[USNetizen]

Firstly, your perception of veterans is woefully wrong and misplaced. Veterans set-asides in contracting actually do very little to help a company as there is still much legwork to be done. Even then, you stereotype veterans as "rigid" which is simply not at all true. I see envy in your post, not facts. Companies are NOT AT ALL "paid more" for having veterans on contracts. Labor rates are the same regardless of the status of the employee. You're facilitating the spread of rumors, stereotypes and hearsay which is why people think badly of this market. Veterans are given preference for hiring, yes, because they have a skillset that too few private sector employers realize unfortunately. There are studies to prove that point.

Secondly, "focusing on execution" and not processes is why so many startups die in a growth stage because it too often means chasing revenue only with few long-term plans. The government is inherently a long-term market. You need to have a long-term view. True, if you're developing a dog-walking app or glorified to-do list, yeah, it's not a market for you. But if you really want to do something game-changing and want to build something of note, I see no better place for it. Look at Palantir for example. There are hundreds of other examples.

Lastly, you can't just sit around waiting for "change", you have to make it happen. I used to be a GS-13 employee, fairly high up at one of these agencies, and I voluntarily left a secure job to make more of a change and I see it happening. It's rewarding, but you have to push for it and take risks or else nothing will ever come of it. I speak from experience actually doing this. How many else here can?

[polemic]

100% agree. I've seen the same outside of the US too. I've worked with a number of outstanding ex-military consultants on government/agency contracts and it was a uniformly excellent experience.

They come from a culture of doing what you say you will do, with the absolute minimum of BS, applying process and a focus on the final outcome. It's a disciplined mindset that is invaluable in a government procurement process.

[patorjk]

> Veterans are given preference for hiring, yes, because they have a skillset that too few private sector employers realize unfortunately. There are studies to prove that point.

This seems a little like hand waving. Can you go into what skillsets you're talking about and what these studies are? For certain jobs I can see their experience helping, but I don't see how they should be given preference across the board, especially for technical jobs (ex: given two DBAs, I would imagine you'd want to hire the one most skilled at being a DBA).

[USNetizen]

And who better at being a DBA than someone who did it, for example, for the intelligence community processing millions of records per day/hour? Who better for supporting IT systems than someone who did it in the middle of the desert during combat operations? Life stateside has nothing comparable to that level of experience or pressure.

You can Google it. There are dozens of studies showing that companies that favor or are led by veterans are more stable, have higher morale, better cohesiveness, etc. The skills, in particular, they bring are typically "soft" - leadership, adaptability, teamwork, integrity, confidence under pressure, a truer world-view, character, etc. but more and more bring highly advanced technical skills, particularly in the cyber realm. Trying finding those in your average college grad who only knows what he/she experienced on campus and read in a few books.

Technical skills aren't everything - they can be taught comparatively easily. Other skills are ingrained in a person through experience. Those are the skills I speak of. If you are hiring only for pure tech ability at that one moment in time and not for the "whole person" then you have a truly short-term view. Even Google and other tech giants realized this.

[EvanPlaice]

You're assuming every military network admin was directly responsible for keeping the system up and running.

The reality is much different. Usually, it's a small minority of exceptional individuals that keep things running while the rest skate or gain merit through other means (ex high PT scores).

Even then, training for a speciality often covers the bare minimum to operate the equipment for a few reasons. First, training must be standardized across each MOS leaving little room for differentiation. Second, training standards are often set by senior ranking NCOs/COs who may have risen through the ranks for reasons other than technical ability.

Any role requires a higher degree of skill (ex engineering) or higher degree of differentiation (ie systems design) are passed off to contractors because the time/money costs of training an entire MOS to a higher degree of technical ability are too high.

It's gotten to the point where security has shifted to civilian-only support because the service members can't be trusted to follow best security practices when their superiors take a 'make it happen or your career will suffer' stance.

It's really common for the most talented/capable service members to leave the service and immediately return as contractors. They get paid more and don't have to deal with all the rank-and-file BS. The system doesn't reward talent in spite of good intentions.

I'm not trying to bag on veterans. I worked as a contractor and personally know many individuals I wouldn't hesitate to follow to the end of the earth.

