POGO: Private contractors cost more than government employees doing comparable work

[Winehole23]

Despite a widespread belief that contracting out services to the private sector saves the federal government money, a new study suggests just the opposite — that the government actually pays more when it farms out work.

The study found that in 33 of 35 occupations, the government actually paid billions of dollars more to hire contractors than it would have cost government employees to perform comparable services. On average, the study found that contractors charged the federal government more than twice the amount it pays federal workers.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html?_r=2&ref=us

[Winehole23]

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/contract-oversight/bad-business/co-gp-20110913.html

[Wild Cobra]

---ooops--- double post on spelling error correction edit...

[Wild Cobra]

Is this suppose to be new news?

This has been known for decades, but the politicians can claim they cut the government, military, etc.

Remember when I complained about president Clinton making military cuts, after the military was already properly cut by president Bush 41?

Aspects like supply, food services, and any thing else that goes "tactical" should have never been contracted out to Halliburton like president Clinton did.

But he cut the military! Very big political points!

[DarrinS]

Contractors cost more than ANY workers doing the same job.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not really a valid comparison when it doesn't take into account the health and retirement benefits paid to the federal workers.

[Winehole23]

That's a fair point.

[Wild Cobra]

Not really a valid comparison when it doesn't take into account the health and retirement benefits paid to the federal workers.
When you have "prevailing wage" standards for awarding contracts, that also means a nice benefits package. Most military people never stay in for the 20 years for retirement. More people stay in jobs like contracting services than the military.

[CosmicCowboy]

When you have "prevailing wage" standards for awarding contracts, that also means a nice benefits package. Most military people never stay in for the 20 years for retirement. More people stay in jobs like contracting services than the military.

But that prevailing wage is only paid for the duration of the contract, not the rest of their life.

[Wild Cobra]

But that prevailing wage is only paid for the duration of the contract, not the rest of their life.
Look at what percentage of military people stay 20 years. It's a very small number compared to those who serve.

Besides, prevailing wage is always there. As the employees of the contractor come and go, the government is still contracting the cost for the company to pay prevailing wages, and enough that the sock holders get fat and happy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Look at what percentage of military people stay 20 years. It's a very small number compared to those who serve.

I'm talking more about civil service positions and not the military. I do a lot of contracting with the government and deal with them all the time.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm talking more about civil service positions and not the military. I do a lot of contracting with the government and deal with them all the time.
Yes, they have nice deals. 30 years for 1/2 retirement of their base salary.

This needs to be done away with and replace with a 401k like system only. As it is, they have CSR or FERS depending on when they started, and a TSP (401k equivalent). Even Social Security... Damn triple dippers...

I can see contracting these types of services out. Just not any of the military that goes tactical.

[boutons_deux]

Don't federal workers pay no SS but all of their retirement contributions?

They have health insurance like any other (mostly professional level) large org employees.

And they all go on Medicare at 65 like any other citizen (or military retired).

I've seen reports of govt employees making $25/hour having their work contracted out for sometimes well over $100/hour. and not temp work (like war mercenaries), but full time and forever.

The real contracting scam is when a (full benefit) govt employee's work is contracted out and the contractor in turn hires (no benefit) contractors, and then charges 4+ times/hour what the govt employee would cost.

Hyper-wealthy, abusive monopolist Microsoft got caught a few years ago for hiring contractors long-term (no benefits) to avoid employer's payroll taxes. MS contractors had same long hours, responsibilities, etc as full-benefit employees, and for years.

IIRC, the govt found that abusive and made MS stop (at least pro forma stop)

[ElNono]

Not really a valid comparison when it doesn't take into account the health and retirement benefits paid to the federal workers.

Agree, but then again you would need to argue that makes it twice as much. I don't think that's the case at all.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't federal workers pay no SS but all of their retirement contributions?

