Gov Shutdown

Should've made congressional pay contingent on work output.

No workee, no payee

Alan3413 said:

Should've made congressional pay contingent on work output.

No workee, no payee

Click to expand...

You won't get their attention with that chicken feed. Now if you can figure a way to cut off their payoffs and graft that'll get it

md_rick_o said:

Depends on the contract (i'm sure you know that, not everyone would). I've been on both sides and it really does suck for Contractors stuck in this crap. Especially when the contractors do all the work anyway and the govies just sit back a bitch or take credit.

Click to expand...

Ya’ll are lucky. My experience is generally the opposite. Contractors are often over paid and no more productive doing jobs feds can do. Of course there are some exceptions to that. But when a contractor costs roughly 2x a fed salary + benefits I’ve yet to meet a single contractor 2x more productive than a fed. The only real upside is it is easier to get a contracting company to get rid of a contractor who is a problem from the contract than it is a fed who is a problem. But the later is mostly about decent management. It isn’t really that hard to fire feds. But there are a fair number of bad managers. So when you have to do WORK to get someone fired, plenty won’t do it.

But the cost structure difference is as much that typically you are looking at paying the contracting company, that then out sources to a sub contractor who then pays the contractor. Every level wants to make money. Very inefficient.

The best contracting situations is when a contract is let for a specific product or service and is fixed price, versus staffing contracts for skills or cost plus. Those later two are almost never done better than could be done internally if the agency spends the time and effort properly staffing.

Of course some agencies like CMS have almost no IT staffing. Just contract officers. So they can’t really start internal IT projects. Also part of the reason their IT projects are often over cost and don’t work properly. (Though that’s also a function of bad contract officers and poor executives).

lazarus said:

Ya’ll are lucky. My experience is generally the opposite. Contractors are often over paid and no more productive doing jobs feds can do. Of course there are some exceptions to that. But when a contractor costs roughly 2x a fed salary + benefits I’ve yet to meet a single contractor 2x more productive than a fed. The only real upside is it is easier to get a contracting company to get rid of a contractor who is a problem from the contract than it is a fed who is a problem. But the later is mostly about decent management. It isn’t really that hard to fire feds. But there are a fair number of bad managers. So when you have to do WORK to get someone fired, plenty won’t do it.

But the cost structure difference is as much that typically you are looking at paying the contracting company, that then out sources to a sub contractor who then pays the contractor. Every level wants to make money. Very inefficient.

The best contracting situations is when a contract is let for a specific product or service and is fixed price, versus staffing contracts for skills or cost plus. Those later two are almost never done better than could be done internally if the agency spends the time and effort properly staffing.

Of course some agencies like CMS have almost no IT staffing. Just contract officers. So they can’t really start internal IT projects. Also part of the reason their IT projects are often over cost and don’t work properly. (Though that’s also a function of bad contract officers and poor executives).

Click to expand...

I think the quality of federal workers might be getting better. Also, contractors from the big companies (e.g. General Dynamics) [EDIT - OBTW - I used to work for General Dynamics] tend to be of lower quality than small companies. The larger companies have a greater overhead and can't/won't pay their workers as much.

Also keep in mind that, yes a contractor is twice as much (or so) money, but (1) a lot of that money goes to the company, not the worker, esp. in the case of a big company, and (2) contract workers cost a big premium if the government is using contractor facilities (computers, office space, support personnel).

I am not so sure it is ever easier to terminate a federal worker than a contractor. Contractors are FAR MORE flexible to the government than contractors. That flexibility does come at a price. No debate there. I will agree that with better management, the feds could just use more federal workers and save money. No debate there either.

calicojack said:

Not for us contractors.

Click to expand...

md_rick_o said:

Depends on the contract (i'm sure you know that, not everyone would). I've been on both sides and it really does suck for Contractors stuck in this crap. Especially when the contractors do all the work anyway and the govies just sit back a bitch or take credit.

Click to expand...

Yeap, my contractors would have kept working and getting paid.

And many times, the contract money is already obligated from the prior year. So unless their contract period ends during a shutdown, the contract has money for them to work and be paid.

lazarus said:

Ya’ll are lucky. My experience is generally the opposite. Contractors are often over paid and no more productive doing jobs feds can do. Of course there are some exceptions to that. But when a contractor costs roughly 2x a fed salary + benefits I’ve yet to meet a single contractor 2x more productive than a fed. The only real upside is it is easier to get a contracting company to get rid of a contractor who is a problem from the contract than it is a fed who is a problem. But the later is mostly about decent management. It isn’t really that hard to fire feds. But there are a fair number of bad managers. So when you have to do WORK to get someone fired, plenty won’t do it.

But the cost structure difference is as much that typically you are looking at paying the contracting company, that then out sources to a sub contractor who then pays the contractor. Every level wants to make money. Very inefficient.

