Return to Article: Obama's contracting plan met with approval, skepticism
-
73263
As one of your readers wrote Let's get real! We hire so many contractors to do the work of the government employee who is lazy or just doesn't have the skills. Government employees are not lazy, we have to do more work now to fix the errors made my contractors. As a matter of fact, I see no money savings in hiring contractor and paying their salary but still the contractors have no authority to sign off on any work. All work performed by contractors must be approved and signed off by Federal Workers. So why are we paying two people to do a job that one person can do. Since the contractor does not have authority then get rid of the contractors and let the Fed worker do the job they have been doing for many years. We have been put in a ackward situation because the contractors tell fed workers you can not tell me what to do so in essence this has fostered an environment where two sides are butting heads.
-
59834
It is easy to say what the end goal should look like, everyone will say a streamlined process that minimizes costs and maximizes productivity. The tough part is having a long-range plan that has enough detail to plan realistic milestones and enough flexibility to account for the details (intermittent variables) that no one seems to remember in the planning phase. There also has to be a commitment starting at the top and reinforced down to the weeds. Did Mr. Obama or the person who wrote the 11-page document, have enough knowledge about the process to create a comprehensive plan? or this just more smoke and mirrors to gain power and the golden parachute?
-
59799
I think contractors could be cut but so could the poor performers in the government. How many of us have had experience seeing the poor performer ignored & doing nothing because management doesn't want to go through the work to get rid of them? We may hate to admit it but there is a lot of incompetence in the federal workforce. It makes me sick as a taxpayer and federal worker.
-
59774
Let's get real! We hire so many contractors to do the work of the government employee who is lazy or just doesn't have the skills. The use of contractors is just another form of government mismanagement! Management is unwilling to make people work. Heck, they can't even get people to come to work on a regular basis.
-
59768
McCains plan would stop cost plus contracting that would lead to an increase in the blue collar work force in the Federal Governement. Most contracts I see run three times the amout of the original bid.
-
59667
I believe Mr. Barack's plan is a great start to give the work back to the federal employees. I've always had a problem with short-term contractors verses the reliability and loyality of a federal worker. We have lost millions of dollars over the years and the integrity of the Federal government by putting the work in the hands of those who do not share our interset in working for the people. I have 30+ years in government service and I have seen its deterioration from working for all people to being manipulated for one man's gain. Thank you Mr. Barack for standing up against all odds in giving us the audacity to hope. With you in office--we will regain our integrity back in the Federal government!
-
59607
Contract employment = garbage jobs with garbage benefis and no job security. Government employment = stable jobs with job security, health insurance, and comfortable retirement. The Raygun-Bush Administration is responsible for the unraveling of the American dream and the dissolution of the American middle class. We need to eliminate wasteful, no-bid contracts for dirt-bag corporatists and return to investing in a sound middle class in this country.
-
59572
Obama is just blowing smoke to get votes! This from a 3 year Senator?
-
59466
Coming from a guy with zero experience this is quite comical. I liken Obama to a 2nd Lt., writing on an NCO's performance report, "The best I've ever seen." lol..
-
59442
One question comes to mind is who is going to do the work? If we cut the contractor workforce, which in my 37 years military career I was always opposed to, who will do the work that they are doing? While I was opposed to downsizing civilians and military for a contractor workforce, I knew that thee contractor workforce had and has a place in this environment. I've seen this type of proposals in the past and what takes place is the current workforce is required to do more with less people...the work does not go away. So if this is to go forward, a plan needs to be developed to hire more civilian employees and bring on more military and then train them in the areas that will now be done by government folks. I don't see the cost savings. If the new president, hopefully not BO, wants to really make a difference, work with Congress to get rid of the earmarks.
-
59432
In all honesty, in my department at least, we don't need more contractors. We just need more people who have the high level of clearance. I think his increasing training/decreasing number of contractors is a great idea.