I don't know how that works exactly. The system has changed over the years. Today, they do pay SS and medicare, but I don't think they did under the CSR system that was done away with some time ago. The rate to replace the 6.2% SS was 7% to 8% starting in 1969. remember, in 1969, SS was only 4.2% and SS has increased but the CSR rate wasn't. What I didn't find on a quick search was when CSR was replaced by FERS. I think that was 1982. With FERS, employees pay SS/medicare. I did see the maximum CSR pays is 80% of base salary.

[scott]

Don't federal workers pay no SS but all of their retirement contributions?

They have health insurance like any other (mostly professional level) large org employees.

And they all go on Medicare at 65 like any other citizen (or military retired).

I've seen reports of govt employees making $25/hour having their work contracted out for sometimes well over $100/hour. and not temp work (like war mercenaries), but full time and forever.

The real contracting scam is when a (full benefit) govt employee's work is contracted out and the contractor in turn hires (no benefit) contractors, and then charges 4+ times/hour what the govt employee would cost.

Hyper-wealthy, abusive monopolist Microsoft got caught a few years ago for hiring contractors long-term (no benefits) to avoid employer's payroll taxes. MS contractors had same long hours, responsibilities, etc as full-benefit employees, and for years.

IIRC, the govt found that abusive and made MS stop (at least pro forma stop)

When I worked for the Treasury Department, I paid the same payroll tax as everyone else. I had a 401k where I could contribute up to 8% with a 75% employer match (my subsequent private sector job was up to 6% with a 100% employer match).

My health insurance was 100% paid for and I was granted $500 into a flex account at the beginning of every year (use it or lose it). My subsequent private sector job I was given an allowance to buy my health insurance (from their list of options) and I could put the remainder into a flex account or take it into my paycheck (usually came out to about $500/year with the options I chose).

All I'm trying to demonstrate is that the US Treasury's benefit's package was about the same as the one I had at my subsequent private sector job (well, except for the bonus and stock options I got in the private sector).

[Blake]

Remember when I complained about president Clinton making military cuts, after the military was already properly cut by president Bush 41?


lol no.

what year are you living in?

[Wild Cobra]

lol no.

what year are you living in?
It's some place in one or more of the Iraq War threads. People kept complaining about the Halliburton contracts, many of which were already in place doing the supply work and mess hall operations. When the war hit, these civilians didn't want to go to Iraq. There were even some soldiers in some locations that had to live on a ration 1 MRE a day for a few weeks.

[Wild Cobra]

All I'm trying to demonstrate is that the US Treasury's benefit's package was about the same as the one I had at my subsequent private sector job (well, except for the bonus and stock options I got in the private sector).
LOL...

No Shit!

I had some pretty nice bonuses at two different private sector jobs.

[Blake]

It's some place in one or more of the Iraq War threads. People kept complaining about the Halliburton contracts, many of which were already in place doing the supply work and mess hall operations. When the war hit, these civilians didn't want to go to Iraq. There were even some soldiers in some locations that had to live on a ration 1 MRE a day for a few weeks.

why is it that in a post mentioning Halliburton contracts that you are trying to blame Clinton.........and you don't mention Dick Cheney at all.

Stupid partisan hack job, imo.

[Borat Sagyidev]

contractors cost more than any workers doing the same job.

and the contractors don't pocket the difference, the company does

[DarrinS]

and the contractors don't pocket the difference, the company does

Well, duh.

[DMC]

GS levels always make more than government employees. That's what contracting is about.

[ElNono]

I'm surprised nobody chimed in with the "but contractors get the job done!"

[Wild Cobra]

why is it that in a post mentioning Halliburton contracts that you are trying to blame Clinton.........and you don't mention Dick Cheney at all.

