Job Hunt: Federal Government ‘In-Sourcing’ « Liveshots

U.S.

141

comments

Job Hunt: Federal Government ‘In-Sourcing’

December 1, 2009 - 3:15 PM | by: Brian Wilson

Who is the number one employer in the United States? It's Uncle Sam. There are 1.8 million federal employees. If you add in military and civilian Department of Defense employees -- the number jumps to roughly 4.8 million. During years of Republican rule, there was an effort to move many government jobs over to the private sector. That is changing under President Obama.

This past July -- the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, issued a memo to all Executive Branch departments strongly suggesting that it might be better to have more federal employees and fewer private contractors. Its called "in-sourcing."

"Agencies must be alert to situations in which excessive reliance on contractors undermines the ability of the federal government to accomplish its missions," Orszag wrote in the memo.

At the Pentagon -- they have taken that memo to heart. By some estimates, the Dept. of Defense plans to replace private contractors with 13,000 new federal employees next year. It is a move that purports to save $900 million. Though not everyone is so sure.

Some allege the presumed cost savings with "in-sourcing" are based on some illusory math or fuzzy math and algorithms that really are not very clear to anyone.

The Unions love the trend toward "in-sourcing" because more government workers means more members joining the various unions that represent Government workers. They believe government workers can get the job done better, and more cheaply.

Many more agencies are finding out that contractors cost more money -- up to 65 percent more money, according to the Department of Defense.
This move to "in-source" is a job trade off -- more federal employees is offset by the jobs lost in the private sector. In some cases federal contractors have gone -- and will go --- out of business.

Tags

141 Comments

«12 3 4 5 »

Ken

Most of the time a poorly written contract is the results of the poor performance. The "preception of what is required compared to what is performed are not always the same perception. A lack of clear understanding of the requirements and the governments oversight with contractors should be of big concern. While consider costs between government and private least not forget the benefits that government employees get compared to some of the small business contractors. That is where real costs of government of contract support comes from.

December 4, 2009 at 10:05 AM

David Alves

I am a federal employee and am involved in a grievance we filed because of work being sent to contractors. The work is done for much more money and is very poorly done. In fact many times we have to redo the work because it was done incorrectly and for safety issues. Would you know where I can find more information on Federal Government in-sourcing. Thank you.

December 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Just a lowly contractor

Max has hit the nail on the head. The ratio of white to non-white and men to women is way off... so much so that it would be painfully obvious to anyone walking into one of these offices for the first time. Like I said in an earlier post I've only contracted for a few months now but it only took me the first day to realize how bogus everything in this environment truly is. The management is a joke, the regular employees (at least most of them) are as lazy as you can get and do as little as they can get away with. Most of the minority workers know they are untouchable and act as such. Lunch breaks are pretty much most of their day and they usually spend the rest of their day talking out in the hall or in the break room. It's ridiculous! Contractors are basically put under a microscope and used as a whipping boy if anything goes wrong. The vast majority of competent, good-work-ethic types are the contractors. Once everything is "in-sourced" literally nothing will get done.

December 3, 2009 at 5:42 PM

AntonioSosa

Another lie: "Many more agencies are finding out that contractors cost more money -- up to 65 percent more money, according to the Department of Defense." We are being subjected to mountains of LIES, manipulation, intimidation, and coercion to increase government control at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren. Nothing could help boost jobs and the economy that for Obama to be impeached.

December 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Brian

I'm with you, Mr. Chuck. The private sector does it better. I also work in government. You ever visit the DMV? Public housing? Public schools? Public toilets? Ever visit their private counterparts? Working in government, I can see clearly why the word "sinecure" traces its etymology to public service.

December 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM

geo

Maybe if more of us took this woman's advice (www.robinryan.com) and signed the petition that is going to congress AND the media... we would see some action, instead of these "summits." "Where is the outrage?" is what she wants to know. I say we all show our support.

