995 and 1996, in addition to other awards for cost cutting and quality performance.

Gentry, head of the local union, said he and 300 other civilian employees at Seal Beach may lose their jobs because of privatization, including 105 weapons handlers.

He also said there would be inherent risks to replacing the veteran, highly trained work forces. He noted that federal employees are banned from strikes or work stoppages that could cripple wartime mobilization, and said it was unclear whether those rules would apply to private workers.

The Pentagon, in its written statement, responded that a private company could be found in default of its contract if a strike takes place. The statement did not indicate whether contract workers could strike.

Government workers would legally be first in line for jobs with a private company if the company didn’t already have trained employees for those positions. But their wages and benefits could be cut, and years put toward federal pensions would be lost.

Gentry said that even if he were hired by a private firm, nothing could stop a contractor from firing him after six months and replacing him with an inexperienced $8-an-hour worker.

Smith said the bidding process will take into account the experience of longtime base workers.

“We’ve got folks on our wharfs who have been doing that job for 40 years,” he said. “That is something that is going to be looked at, whether any contractor has that experience or is able to get hold of that experience in their hiring.”

Post, the George Washington University professor, said transferring government workers to lower-paying private sector jobs hurts morale, creating potential security risks. He suggested that the Navy require the same background checks now run on government employees on anyone working for the private contractors.

“The very same criteria and care must be paid,” Post added.