Stupid partisan hack job, imo.
I was in the military under President Bush (41) when the 5 year reduction of forces was started. It did not include combat support jobs being replaced by civilian contract. If I recall right, the plan under President Bush removed two complete combat divisions from the Army and made other defense cuts. It took fixed station jobs like mine (29V), and replaced them with civilian contracts. Stratigic Air Command was either dissolved, or their mission changed. With the fall of the wall, and the cold war over, our communications was no longer as sensitive, and deemed civilians could take it over. was It was under president Clinton that he decided he had to make even more military cuts. To do so, he replaced tactical support units like Supply and Food services with civilian contract, which if we never go to war if fine. Problem is, we went to war, and were forced to go with the military we didn't have.

That's why I blame president Clinton.

[Blake]

I was in the military under President Bush (41) when the 5 year reduction of forces was started. It did not include combat support jobs being replaced by civilian contract. If I recall right, the plan under President Bush removed two complete combat divisions from the Army and made other defense cuts. It took fixed station jobs like mine (29V), and replaced them with civilian contracts. Stratigic Air Command was either dissolved, or their mission changed. With the fall of the wall, and the cold war over, our communications was no longer as sensitive, and deemed civilians could take it over. was It was under president Clinton that he decided he had to make even more military cuts. To do so, he replaced tactical support units like Supply and Food services with civilian contract, which if we never go to war if fine. Problem is, we went to war, and were forced to go with the military we didn't have.

That's why I blame president Clinton.

so Bush and Cheney lacked the ability to stop supply and food service contracts won by Halliburton (KBR) during the Iraq War?

In all honesty, it seems like you get more partisan and more dumbfuckingly stupid by the day.

[Wild Cobra]

so Bush and Cheney lacked the ability to stop supply and food service contracts won by Halliburton (KBR) during the Iraq War?

In all honesty, it seems like you get more partisan and more dumbfuckingly stupid by the day.
I didn't know it was possible to change race horses in the middle of a race.

Halliburton already had the contract. If the contract expired in the middle of the war, do you really expect to have a bidding process?

I'll bet if we looked, there was war contingency in the contract already in place.

[boutons_deux]

The Military/DoD has proven many times to be totally (corruptible-y) incapable of efficient, honest contract/expense monitoring. So totally corrupt corps like Halliburton, etc suck down $Bs of excess taxpayers dollars with impunity (or at most pro forma handslaps). Just another way VRWC/UCA sucks $Bs out of taxpayers into pockets of corporate mgmt and investors/capitalists.

The war-profiteering MIC contractor corruption, well known to dickhead and rummy, was one of the secret, real reasons they started/prolonged two botched wars. The only thing that was botched was winning, while losing taxpayer $Bs to the MIC was and continues to be a huge victory.

[Blake]

I didn't know it was possible to change race horses in the middle of a race.

Halliburton already had the contract. If the contract expired in the middle of the war, do you really expect to have a bidding process?

I'll bet if we looked, there was war contingency in the contract already in place.

wtf.

You weren't complaining about which horses were being used, you were complaining that horses are being used.

Just an FYI:


Later, USACE awarded the first contract under LOGCAP umbrella concept to Brown and Root Services (now KBR) in August 1992 as a cost-plus-award-fee contract, which was used in December that year to support the United Nations forces in Somalia. This contract was also used to support forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Rwanda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOGCAP

Who was president in Aug 92?

Who was the secretary of defense in Aug 92?

You are a fucking idiot in 2011.

[Wild Cobra]

The Military/DoD has proven many times to be totally (corruptible-y) incapable of efficient, honest contract/expense monitoring. .....
So that gives you and others the right to lie about what really happens?

[Wild Cobra]

wtf.

You weren't complaining about which horses were being used, you were complaining that horses are being used.

Just an FYI:



Who was president in Aug 92?

Who was the secretary of defense in Aug 92?

You are a fucking idiot in 2011.
Yes, the United Nations... US military wasn't directly involved now, were they... at the time?

I'm talking about direct mixing with the US military. Being deployed with the US military, when the US military had all this structure in place to support themselves. Why didn't NATO already have this in place, or was this contract the US part for NATO? You're talking about logistical support.

Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

[Blake]

Yes, the United Nations... US military wasn't directly involved now, were they... at the time?