December 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Chuck

This is not a good idea. Contracts can be modified and terminated based on the changing needs of the Government. Permanent government workers cost the taxpayer.....forever. I am a government employee but I understand that much of what government does is more effectively and efficiently performed by a contract workforce. However, while this debate has been going on for years within the government, the voting public is completely unaware that there are two sides to this story.

December 2, 2009 at 8:06 AM

David

Why are contractors more expensive. Because the overnment has withheld pay raises to governemnt workers for years. That is why you have the worst work force in place in DC. Low performers equal cheap pay. I have been the government 30 years and this president is an insult to inteligence. He proposes a 2% pay raise while my insurance premium is increasing 8.8% Unlike him, I have ti earn a living and pay my bills. I don't get to hold lavish dinners or jet around for dinner on dates. He bailed out a union of auto workers that make $85 an hour putting on bolts while I hols a Master Degree and don't make a third of that. I say impeach the bum. I never thought any one could make Jimmy Carter look smart but I was wrong.

December 2, 2009 at 7:42 AM

Red Tape and Too Many Regs

My mother, father-in-law, brother, sister, brother-in-law, and several aunts and uncles all work for the government (IRS, Forest Service, etc.) Government employees are not paid for results, they are paid to show up at work. If you have a government job it is almost impossible to get fired. Wrotten employees are just transfered around to get them out of your office. Contractors have to perform and get results or they will loose the contract. People actually have to be accountable. The government can not run anything cost effectively, because that is not their motivation. The motivation of government agencies is to stay in power and get more power, to spend all of your budget even if you don't need it so you can get that much money next year, blah blah blah. Sorry, but government jobs are 90% putting people to work who would otherwise be on welfare because they are incapable of getting a real job.

December 2, 2009 at 7:41 AM

Lars

Though I am for a small federal government, it is a good idea to move some of the contractors out of the picture. For example: Since when does an Army need civilians to guard and protect it? Even in warzones Amry post are being guarded by civilian contractors - aren't soldiers trained for guard duty? Some say this would take away manpower from mission critical tasks, but I am still not so sure about the wisdom behind contracting out guard duty. How can some overweight old guy with limited marksmanship experience do a better job than a soldier subject to stringent military standards?

December 2, 2009 at 6:32 AM

jim

As a contractor, I can say that I support the plan to in-source many positions. Unfortunately as the Government eliminated these positions earlier, contractors were put in the position of making decision they could not/should not make while supporting their customer. This needed to be fixed. The first go round with in-sourcing went OK, good at first poorer at the end. Up-front they were able to hire good people by paying good salaries. Near the end, they could no longer support the high end salary, so were no longer getting the best and best brightest. The thing I think the government sometimes misses is that we as contractors also cannot afford to give up all our best, so we do fight to keep them, therefore the pool of really good people still available has shrunk significantly. There are 2 ways out of this, one increase availability of high pay, which increase the cost, or two leave as the pay and hiring as planned and end up maintaining or increasing contract support. As in all things, you get what you pay for, whether government or contractor.

December 2, 2009 at 6:03 AM

don

I work for the navy and contract out work i use to do years ago. It cost more for a contractor to do the work than a goverment employee. They way things are set up now we have to go through a prime contractor to get to the contractor we want which raises the cost by 24%. Our work force went from 350 plus to 80. We use to do all the work the contractors do now.

December 2, 2009 at 3:47 AM

William H

What is fun is that the contractors here in the west are mostly ex-government and when the government decided to fire most of its employees in those portions of the government that did useful work for the public (corps of engineers, bureau of rec, blm, etc.) and increase the entitlement areas, the contractors consistently tell me two things: the workload is much less exhausting than what they used to have to put up with and they are paid several times what they used to be paid for the same work. It makes sense, too. The Forest Service, for example, lost 2/3rds of its employees from 1993 to 2005 and was still expected to do the same work, a total impossibility. The old hands left as soon as they could retire, turned around and contracted. Other agencies did the same silly things. Having worked for mostly private firms and occasionally for government agencies, the only real differences are that government agencies pay you a lot less, have worse benefits and expect the moon for nothing in return. One tries to deliver, but there's only so many hours of unpaid overtime one is willing to do.

