Pentagon sees big savings in replacing contractors with federal employees

Pentagon sees big savings in replacing contractors with federal employees

www.washingtonpost.com

The Defense Department estimates it will save an average of $44,000 a year for every contractor it replaces with full-time federal personnel to perform critical defense jobs, according to the House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2010 defense appropriation bill.

The measure, which passed Congress on Saturday, contains $5 billion to hire replacements for contractors currently performing what have been termed "inherently government functions" both at home and abroad.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I am glad the government is looking at this. To me the contractors the higher have only one thing in mind. That is how can the rip every extra dollar they can out of the government. I also have little doubt they are good at it. As the source article states each contractor was costing the government about two hundred and fifty thousand a year. Could it actually be the government is actually doing something that makes sense?

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Are you kidding me? I worked for the Department Of Defense and retired from there. The agency I worked for about 95 % of the employees were worthless and I won`t tell you what kind of salaries they made. I won`t say the contractors are any better, but federal employees, try to call a federal agency and get someone intelligent on the line to get something accomplished.

reply to post by Iamherefornow


The point I was trying to make was not about weather or not ninety fife percent of them are intelligent, it is that the government can save money this way. Because there is not some one on the out side continually trying to jack up the costs.

Aren't most of the defence sub-contracts handled by HALLIBURTON?

The Dems are giving a BIG slap in the face to Bush & Chaney's biggest backers.

They're undoing the OTHER Bush Doctrine; the one that said "Why have the govt do something when you can pay civilians to do it?". Remember that little piece of gold?

It led to zillions of dollars in back room, no-bid deals going to Halliburton and all of Cheney's cronies. (OK, maybe not zillions but, almost)

Good move, I just hope they don't use this to reward THEIR politial cronies.

Yeah, right, who the HE-double hockey sticks am I kidding?

Between the salaries and benefits paid to Federal employee's. Not to mention extra money and benefits they get for going overseas. I don't see how they'd be saving money.

I've worked both sides of the fence. I'm pretty sure they did some creative math to come up with those figures.

I agree, this is a better direction for military spending. We can hold the government better accountable for their actions, and ensure they are upholding the constitution. However this 5 billion is only a small percentage of their military budget of 1,449 billion dollars. So I still see a lot of changes that are needed. However I still feel as if they are going to continue their contracts with the larger corporates that can carry out their intentions free of restrictions from the constitution. This may just be a shadow to distract us from the their true spending. Or not? We will probably never really know the exact truth




[edit on 25-12-2009 by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx]

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Aren't most of the defence sub-contracts handled by HALLIBURTON?

Is that speculation or are you aiming it towards a certain part of the their contracts?

The DOD (Department of Defense) contracts a lot of personnel. To say most of them are sub-contracted out to one company is a bit ignorant.

Some things I believe are excellent to be contracted out. Private companies can produce a higher end project, but in reality the reason they bilk the government for more and more money is because the government allows them to do so. They allow them to make endless claims of extensions, price changes, etc.

You also know that things like the FA-22 or the F-35, or the new tankers or anything that is an asset in our military isn't made by the military but contracted out.

So you think creating a behemoth of a bureaucracy with federal employees will bring the costs down?

Originally posted by RedGolem

Pentagon sees big savings in replacing contractors with federal employees

www.washingtonpost.com

The Defense Department estimates it will save an average of $44,000 a year for every contractor it replaces with full-time federal personnel to perform critical defense jobs ...

I have a better idea.

Lets eliminate both the private and the public sector.

And then we'll save a bunch of money.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by In nothing we trust]

Not only are they saving money but fixing a security threat that should have been fixed years ago.Some contractors in the past have posed security threats by leaking secret and classified infomation about certain goverment activities to the wrong people.Most of the new federal employees will not only be cheaper but all have implanted tracking devices in there bodies and there cell phone commnications are monitored too.I wounder if any FBI employee relise that they too may have a implanted tracking device too.

reply to post by GORGANTHIUM


You state security as a good justification for this, but you are thus stating that federal employees are incapable of committing such security breaches.

Most contractors do not have access to such high classified information. Also, most contractors undergo some sort of background check. Those background checks are conducted by federal employees. If they slip through, wouldn't that imply that the federal employees are also just a big a security threat?

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

I have a better idea.

Lets eliminate both the private and the public sector.

And then we'll save a bunch of money.

So you saying no one should have any money? Meaning return to the bartering system?

I am a contractor. I specialize in areas that the employee just does not want to deal with, or unable to, because they have no incentive to stay current with technology that moves faster than a business can absorb in real time.

As a contractor, I have to be on the bleeding edge of technology, or I cannot get a gig. That is what we are used for.

Irregardless of what the government says or does, when it comes down to the bottom line of getting a project on-track or completed, the contractor saves money in ways they are not tracking in this current endeavor, and it scares me not.

