Domestic Agency Use of Contractors for Federal Employee Work - Sample Letter - Formal 7114

Sep 1, 2026

Sample formal letter template for union information requests under 5 U.S.C. §7114(b)(4) related to a domestic agency’s proposed use of contractor personnel to perform work normally performed by or designated for federal employees. The letter cites federal legal requirements and OMB guidance, emphasizes restrictions on converting federal employee work to contract performance, and notes implications such as no work “gaming,” no surge exception, no personnel-ceiling circumvention, and no loophole without adverse impact. It requests agency response and remediation within a specified timeframe and includes an enclosure and related request section.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatDOCX

Pages7

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Sample Letter – Formal 7114

Request for Information (RFI) - Overview

Legal and OMB Guidance Rationale

Agency Response and Remediation Request

DOMESTIC AGENCY USE OF CONTRACTORS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WORK SAMPLE LETTER – FORMAL 7114 THIS SAMPLE LETTER IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF AN INFORMATION REQUEST ESTABLISHED BY THE FLRA AT 5 U.S.C. §7114(b)(4), ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE AGENCY WON’T ARGUE OTHERWISE. THIS SAMPLE REPRESENTS A MORE FORMAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT THAN THE ALTERNATIVE LESS-FORMAL NON-7114 SAMPLE. CONSIDER USING THIS LETTER IF: YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE INFORMATION YOU REQUESTED USING THE LESS FORMAL LETTER, YOU HAVE A DIFFICULT RELATIONSHIP WITH MANAGEMENT, OR YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OR A HIGH LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY. For the most recent version of this document, please visit us at HYPERLINK "http://www.afge.org/index.cfm?Fuse=Content&ContentID=3731" www.afge.org/index.cfm?Fuse=Content&ContentID=3731 SAMPLE LETTER – FORMAL 7114 DOMESTIC AGENCY USE OF CONTRACTORS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WORK Date: ___________ [Head of Local Organization] [Title] [Local Organization] [Address and email] Subject: Request for Information on the Use of Contractors to Perform Work Performed By/Designated for Federal Employees Dear_______________ [name of agency official]: I write on behalf of _____________ [Local/Council and number] of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO), which represents ___ [estimated number] federal employees at ______________ [agency, organization] in ______________, __ [city, state]. I am concerned that work normally performed by/designated for federal employees, ___________, [name of function] is or will be performed by contractor personnel. Such action would mean that ______________ (agency), would be in violation of federal law and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, which prohibit direct conversions (i.e., the contracting out of functions performed by/designated for federal employees without first performing a formal cost comparison). (See attached summary of laws and guidance.) Insert evidence here. For example: “Management official _______ stated on ______ (date) that ________________. Or: “In an email dated _________, management official ________ stated that ________________________. Currently, _____ [add number] federal employees work on these functions. Federal agencies are prohibited by law from using contractors to perform any work last or currently performed by federal employees. Federal laws (41 U.S.C. §1710 and the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161, §739(a)(1)) prohibit agencies from converting work performed by/designated for federal employees to performance by contractor personnel without first conducting a formal cost comparison, now embodied in “OMB Circular A-76”. Because of documented problems, the OMB Circular A-76 cost comparison process is currently prohibited. Therefore, federal agencies are prohibited from using contractors to perform any function performed by/designated for federal employee performance. These laws have several implications: No Gaming the System. Agencies cannot get around this rule by modifying, reorganizing, dividing, or in any other way changing a function. No Exception for Increase or Surge in Work. An increase in work, temporary or not, is no exception to the law. An agency function that is expanded (or reengineered, reorganized, modernized, upgraded, expanded, or changed to become more efficient) but essentially provides the same service is not considered “new work”, and thus a formal cost comparison is required before contractors can perform any or all of the work. No RIF Does Not Equal No Violation. There is no loophole that relieves an agency from compliance with the law even if there is no adverse impact on federal employees (i.e., even when no employees will be displaced). No Exception for Personnel Ceiling. The law specifically notes that agencies cannot use contractors to perform federal employee work to circumvent a federal employee personnel ceiling

FAQs

What is the purpose of the “Formal 7114” sample letter?

To request information from an agency regarding whether contractor personnel will perform work normally performed by or designated for federal employees, in line with statutory information-request requirements.

Why does the letter argue that using contractors may violate federal law and OMB guidance?

It states that converting federal employee work to contractor performance requires a formal cost comparison and references prohibitions and guidance implementing that requirement.

What implications does the letter highlight about cost-comparison rules?

It emphasizes that agencies cannot bypass the rules through structural changes, that increases or surges in work do not create an exception, and that there is no compliance loophole based on lack of RIF or impacts on employees.

Sep 1, 2026

Upload by Olivia Brown