The best contracting situations is when a contract is let for a specific product or service and is fixed price, versus staffing contracts for skills or cost plus. Those later two are almost never done better than could be done internally if the agency spends the time and effort properly staffing.

Of course some agencies like CMS have almost no IT staffing. Just contract officers. So they can’t really start internal IT projects. Also part of the reason their IT projects are often over cost and don’t work properly. (Though that’s also a function of bad contract officers and poor executives).

Click to expand...

Agreed.

My third party contractors make more money than my direct hires, with lower qualifications. And their loaded rate is much higher.

But they are SO much easier to get rid of versus direct hires. One phone call, and they are gone.

Yes, you can fire direct hire Feds, but it does take work and time (both time to do the work required, plus you have to give them a chance to change their ways).

lazarus said:

Ya’ll are lucky. My experience is generally the opposite. Contractors are often over paid and no more productive doing jobs feds can do. Of course there are some exceptions to that. But when a contractor costs roughly 2x a fed salary + benefits I’ve yet to meet a single contractor 2x more productive than a fed. The only real upside is it is easier to get a contracting company to get rid of a contractor who is a problem from the contract than it is a fed who is a problem. But the later is mostly about decent management. It isn’t really that hard to fire feds. But there are a fair number of bad managers. So when you have to do WORK to get someone fired, plenty won’t do it.

But the cost structure difference is as much that typically you are looking at paying the contracting company, that then out sources to a sub contractor who then pays the contractor. Every level wants to make money. Very inefficient.

The best contracting situations is when a contract is let for a specific product or service and is fixed price, versus staffing contracts for skills or cost plus. Those later two are almost never done better than could be done internally if the agency spends the time and effort properly staffing.

Of course some agencies like CMS have almost no IT staffing. Just contract officers. So they can’t really start internal IT projects. Also part of the reason their IT projects are often over cost and don’t work properly. (Though that’s also a function of bad contract officers and poor executives).

Click to expand...

I don't know about the 2x part, maybe for some contracts with very high hourly billing specialized SMEs but I've been on both sides and at least for take-home pay, there's not that much difference. What you gain in a little xtra pay for being on the contractor side, you give up in job security and authority over your own work. And GOV employee "burdened rates" only seem lower because a lot of their costs are hidden off-budget.

Yeah, firm fixed price procurements can be efficient. But a lot of what the Government wants is large-scale, customized solutions that can't be off the shelf retail purchases. With risky developments, either the GOV eats the risk with a level of effort, cost-plus contract, or the contractor eats risk with a higher potential payout. No commercial enterprise that's willing to eat lots of risk for low margins is going to stay in business for long.

I work for the DOD and we also have several contractors on site and I know many of them from previous jobs in the same field. Ii am a master certified HVACR tech. We have so much equipment to contend with like boilerplants, chillers, A/C and steam equipment and lines. Its either hire more in our workplace in the HVACR shop or use dozens of contractors to work with us. Sure the contractors get paid more than I do. Thing is the government does not have to pay their benefits. I do have constant work and ass busting stuff most days but some days we take a few hour break to get our bodies together. Most of us are in our fifties and I am 63 but still rock and roll. We do have a few young guys that hide and dont do chit. Its hard to fire them bastages. I also have found contractors hiding in vacant rooms and buildings sleeping so it happens. I just want to work two more years and retire

Allen65 said:

I don't know about the 2x part, maybe for some contracts with very high hourly billing specialized SMEs but I've been on both sides and at least for take-home pay, there's not that much difference. What you gain in a little xtra pay for being on the contractor side, you give up in job security and authority over your own work. And GOV employee "burdened rates" only seem lower because a lot of their costs are hidden off-budget.

Yeah, firm fixed price procurements can be efficient. But a lot of what the Government wants is large-scale, customized solutions that can't be off the shelf retail purchases. With risky developments, either the GOV eats the risk with a level of effort, cost-plus contract, or the contractor eats risk with a higher potential payout. No commercial enterprise that's willing to eat lots of risk for low margins is going to stay in business for long.

Click to expand...

mauser58 said:

I work for the DOD and we also have several contractors on site and I know many of them from previous jobs in the same field. Ii am a master certified HVACR tech. We have so much equipment to contend with like boilerplants, chillers, A/C and steam equipment and lines. Its either hire more in our workplace in the HVACR shop or use dozens of contractors to work with us. Sure the contractors get paid more than I do. Thing is the government does not have to pay their benefits. I do have constant work and ass busting stuff most days but some days we take a few hour break to get our bodies together. Most of us are in our fifties and I am 63 but still rock and roll. We do have a few young guys that hide and dont do chit. Its hard to fire them bastages. I also have found contractors hiding in vacant rooms and buildings sleeping so it happens. I just want to work two more years and retire

Click to expand...

The 2x is not what the contractor workers are paid, but what their company is paid.

