Party suspended for govt contractors?

forestgiant

It's generally known and well discussed here that govt contractors make significant more than civilian doing the same job (2-3x in many cases). But as of today that's probably about to end.

What do you think? I'm actually trying to enter the govt contracting business but if these decisions are real, I've got to plan a new strategy.

dave330i

By civilian, are you referring to gov't employees? If so, I've never seen a contract where contractors were getting paid 2-3x the govie.

When there's a budget cut, the contractors are the first to be let go, so the article is pointless.

forestgiant

I cited the article in stating contractors can make two to three times government employees (civilians) make. I actually don't know if that's true because my employer is private and far from the DC hub. But from what I've gathered on this forum contractors do get paid 'significantly' more. Without going into the pros and cons of contracting versus in-house talents, I still have to agree with the proposal to limit contracting compensations to a fair market level.

higherho

It really depends. The contractor typically doesn't get paid a crazy amount it's the contracting COMPANIES that do. For example; in one of my old positions the company was charging over 300,000 for it and you know how much I was getting? below 45k (bad negotiating skills on my part but still thought I was getting a bargain at the time) It all depends on the rates if you have your TS / SCI with full scope polly (the same as the NSA leaker most likely had because in the NSA you need a full scope no matter what) then you can easily get past 110k just because of your clearance level.

I think they will shave off a lot of contractors and a lot of new contracts will solely be won on how low you can bid. The gov will basically fail without contractors (no joke) so they will force the companies to go cheaper or they wont get work.

dave330i

forestgiant wrote: »

Without going into the pros and cons of contracting versus in-house talents, I still have to agree with the proposal to limit contracting compensations to a fair market level.

My wife works in accounting at a large public company. One consultant she knows of gets paid $10k/week. So what's fair market value? There was a time when gov't contract was out of control, but that's not the case for a while. I can get a better rate if I contract to a private company. They're just harder to find in DC.

Danielm7

Is the consultant themselves making 10K a week, or does your wife see the the accounting for the consulting company being paid 10K a week, they are very different things.

bermovick

2-3x? I wish. I'm making about the same as a comparable position in the private sector; probably a little less, and I KNOW if I were to become a government (civilian) employee, I'd be about a GS-12 I think, so even then I'm currently making quite a bit less.

dave330i

Danielm7 wrote: »

Is the consultant themselves making 10K a week, or does your wife see the the accounting for the consulting company being paid 10K a week, they are very different things.

He gets paid $10k.

TLeTourneau

Without reading the article it really depends on the skill set and type of work. When I was contracting the gig involved extensive travel (CONUS & OCONUS) working primarily with the DoD. I made significantly more that the military members I worked with but I had a marketable skill set that was used extensively and justified my salary (and as much as I was making the company I worked for was getting much more for my being there). Although there are contractors that make the big money I think the majority are paid an average wage for their position, but I only know a few people that are in the position now so I have limited evidence to support that position.

powerfool

I am not trying to be harsh to anyone that might take offense to this, but to address the idea of a "fair" level of pay for contractors... they assume much more risk, are generally more competent (significantly more, in many cases), and actually have to perform their duties to continue to get paid. By and large (with many exceptions), government civilians are over paid for the competency and quality of work that they actually provide. Someone that may be able to make $50k in the private sector based on competency and work ethic would likely be about to get about $90k as a government civilian; a contractor that is actually hired because of specific expertise that is required to actually make progress on their tasks may make between $100-120k sitting next to that government civilian.

If they really want to save money, they will quit hiring civilian employees that can't really get fired so long as they don't steal [from Uncle Sam] and they show up for work.

dmoore44

Like most people have mentioned, it depends on the skill set and if there's a clearance involved. More complex work = higher cost for labor. Since "cyber" is all the rage these days, anyone with a TS/SCI w/ poly and a reasonable set of INFOSEC skills can expect to make six figures in the DC area. Secretarial help, with or without a clearance, just isn't going to get paid very much.

instant000

It's not that big of a deal.

Most individual contractors do not get paid 2 - 3x. Maybe the contractor's company gets paid that much.

They are mixing up cost per contractor and contractor salary.
Those are two different things.
The article even states that they don't have an accurate count of the workers that may be laboring under a contract, so they are only "guessing" right now.