-
59414
20% of the Fed workforce performs work that can not be contracted out. It makes sense that these folks are not needed and a 20% across the board RIF would go a long way to ending the bureaucracy
-
59395
This is very slim. One first has to conduct the research to see where we have too many contractors before starting cutting. The government simply cannot function without the industry support - there are not enough employees. I worked on FASA in 1994 and it just isn't that easy. You need people who know the topic to guide you.
-
59341
Exactly who then does the extremely experienced Senator think will do the work?
-
59340
I guess BO doesn't get it. So, cutting the contractors will result in less jobs and less taxes going into the system. Add into the mix that some of those jobs will be brought back into the government, which has repeatedly proven to not only be inefficient, but also lacks a great deal of customer service, from both a business and consumer perspective. I don't disagree that there should be more REAL performance-based contracting, but much of that is subjective, and if the CO or agency customer wants a certain company, they will make the performance results work in the company's favor.
-
59332
To the comment regarding the danger of starting with/stating a specific percentage ... 10%. Obama can easily trim 10%. He can probably save three times that much by employing sound business strategies of leveraging term/temp appointments and as industry off shores outside the US, "off shoring" the Fed/DoD within the US.
Contractor 'employees' cost the Fed/DoD a ton! Although the contractor employee does not receive the full hourly rate ... the amount paid to contractors per hours dwarfs what Fed/DoD employees would be paid doing the same work. Additionally, many of these contractor support/professional services contracts are written as Time & Material contracts whereby the Fed/DoD receive no tangible deliverables in the end ... a very, very shaky approach. I've managed contractor support workforces where we unfortunately paid $200K to $250K per year (competitive procurements by the way), per person and the level of effort was equivalent to a GS-12 or GS-13 and the contactor staff was NOT stable. It's time for the Fed/DoD to do two smart things, (1) leverage term and temp appointments. HR gurus are constantly telling us that the younger generation workforces will work for many entities during their career. Let HR put their money were their mouths are and start hiring Fed/DoD workforces in a manner that reflects their position/prediction. (2) Move the Fed/DoD jobs to areas of the US that are NOT high cost of living areas. Labor in the DC, San Fran, San Diego, etc. cost too much and the labor (Govt/DoD or Contractor) is too expensive and unstable. With today's technologies it is possible to move these jobs to Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, and elsewhere where labor is less expensive, work ethics are stronger, and workforces more stable.
-
59322
Yup sounds good, but...who will actually do the audits required, and, far more importantly, who will be responsible for making a final decision on sustaining and recovering any questioned costs? DCAA is in turmoil, and our contracting officers across the government are up to their collective eyeballs in work. Unless the government seriously cleans up hiring and firing,(and NSPS will not do this) said proposal will go no where. The years of downsizing are going to take a serious bite out of any new administration's hind quarters.
-
59316
It is about time that someone in authority to make a difference recognizes the reality of abuse, waste, and added expense to the taxpayer which is promoted through excessive contracting out and inadequate oversight of the contracted efforts. Contractors have a significant role to play in the services needed by the federal government, but there are excessive faults in the execution of the program's management. For one example; muti-year public contracts typically have a built in increase of cost which exceeds the 'natural' increase in cost born through civil servants. Essentially the taxpayer gets the same service each year at an expense which is typically double or more the increase in the Cost of Living provided civil servants. Oh, and ask a contractor to perform something that was overlooked in the written contract and there will be an added cost; not so with civil servants; we get the job done without a salary increase for doing so under performing "duties as assigned". President-elect Obama must have someone on the inside of the civil service who he is wise enough to consider their insight. Finally, someone not in the pocket of private interests to clear the smoke and break the mirrors of political gain from contracting out! Not only will I vote for this leader, I will work harder for him!
-
59304
Hey, this is better than Hillary's plan to eliminate 500,000 contractors over 10 years! Anyway, Congress has already placed the brakes on contracting out in legislation (just waiting for Barack's signature?). Then there's still that pesky question about what's "inherently governmental...".
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive 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.