And yes, the Government does pay the benefits, just not directly. The company bills over 2x what it pays the worker. Benefits come out of that.

Unless you are a CO, COR, or involved in the payment process, you do not see what the Gov pays for each of those contractors.

Back in the early/mid 2000s, under Bush II, there was the A-76 attempt. That was, that the government had to compete for the same jobs with direct hires against the cost of contractors. Either the government had to justify the position is "inherently governmental" and thus could not be done by a contractor or the government had to show that it cost less for the direct hire versus the contractor.

I don't recall a sudden loss of government jobs to contractors.

Allen65 said:

I don't know about the 2x part, maybe for some contracts with very high hourly billing specialized SMEs but I've been on both sides and at least for take-home pay, there's not that much difference. What you gain in a little xtra pay for being on the contractor side, you give up in job security and authority over your own work. And GOV employee "burdened rates" only seem lower because a lot of their costs are hidden off-budget.

Yeah, firm fixed price procurements can be efficient. But a lot of what the Government wants is large-scale, customized solutions that can't be off the shelf retail purchases. With risky developments, either the GOV eats the risk with a level of effort, cost-plus contract, or the contractor eats risk with a higher potential payout. No commercial enterprise that's willing to eat lots of risk for low margins is going to stay in business for long.

Click to expand...

This was from a few years ago, but we calculated a standard Systems analyst or IT developer journeyman as a GS12 step 5, x1.2 base pay and locality (the 20% premium accounts for benefits like health care and vacation time).

At the time that was working out to about $110k (somewhere in that range) for the DC-Baltimore metro area per FTE. IT contractors are the same level were costing us between $210-230k per contractor depending on which contract fro vaguely similar skills. In practice most of the contractors were doing basic crap work most feds didn’t want to do like meeting minutes and basic requirements documents writing and software testing.

Something you wouldn’t even really need to give to a journeyman level IT employee (more like a GS9 or 11 entry level IT employee). So the pay disparity was bigger…

Now, we did have a few developers on contract who were very, very, very good. As good as or better than a few of my most skilled Fed IT Developers. Eventually managed to get one of them hired directly and one got siphoned off by a different office at my agency.

But yeah, I know most of the money doesn’t end up with the contractor. Depending on the contract structure, if there are subs, level of the contractor within the contract company a TYPICAL arrangement seemed to be around 25% went to the contracting company, the next 25% went to the sub contractor and finally the rest ended up with the contractor him or herself. Which still typically meant they made a fair amount extra. Even with typically less benefits.

For example, to come close to pay parity at the time, we had to offer one of the developers we were trying to hire a GS13 step 10 (at the time that was around $125 or 130k a year) and though he was good, that was still the equivalent to a senior federal IT developer or lead systems analyst with about 20 years of experience (the contractor had about 8 years of experience, 5 on the contract with my agency). And even then it was going to be a fairly big pay cut for them, but the benefits and better work life balance mostly made up for taking a $10-15k a year pay cut.

The flexibility in hiring and firing was/is useful. But in a lot of cases my agency treated/treats contractors more like permanent staff. I’ve had contractors working on the same contract doing the same kind of work for more than a dozen years. All that might change is every few years they are employed by a different sub contracting company when a new one wins the bid. But often 80+% of the contractors don’t actually change.

For a bit less flexibility, we could probably save a good 20-30% on the costs of a lot of those contracts just by employing staff directly. Usually our better contracts are when we are contracting for services rather than skills/bodies.

PS also of note, yes many of the contracting companies do have separate offices, but generally all of the contractors are on site at our agency, so the separate offices are the kinds of things that are tiny where contracting companies have rare meetings or offsite training and where they’ve got a handful of contract/program staff who really work for the contracting company to manage the contract and HR for them and not really working on the contract itself. So that overhead is relatively low. Not saying it is no cost of course.

PPS yes I was a COR. I just don’t do that in my current job. But I was a certified COR working in my agency’s IT department developing public facing applications for about a decade (well I worked there for a decade, I was only a team leader for the last 5 of those years and COR the last 2). I work in a business/operations unit as a program manager now.

I do the high pay high performance expectations contracting thing. I make a lot more than most government employees because most of the job reqs I do are only really capable of being filled by a small group of people, and we are recruited heavily by the tech industry. We want to serve our country still, but very few of us want to be government employees. Too much baggage, not enough flexibility to quit when you want and move onto a new more interesting opportunity. We like serving on our own terms.

In my field, what being replaced by a government employee says is that the government doesn’t value the particular service/project at this time and doesn’t mind if the service/project goes away, but why not roll the dice and see if they can get costs down while maintaining a minimum quality product before they axe the whole thing. If I haven’t moved on to a new job by then, I’ll even happily train my replacements. It never does much good since you can’t replace roughly two decades of experience with a few weeks or months or even years of training, but I typically get remembered fondly by the people I help. Never know which one of them might be in charge of something interesting someday.