If the mission needs to be done, they will create a civilian equivalent for the position. If the wages for that are not adequate, many will just go back to private sector.

forestgiant

dave330i wrote: »

My wife works in accounting at a large public company. One consultant she knows of gets paid $10k/week. So what's fair market value? There was a time when gov't contract was out of control, but that's not the case for a while. I can get a better rate if I contract to a private company. They're just harder to find in DC.

If this contractor's story was true, I think as tax payers we're in big trouble. In the 'worst' case scenario we're paying 52weeks x $10K/week = $520K/year for accounting skills?! Really?

SteveLord

^ Is that really a surprise considering the latest findings in IRS spending?

dave330i

forestgiant wrote: »

If this contractor's story was true, I think as tax payers we're in big trouble. In the 'worst' case scenario we're paying 52weeks x $10K/week = $520K/year for accounting skills?! Really?

She works for a public company, not gov't. Capping contractor pay based on Pres. salary is silly. If you can earn $500k in private industry vs. $400k in gov't as a contractor, would you work for the gov't?

spicy ahi

dmoore44 wrote: »

Like most people have mentioned, it depends on the skill set and if there's a clearance involved. More complex work = higher cost for labor. Since "cyber" is all the rage these days, anyone with a TS/SCI w/ poly and a reasonable set of INFOSEC skills can expect to make six figures in the DC area. Secretarial help, with or without a clearance, just isn't going to get paid very much.

reeeeaallyy... May have to talk to you offline about this...

bkchicago

First if someone is making 10K a week he is a special case, that would mean the gvt is paying him $250 an hour which is a pretty high rate. It would also mean that he is the prime contractor and he is working for himself. This is almost never the case. Usually you have a prime contractor who won the contract, then there are the sub-contractors that actually supply the people that do the work and of course at the very end you have the person who does the work. You must understand that everyone takes a cut of that $250 well before the contractors gets paid. I know at my company we won't touch a contract for less than $200 because we are so management heavy that we'd lose money and if the contractor is lucky the contractor is getting at best $60-$70 an hour including benefits. So if that guy really was making $250 an hour that means someone was billing him at $750 an hour which I highly doubt.

Now regarding replacing the contractors, it's not going to happen. I've been a contractor for the last 15 years and I go all over the world for the fed and I can't see how it could happen. First, the government doesn't have the talent pool most government employees are not technical they are management and the leave the technical stuff to the contractors. Second, the government can't match my pay and benefits package. If I did go work for the fed I would lose 3 weeks of vacation and thousands of dollars in salary, it's just how their pay and benefits structure is setup and I doubt they'd change it for IT folks. Finally, remember contractors can be cut in a second where a fed employee requires a act of congress to be cut loose so any project that requires dynamic growth or shrinkage must be done by contractors.

Lastly, while it would be less expensive to directly hire contractors, about 2/3 less, the current climate in the government is demanding that the government get smaller so there is no way in hell they are going to hire 500K+ IT workers making 100K+ a year.

WafflesAndRootbeer

There are contractors and then there are "CONTRACTORS". One is basically outsourcing to save money like going with an MSP. The other is the type of stuff you see from Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, BAH, BAE, Raytheon, etc., which is often unqualified and under-performing cleared workers getting paid six-figure salaries to do government work in place of government employees. I see it all the time here in the DC area. IT, Intelligence, military vehicle and systems maintenance, and administrative/managerial duties are all areas where corporate contractors in the DC area get paid 2-3x as much as a government employee equivalent. It's disgusting.

powerfool

bkchicago wrote: »

Lastly, while it would be less expensive to directly hire contractors, about 2/3 less, the current climate in the government is demanding that the government get smaller so there is no way in hell they are going to hire 500K+ IT workers making 100K+ a year.

That's assuming that the contractors would take the offer to be in-sourced... I wouldn't and I know that a very large amount wouldn't... and they are the largest part of the group that are competent. Contractors put up with a ton of BS, too. For instance, as a contractor, you may be subject to getting a specific certification for not be eligible for work, essentially on a whim (sometimes a contract may save their butt). A government employee... nah, they can stretch it out a few years, and then if it becomes a big deal, they can just move over to another position that doesn't require it... most likely it just gets overlooked.

Valsacar

Where do I get these jobs paying 2-3x the civilian rate?