GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bill would bar contractors from running Defense programs

• 23667
  

  Melika,
  There appears to be ignorance and intelligence on both sides. You have shown your ignorance by attacking someone rather than formulating a valid argument against them.

  There are indeed GS-4 positions being held by Civil Servants with Bachelors and/or Masters degrees. They normally do not stay in those lower positions for long. Some have obtained degrees while performing in the position.

  Even new Engineers have started as GS-7s, and worked their way up, on an accelerated program designed for that vocation. There are still some Contractors and Civil Servants in low to very high positions, that do not have degrees, but do have an incomparable amount of experience in their fields. These people have helped train many degreed and non-degreed civilians.

  The only non-civilians are the Military. Contractors and Civil Servants are both considered Civilians. Civil Servants and Contractors have been exchanging ideas and training to each other for years. The best advice I can give is learn to work together, for the good of the Country, and pass on your knowledge, that way everyone wins. There is enough fighting going on these days.

  Paulette Hugie Posted May 19, 2007 6:13 PM
• 23622
  

  Right on Cindy. The problem is that management is given a choice of either a hard road to justify increased staff or the relatively easy path of contracting for the services required. Soon there are no government staff and one PM to get the job done. Integrators then appear attractive and reasonable to help bring a wide array of talent to the task at hand.

  On the other hand, a lot of outsourcing was based on public/private competitions where initially the government was not competitive. That seems to be changing which is good. Where would the resources come from to bring any of that back in house?

  Think we all have to be more mindful of the bottom line and how productive we are in our functions. What is reasonable for the overhead portion of your activity? Don't think the answer is a single number but our organizations need to know and keep everyone aware of performance.

  Cliff Posted May 18, 2007 2:11 PM
• 23587
  

  This isn't a problem that is just isolated to weapons systems. We've been forced to award so-called performance based contracts to custodians, groundskeepers, shop support, security systems maintenance, etc. and now we're paying the price because the government doesn't have anyone on staff who knows how the work should be done. We're at the mercy of contractors who tell us we need to spend big bucks to fix a problem and we don't have the technical expertise to question them so we just pay the big bucks.

  I started my federal career in 1978 as a GS-3. I'm now a former GS-12 who was converted to a NSPS YC-02/2. The NSPS system is a joke and whoever authorized the contract for the web-based system didn't have a clue on how to make a system work. I'm sure we took it in the shorts on that one. Contractor developed systems - Wide Area Workflow (obviously developed by someone who doesn't manage contracts and vendor payments); Standard Procurement System (again someone who doesn't work in contracting and needs to get something out quickly); P2 (someone who doesn't have a clue how to manage a project from the engineering side of the house); FedTeds (someone who couldn't see how well the EBS system developed by the Corps worked). I'm sure that contracting out looks good on the surface, but what do you do at the end of 5 years if someone else gets the contract. You start over.

  My solution? Bring back the civil servants, both GS and WG. They worked hard because they new they had something to work for.

  Cindy Posted May 18, 2007 9:45 AM
• 23514
  

  I retired in Dec93 after 46 years of service. Major player in introducing integrated logistics into the CG particularly for electronics system. I was basically invited to retire and was labelled by some as an obstructionist, fighting the increased reliance on contracctors to design, build, and sometime run the system. The "integrators" would build so many design changes into the systems that I could not accept the responsibility to logistically support the equipments/systems. I lived through the 378' rebuild,270' new construction, Loran Systems that did not work and the Vessel Traffic System. These had so many flaws and cost overuns and built in contractor mods that it was impossible for me to agree to support them.The Deepwater System was the straw that broke the camels back. I knew that it would have been impossible for the CG to support or run these systems. The entire CG would have been owned and operated by the integrators. Bless Adm Allen who had the foresight to junk the program and bring it back to the CG and guys like me who had the CG not the stockholders in mind. I have tried to volunteer some of my knowledge although I am now pretty old, but my mind and instincts still can spot a scam by the contractors with their staffs of retread civilian and military retired employeers who forgot their roots and more than often look for the service's soft underbelly. KEEP these programs in house and under close supervision.

  John Del Giorno Posted May 17, 2007 12:13 PM
• 23513
  

  The serious and pervasive issues of COI, competition and fair opportunity that are associated with LSI's also affects civilian agency procurements as well as those in the DoD space. There needs to be some attention paid to what LSI's are being allowed and encouraged to do (and what responsibilities their federal clients are avoiding) in the non-DoD sectors.