I'm talking about direct mixing with the US military. Being deployed with the US military, when the US military had all this structure in place to support themselves. Why didn't NATO already have this in place, or was this contract the US part for NATO? You're talking about logistical support.


Operation Restore Hope

United States President George Bush responded to Security Council resolution 794 (1992) with a decision on 4 December to initiate Operation Restore Hope, under which the United States would assume the unified command of the new operation in accordance with resolution 794(1992). The Secretary-General communicated to President Bush on 8 December his concept of a division of labour between the United Nations and the United States in the following terms: "The United States has undertaken to take the lead in creating the secure environment which is an inescapable condition for the United Nations to provide humanitarian relief and promote national reconciliation and economic reconstruction, objectives which have from the outset been included in the various Security Council resolutions on Somalia."

The first elements of the Unified Task Force (UNITAF) came ashore on the beaches of Mogadishu without opposition on 9 December 1992. On 13 December, United States forces had secured the airfield at Baledogle, and by 16 December they had seized Baidoa. The United States Central Command was following a four-phase programme to realize the objectives of securing major airports and seaports, key installations and food distribution points, and providing open and free passage of relief supplies, with security for convoys and relief organizations and those supplying humanitarian relief. The number of United States forces were expected to build to approximately 28,000 personnel, to be augmented by some 17,000 UNITAF troops from over 20 countries.

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm


Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

does shit really taste good enough to keep it rolling off your tongue like that?

[Wild Cobra]

does shit really taste good enough to keep it rolling off your tongue like that?

It was still a NATO mission. It doesn't matter if I was right or wrong on how involved we were. The USA had it's own logistics available then. They didn't need to contract logistics like we do today. That logistical support was likely for the other NATO troops.

[Blake]

It was still a NATO mission. It doesn't matter if I was right or wrong on how involved we were. The USA had it's own logistics available then. They didn't need to contract logistics like we do today. That logistical support was likely for the other NATO troops.

watching you twist around in this effort to get out of blaming Bush 41, Cheney, or Bush 43 is awesome.

God you are stupid. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

WC, I dont think there are any non-tactical people in the military anymore. A lot of AF people deploy now as JET taskings (filling Army slots).

[LnGrrrR]

And WC, I don't see how you can call comm a non-tactical career field, but Supply and Food services tactical. Of course, comm has probably become a lot more integral to day-to-day ops in the military than it was in your day.

[Wild Cobra]

And WC, I don't see how you can call comm a non-tactical career field, but Supply and Food services tactical. Of course, comm has probably become a lot more integral to day-to-day ops in the military than it was in your day.
They aren't war units, but they are required near a war zone, and move supplies into war zones. That's why civilians should not do these jobs.

[boutons_deux]

So that gives you and others the right to lie about what really happens?

How anybody's right to state the facts? Which sure beats blind ideology you spout.

See numerous IG, etc reports over the years, esp the ones about the $10Bs lost and overbilled in Iraq, military cost+plus contracts, overruns in time and spending, etc, etc, over the decades.

military/war corruption and military/war profiteering is an old story, all enabled by the revolving door between military and MIC corps.

You suckers who sign up thinking you're serving God and country, freedom, democracy, and The American Way! are in fact nothing but mercenaries for American corporate (esp oil, going back to Rockefeller's oilco) planetary hegemony and exploitation.

Artistic treatment from the WWII era:

==

1st Lt. Milo Minderbinder: What's good for M & M Enterprises will be good for the country.

==

1st Lt. Milo Minderbinder: We're gonna come out of this war rich!

Yossarian: You're gonna come out rich. We're gonna come out dead.

==

1st Lt. Milo Minderbinder: As a matter of fact, Father, I know I can get my hands on an entire shipment of religious relics, blessed by the Pope himself. The Germans swiped them and put them on the open market. As I understand it, the stuff includes a wrist and collarbones of some of your top saints!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065528/quotes