Suppose there was a government contract that supplied janitorial services to a federal building. Now suppose that the employees goofed off on the job, got drunk, got stoned, and generally made a hash of things.

In the past, the contracting officer would have been able to replace the contractor and get someone in there who knew what they were doing.

Under President Obama, you can still fire the janitorial company - but you have to keep the workers:

The Federal Government's procurement interests in economy and efficiency are served when the successor contractor hires the predecessor's employees. A carryover work force reduces disruption to the delivery of services during the period of transition between contractors and provides the Federal Government the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Government's personnel, facilities, and requirements.

But what if the contract got switched because the previous work force, you know, sucked? ... P.S.:

For example, the Obama administration itself can be seen as having won a new contract to perform the same Federal services, at the same location, as the previous contractor, the Bush Administration. Did Obama keep all of Bush's employees in order to reduce "disruption" and enjoy "the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Governments ... facilities"? I don't think so!