  PT Posted May 17, 2007 12:03 PM
• 23510
  

  Lisa,
  Reading your post, it's obvious you're a civilian. Not from what you wrote, but from how you wrote it. Let's look at a few of the things you wrote: "The problem does not lye with NSPS, it does lye within..." Perhaps you meant "lie"? I know, that's a tricky one for a civilian. "you have a person that may be a GS4, they hold a Bachelors or Masters Degree," Hmmm GS4 entry level positions and interns, with advanced degrees? I don't think so! "which is were many of the acquisition positions begin." Perhaps you mean "where" here? I know... another confusing one! "Let's face it, the selection system is broken, it is a shame that the government fails to use its best resources to fill positions ... that they look to contractors to fill these positions instead." That's because it's the contractors who are the most skilled, qualified persons for the job! We aren't civilians who bump around every couple of years checking off another box on the "career development" list, and care more about that next step than our jobs. "will look in their data bases and quarry all current employees..." I'm guessing you mean "query" here? Although with the number of rocks inside some heads, perhaps "quarry" isn't so far off! Once the civilian sector is as educated and qualified as the contractor sector, you can start discussing building from your own ranks, but until then, we contractors will continue to work for civilians who have been moved from other offices and haven't a clue how to do the job. We'll continue doing the job; you can continue taking the credit.

  Melika Posted May 17, 2007 11:44 AM
• 23491
  

  The same "whose in charge" situation was swapped many times between the government running Missile Defense and contracting out to a Lead System Integrator or a Prime Contractor. Prior, when the government was in charge, it did not have the adequate staff to oversee all the various missile defense component developers nor to force them to integrate effectively. Now, with a Prime Contractor, the same government office complains that the government still does not have the personnel to oversee the contractor. Maybe the government program offices should keep a larger in-house trained acquisition force to ensure it has either option depending on the complexities of the program. Blaming the contractor is always too easy.

  Gregory Turner Posted May 17, 2007 9:13 AM
• 23483
  

  The problem does not lye with NSPS, it does lye within the lawmakers that decided to outsource, or replace the number of acquisition personnel who have or are in the process of leaving the system.

  Another problem is that there are people within the system that are qualified to fill acquisition positions, but for some reason or another they do not get selected to fill open positions. This is mainly due to the current wage system of the general schedule. Meaning that you have a person that may be a GS4, they hold a Bachelors or Masters Degree, but because they are in the GS4 slot, they will not be selected for the starting position of a GS7, which is were many of the acquisition positions begin.

  Let's face it, the selection system is broken, it is a shame that the government fails to use its best resources to fill positions that are at such a critical shortage, that they look to contractors to fill these positions instead.

  Under the NSPS's pay banding it appears to be easier to move that GS4 into that former GS7 position. Now let's see OPM and the Civilian Personnel Systems design a new selection system that will look in their data bases and quarry all current employees who have the skills or degrees that can fill open positions. This new selection system should not require you to self elect for the position, but instead generate a list of qualified persons, which then should be given to hiring managers, it would be up to them to ask for a list that could be by most qualified, or only local to the area, or even by veteran preference.

  Selection from within is not a bad idea, gee hasn't the civilian sector been doing this for years?

  Let us work towards creating the 21st Century Leader from within our own ranks.

  Lisa Posted May 17, 2007 8:17 AM
• 23477
  

  GAO's concerns are well founded. Anyone who had read the many GAO and DOD IG reports on major IT Program failures would see that there is little evidence that commercial best practices or innovative solutions of the market are being leveraged. FAR OCI rules and Clinger/Cohen Act together suggests that an honest broker (an organization not vested in the outcome) is needed to leverage commercial IT and commercial best practices. As DoD can no longer afford the pound of cure, it is time for the ounce of prevention.

  John Weiler Posted May 17, 2007 7:19 AM
• 23467
  

  The Department of Defense (DOD) under Donald Rumsfeld was HELL BENT on all but destroying Federal Civil Service. Now all you read is this doomed unconstitutional National Security Personnel System (NSPS) is to go out and get young, forward thinking people to replace the baby boomers. Who is dumb enough to sign on? This is not a bright future for the DOD. Tell every Senator and Congressman to kill NSPS, increase the numbers of dedicated civilians that will take pride in their postions and not workers working contract to contract with low pay and little or no medical benifits. Pride and dedication will see this crisis through. Tell our law makers to tell big business to kiss off and that they work for the people who elected them.

  Richard Wiedenhoeft Posted May 16, 2007 6:55 PM