Intelligence Contractor Conversions

COMMENTS

• For some time, there has been a big push to outsource civil service jobs. From the President down to Cabinet officials, we are told that civil servants are just lazy, overpaid beaurocrats, and that the competitive environment of commercial contracting means that contractors can do the work better an more efficiently. Those of us who work with support contractors recognize this is simply not true. Most of the contractor support personnel are former employees, and there is no improvement in the quality of the work. Additionally, there are enormous costs associated with using contractors, and it is nice to see that this is finally receiving some type of official recognition.

  wallyp Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:32 AM

• Observers often note that a big part of the cost difference between government staff and contractors is the latter's high overhead, which gets tacked on to whatever the contractor staff get paid. That's certainly true, but it's also true that government employees create overhead costs for their agencies -- but those are almost never factored into comparisons such as this one. If this average IC government staff number were 'burdened' to include a pro rata share of the government's overhead costs (facilities, maintenance, security, etc.) the gap would shrink by a surprising amount.

  The other key point people overlook when making these comparisons is that hiring a government employee, for all practical purposes, is like executing a 25 to 30 year contract -- virtually guaranteed employment for life. And the costs continue into retirement: through pensions and especially ongoing health care coverage. Contractors, on the other hand, have no tenure rights and can be let go -- once the contract expires, or earlier if circumstances or resources change. The wage premium that comes with this greater risk also accounts for some of the cost difference (although it's smaller than most government workers assume).

  Smart organizations maintain a healthy balance between these two types of resources, always with an eye towards future mission requirements. They are both valuable assets -- ideally, the government employees providing direction, continuity, and institutional memory; the contractors persishable skills, fresh perspectives, and far greater flexibility to respond to changing requirements. Cost is certainly a relevant consideration, but only if you're comparing apples to apples. In this case, the conferees have mixed in some oranges.

  Skepticus Comparatus Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:33 AM

• The real difference is the number of employees, quality is the same cause the same folks are doing it. The difference is they make do with a lot fewer people. Even if the costs are higher actual costs are lower

  dan ketter Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:30 PM

• Government employees can be held accountable for what they do. These contract people come and go like the wind. Look at all the losses of millions of dollars by contractors who were supposed to provide aid for Katrina, overseas in IRAQ and elsewhere that disasters have occured. They constantly steal from the government knowing that no one is watching them. We catch the big fish occasionaly, but the small ones do far more damage and are never punished. As for Skepticus, we pay for the upkeep of the buildings, utilities and provide security for the contractors on this installation as well as the government employees. The govt employees take better care of these bases and always have due to the fact that they do stay in their jobs for 20 or more years,treat them as they do their own properties, while these contract people don't last but 4 or 5 years and are gone and could care less what the long term effect is on the base.

  Army Base in the South Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:50 PM

• Skepticus Comparatus,

  The presence or absence of contractors and contractor overhead has not reduced the internal government overhead (better known as the "good Ole boys"). Programs are ending up taxed for the same internal overhead AND the new contractor overhead (made of of retired internal "good Ole boys"). These taxes on the programs are steadily increasing, not decreasing. Some DOD Business Managers have been throwing fits about the excess costs of internal contract staff who they claim cost the government more than the government staff/person. As Business Managers with budget experts on their staff, I assume they are comparing apples to apples in making these claims. Is it just my agency in the DOD?; I don't know; I just know how frustrated it makes the Business side of the programs.

  Anna Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 6:16 AM

• Anna,

  Skepticus Comparatus has a valid point. Until federal manager's are asked to make business decisions -- for commercial vice inherently governmetnal work - on a a fully allocated cost basis, every decision we make will continue to be skewed by budgetary considerations not cost or quality. We need a transparant full cost budget in every agency for every program - and not just the partial costs included in the fee for service programs. This new legislative mandate is, however, nothing more than another special interest earmark.

  Fedmgr Posted Friday, December 21, 2007 3:26 PM

Post a Comment

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.