(edited for spelling)

[edit on 25-12-2009 by charlyv]

[edit on 25-12-2009 by charlyv]

This post get's my goat enough, I want to elaborate.

I spend as much as 20% of my 'salary', staying abreast of what is going on in this world in my particular specialty. I stay certified in my field and also attend symposia that covers the important details of my specialty at my own expense. I do that to stay marketable as a contractor.

Currently, with the economy the way it is, government and big business have virtually halted the educational opportunities and incentives offered to existing employees, so that they can stay current with their respective diciplines and remain up to date with effective avenues of change.

With that fact, where in these organizations do new ideas come from? Who in the management staff is going to attempt to organize a project that moves a department into areas that can vastly reduce cost and advance productivity?

I rest my case again.

(edited for spelling)

[edit on 25-12-2009 by charlyv]

Originally posted by RedGolem

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

I have a better idea.

Lets eliminate both the private and the public sector.

And then we'll save a bunch of money.

So you saying no one should have any money? Meaning return to the bartering system?

I'm saying I'm tired of as*holes fighting over who gets to rob me and my children blind.

Screw 'em all.

A government should never be a burden to the people.

I'm dieing under the oppression of this one.

Where in the constitution does it say as*holes shall prosper and the people shall be made to pay for suckas*s' and thier wives to drive new SUV's, play golf and have a nice fat retirement account?


[edit on 25-12-2009 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by charlyv
I am a contractor. I specialize in areas that the employee just does not want to deal with, or unable to, because they have no incentive to stay current with technology that moves faster than a business can absorb in real time.

As a contractor, I have to be on the bleeding edge of technology, or I cannot get a gig. That is what we are used for.

Charlyv
thank you for posting. I am glad we can hear what a contractor has to say. I am also glad to hear that you do keep up on what is current with your job.

Hear is another thread on a recent executive order that changes the pay rates for government workers. Since contractor jobs may be moving to government jobs you might want to look at it, there is also a link that shows what the new pay rates for the workers will be.

I'm sorry, after reading the part about five BILLION dollars, the remainder of the post seemed redundant.

There is no part of "$5 billion" that even remotely looks like "savings" to me.

It does sound an awful lot like another "bailout", however.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by slimpickens93]

This really is a complicated issue. Halliburton was awarded a lot of contracts in the Middle East because they had already been there for more than 35 years building things and knew how to get things done. On the other hand under Bush a lot of Federal employees were canned, lost their pensions etc. some were rehired as private contractors with no benefits and others replaced with contractors who had little oversight and hired a illegal aliens Stateside or cheap labor abroad to do the actual labor. And I'm sure some contractors do a great job. Then there's Blackwater and hired mercenaries who are paid very well but who also get no benefits or much oversight as to the legality of what they do.

I think it's best when we can replace these specialists with people over whom there is some oversight. I think some Federal institutions, like the Forest Service have been devastated by the aforementioned practices of the past administration and have lost the competence and expertise they once had by unscrupulous contractors cutting corners and the labor force in disarray and not loyal to the field in which they are working.

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
This really is a complicated issue. Halliburton was awarded a lot of contracts in the Middle East because they had already been there for more than 35 years building things and knew how to get things done. On the other hand under Bush a lot of Federal employees were canned, lost their pensions etc. some were rehired as private contractors with no benefits and others replaced with contractors who had little oversight and hired a illegal aliens Stateside or cheap labor abroad to do the actual labor. And I'm sure some contractors do a great job. Then there's Blackwater and hired mercenaries who are paid very well but who also get no benefits or much oversight as to the legality of what they do.

Herein lies the quandary we find ourselves in.

Because of hiring/firing practices and laws instituted to protect against discriminatory practices, it is virtually impossible to fire a federal employee and layoffs are very, very expensive both monetarily and politically. For these reasons, for the past 20 years, the federal government has used contractor services because contractors are not considered employees and therefore can be hired or let go as the need arises. It is the only way, in the current system to be able to “ebb and flow” labor needs with work needs.

But….

Originally posted by charlyv
Currently, with the economy the way it is, government and big business have virtually halted the educational opportunities and incentives offered to existing employees, so that they can stay current with their respective diciplines and remain up to date with effective avenues of change.

The downside is that federal employees do not have the expertise to actually do the work because of their dependency on contractors and because of discretionary budget reductions (anything non-labor, i.e.training, educational seminars, etc..). What this means is that there is little informed oversight of contractor activities. I see this daily. The federal employees charged with contractor oversight, for the most part, do try to do their jobs but just do not have the technical capability to actually provide any type of meaningful oversight and end up just reporting what the contractor gives them. And, in some cases, this uninformed oversight may be intentional due to the administration’s need of plausible deniability at times.

I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too. If you want real federal accountability, then make the people performing the work federal employees but if you want the ability to ebb and flow your workforce in times of budget restrictions, then use contractors at the expense of federal accountability. Either way, the taxpayers are not going to be happy.