Replies

I'm working military test. We have a mix of military, GS & contractors. Those of us in the military were brought in for our experience in how the future weapons systems will be used. Since most of us have no experience in test, we turn to the civilians to find out how to structure the test -ie, how many runs will be needed for some statistical significance, or what Lockheed engineers mean when they say, "Widget A isn't failing, it really is government owned widget B causing the problem".

The GS folks are generally GS-13 engineers or statistics pukes making 70 - 80K + benefits. The contractors we hire (because we don't have enough military or GS engineers available) cost the government an average of $180K. Someone hasn't figured out that in 'outsourcing', we still have to pay a competitive salary, benefits - and then an extra pad for the company's profit. IMHO, we would be a lot better off paying for GS people instead of paying TRW or SAIC a fee to hire & pay for contract hire.

Folks can slam the GS people if you want - but in testing military equipment, they are extremely valuable...and cost less than hiring a private corporation!

Ok, as a defense contractor , I'm obviously biased, but my argument is this.

Yes, contractors are at first glance more expensive than their civil service equivalents. However, I would argue that they are more effective, as there are typically more stringent controls on their performance (read, financial incentives).

Also, contractors can be replaced at will (if the contract is written correctly), which is virtually impossible with the civil service "job for life" ethos.

Finally, there is financial risk associated with civil service employees. At least in my command, I've noticed that the deadwood GSs , the ones that have it the best , are also the first to file EEOC complaints, union complaints. There has been more than one instance when a project was delayed or cancelled due to the financial hit of a lawsuit against the command.

In the long run, contractors can be a more cost-effective solution provided that the contract is written correctly and performance monitored.

I'm working military test. We have a mix of military, GS & contractors. Those of us in the military were brought in for our experience in how the future weapons systems will be used. Since most of us have no experience in test, we turn to the civilians to find out how to structure the test -ie, how many runs will be needed for some statistical significance, or what Lockheed engineers mean when they say, "Widget A isn't failing, it really is government owned widget B causing the problem". We go through the same procedures with our warfighting simulations. We have "green suitors" to serve as subject matter experts, the Lockheed Martin "gee whiz" kids to tweak the computers and then they all rely on us lowly GS employees to make sense of the data the spit out.

The GS folks are generally GS-13 engineers or statistics pukes making 70 - 80K + benefits. The contractors we hire (because we don't have enough military or GS engineers available) cost the government an average of $180K. Someone hasn't figured out that in 'outsourcing', we still have to pay a competitive salary, benefits - and then an extra pad for the company's profit. IMHO, we would be a lot better off paying for GS people instead of paying TRW or SAIC a fee to hire & pay for contract hire. We must almost be in the same situation. Even though I am not a "real" research analyst, I was sent to school, received the training, and so do the job. The only "real" number cruncher we have is a PhD (GS-13) who verifies our work for validity.

Folks can slam the GS people if you want - but in testing military equipment, they are extremely valuable...and cost less than hiring a private corporation! As far as the salary difference between the GS employees and the Lockheed Martin . . . . . . . I don't even want to get started.