GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: FEATURES Competing Objectives

• 91913
  

  I agree with all the posts here so far. Contractors' projects are always delayed from original due dates, costs keep increasing, and no one is made accountable for taxpayers' wasted funds while contractors are "learning" basic details from a Fed; yet the Fed is paid less for their job. Worse of all: most contractors are people retired from the military who are already getting a pension then receiving an additional salary telling Feds how to do their jobs - as if they know. Then teh worst: it's very easy for contractors get a Fed job and come in highly paid positions. All of those situations affect Feds with a lot of exeprience in their fields who lose their chance for promotions, then have to receive orders from clueless former contractors who don't even understand how govt operates and think they have come to change how things are. Being a Fed at the GS-13 & 14 levels is very frustrating now because we all have suffered from a contractor getting the promotions we have worked for so many years. The best qualified person for a govt job doesn't have to come from outside the govt(military retirees or contractors) when there are plenty of qualified employees actually doing the announced job already. It's a fallacy that candidates with big job titles in the contracting business or the military, or with masters and PhDs, are more qualified than Feds with less impressive job titles and less education but Much More Experience. It's time that Feds fight to have Priority in hiring practices as strongly as the veterans preference. Someone has to save the promotions that current Feds are losing due to the invasion of outsiders.

  KC Posted November 12, 2009 2:18 PM
• 91831
  

  Another consideration that I have not heard discussed is the flexibility provided the Govt by using contractors. For long-term projects, it makes sense to use Govt employees - for all the reasons Kathy listed. However, hiring Gov't employees to oversee the stimulus program doesn't make much sense. The program is only for a short time. The costs to hire people, train them, then RIF them after the program is over has got to be double the cost of hiring a contractor. I think the focus needs to be hiring the right people, training them, and using them effectively. Looking at some arbitrary 3.5% drop in contracts takes leadership's eye off the real ball.

  Will Posted November 12, 2009 7:14 AM
• 91547
  

  The Feds have been shrinking Govt. by eliminating positions while replacing them with contractors for many years. While most of these people may be good workers, oversight is lax, projects/positions are extended, and costs continue to rise. Contractors provide no history, or loyalty to their jobs. Contractors learn quickly the longer a project takes, the more they are paid. Feds should invest in their own employees, through continuing ed, OJT, etc. and hire/pay people who will be an asset to the Govt.

  kathy Posted November 9, 2009 9:46 AM
• 91497
  

  The emphasis and resources should be placed on expansion of hiring federal employees, training them, maximizing their performance and retaining their skills and committment. Hiring of veterans should increase, and agencies should be hiring on the best of the best from contract firms.

  I'm seeing consultants and contractors itching to become feds. We can hire the best, right now...and get their skills and experience - plus cutting out their firms profits and exec bonus overhead.

  Don Posted November 8, 2009 9:54 AM
• 91369
  

  Working for a particular DOD service in big trouble for it's procurement messes, I've seen the bureaucracy grow out of control in source selections. There are so many reviewers and advisors that the team is working only to feed data they don't understand to non-value added people rubber stamping the paperwork. They don't really understand it. It's 3 to 1 in terms of overhead and review to the actual people doing the real job. I've calculated that it is taking the equivalent of about 4 million dollars in government salaries for a 100 million dollar contract. While it's only 4 percent of the effort, it's absurd in the extreme since it's 4 percent just to award a contract...not really get anything done. I think smaller, efficient and competency is critical to the future of the USA. Taxpayers should be demanding more.

  Rogersm Posted November 5, 2009 10:26 PM