December 2, 2009 at 2:54 AM

William H

Where does the author get his numbers? The total number of all federal employees is 2.8 million. For all sectors, civilian and military. The Army now is only 8 divisions (2 national guard), not 18 as it was in 1991, for example, when the total military was 2.2 million for logistics and ops. We have 2 carrier battle groups instead of the 12 we had in 1991. Etc. Etc. What I get a kick out of are some of the blanket assumptions. For non-technical jobs, it's much cheaper for contractors. For technical and scientific jobs, it's from 4 to ten times the cost. For example, when I worked for NOAA, it would take me a week of solid work to write a BA. My wages and benefits ($700) plus facilities brings that to less than $1500. The going rate for a BA from a private outfit is $10,000. Slight difference, no? And I wrote a LOT of documents like that during my tenure with NOAA. For an engineer, it's $60,000 to $200,000 per year for a private engineer versus $30,000 to $60,000 for a govt. engineer. Plus you have to pay for a contracting officer to oversee the contracts. The same for other technical specialties. For about ten years, the government made the mistake of trying to outsource technical work and it cost from 10x to 100x as much to get it done. Not to mention that someone in house has the training and intimate knowledge, while someone outside does not. There was always a problem of getting the right results with a contractor.

December 2, 2009 at 2:41 AM

Kathleen

Seriously! Government can do it better and cheaper than the private sector. I needed a good laugh today!!!! The private sector has proven a million (or is that Trillion) times over again, we can do anything better and cheaper and more efficiently than the government can do any day. The only department the government runs that I will support to the end, will be our military!!!!!!!!

December 2, 2009 at 2:27 AM

red

This is truly stupid. I spent 30 years in the Navy and after that I worked 17 years as a contractor for the Navy. I worked in Program Management for 5 years, dealing with contracts and managing the people who worked for me. I was shocked when I did contract work and saw what it cost the government for a contractor as opposed to a government worker. The contractor was much much cheaper than the government worker and for the most part, much more knowledgeable than the government worker. I don't mean that as a slam against the government folks, it was just that the contractors were all ex-military and had far more experience than the government folks. I realize the unions will love this move as it gives them more people to get dues from and also more people to help keep questionable people in office.

December 2, 2009 at 1:13 AM

Great Deceiver

I work as a federal civilian worker in Barstow California and according to my observations the majority of the sheer incompentance and appalling lack of productivity goes hands down to low class junior enlisted people who are nothing but kids that have a life much less than a clue..... They don't do anything until they are told to do it Military life is much like central planning or socialism. Actually the whole scheme of things the whole system of military silly servants and the greedy contractors the whole thing is a cesspool and corrupt to the bone....

December 2, 2009 at 12:28 AM

Gerry Adams

I got a job with DoD 9 months back - as I was laid off from a private sector job. Got 40k cut in salary. Recently offered a 100k contract job in Fairfax but turned it down. But I will be out of there as soon as I got a better offer. Most of my colleagues are newly hired, and they are as good as my old colleagues in banking sector.

December 2, 2009 at 12:09 AM

jay

probably bcuz you are an idiot hired via telecon. dont blame the Bush administration for your lack of skills or inability to provide quality work. What they are trying to say is that people like you would never lose your job as DoD. So you would continue to provide subpar performance at continual taxpayer expense.

December 1, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Jamie

All of you private contractor nay-sayers, remember the people with the brains and know-how are paid as private contractors, not Government employees the cap in salary is too low and the plateau even lower. Good luck to the DoD with their in-source positions, you will find that you need to double+ the salary is the actual cost of that federal employee. BTW, you need to hire people under you in the Government to get ahead; therefore, expect more new jobs added by the Federal Government as the bureacray explodes to meet the demand of upward mobile employees. Then again, I may take the position when they get rid of my private contract. There you go America, you will be paying for me until I die rather than meeting the demand.

December 1, 2009 at 11:11 PM

«12 3 4 5 »