Alan3413
Ultimate Member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 17,166
Should've made congressional pay contingent on work output.
No workee, no payee
No workee, no payee
Should've made congressional pay contingent on work output.
No workee, no payee
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.
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).
Not for us contractors.
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.
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).
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).
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
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.