Some individuals are truly exceptional in terms of leadership and/or technical ability but stating that all veterans can be lumped into that group is naive.

[EvanPlaice]

Veteran-owned companies absolutely DO get special preference on contract awards. As do any businesses that hold SBA certifications (ex 8a, SDVOSB).

Ref: https://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar For SBA-specific requirements, see SubPart 6.2

I used to work for one such company. They repeatedly used their 'special consideration' to undercut the competition. Took on the competition's employees. Paid their workers bottom dollar and pocketed the difference (to the tune of 80%-85% of the contract rate).

I jumped on the contract on short notice after my predecessor left with no notice. From the start I was treated as the 'odd ball' because I was the only male employee who didn't have prior military service. Despite that, they kept me on board because my technical skills far exceeded any of my colleagues. When I proposed to improve the systems we used to track logistics I received, 'we don't want to get involved with technical stuff' as a response. When they undercut additional contracts that included a significant amount of 'technical stuff' I suddenly became the unofficial technical SME of the group. Go figure...

When I discovered that my employer didn't give two shits about improving support I shifted my focus to more effectively supporting the Marines directly. Providing technical guidance, technical support, bridging communication barriers, augmenting the leadership, etc...

Eventually, the there was a leadership turnover at my parent unit. The new CO was disgusted by the obvious cronyism taking place and dropped the contract.

Despite walking away without a pot to piss in I don't regret my decisions for a second. I earned the respect of the Marines I worked alongside through hard work and merit, support my country, work with some truly exceptional individuals, sharpen my leadership abilities, and have a measurable impact on their ability to accomplish the mission.

Despite all that, I doubt I'll ever receive consideration for another similar position. Let alone one anything approaching GS13. On paper, I'm a white male with no college degree and no prior military experience. I'm literally the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to government work. That I managed to get in under the radar to begin with was a complete anomaly.

> How many else here can?

I can. I have worked in the trenches, in terrible working conditions, starved of resources, and support. I took a many risks, adapted and overcame the circumstances, integrate and extended the capabilities of those I supported, and made 'drug deals' to get shit done when there was no other option. I would love the opportunity to continue making a difference but I can't afford to continue living hand-to-mouth.

Note: For the uninitiated, 'drug deals' in military-speak refer to trading favors. No, I don't and didn't sell actual drugs. For example I used to trade technical support for military-specific advice and personnel support. I had valuable skills to offer and in return could occasionally 'call in' favors when I didn't have the knowledge/resources/manpower to carry out the requirements of my contract. There are 'formal' systems to request support but they don't extend to non-military members. Contractors exist in sort of a bizarre 'gray area' where they're supposed to operate independently of the system but are screwed without it. To service members, 'drug deals' are par for the course and usually come in the form of a 6-pack of Beer or 4-pack of RedBulls.

What I say next is from hard earned first-hand experience, not speculation, not popular opinion. Military contractors that care about 'making a difference' are the exception, not the norm. The majority of contracting organizations are run by retirees looking to cash out. It's a retirement+ as far as they're concerned.

[devonkim]

I heard from one manager at state level that they were going to get another $2k+ per veteran hired as incentives for their department. I do not know if it's illegal or even totally false but the manner in which the financial incentives was candidly discussed made me question the veteran incentive system with grave concern regardless of what written laws / policies say things are supposed to be. There's thousands of stories where civilians get let go from contractors while rank and file veterans are still kept employed. There's some gaming of "disabilities" for everything from IBS to ADHD that can be decisive factors in hiring I know of personally as well that are nonsensical.

For civil service applicants, you can be completely ignored as a well-qualified applicant if you're not a veteran on many, many job postings (particularly GS 7-9 from what I can observe) as well as contract bids due to the volume of veterans applying. If you have 4 billets and 100 veterans apply and 200 civilians (all "qualified"), there will be no interview for a civilian until enough veterans fail the interviews. This is notably different from most affirmative action systems based around quotas I've heard of. Most people that support the veteran system have benefited from it directly or have never had to turn down qualified civilians from consideration talking to hiring managers, so I don't think a fair discussion can be advanced any direction without going into a really long (government-commissioned, ha) study.

You can't compete for a major contract ($50M+) without a veteran present on a contract among primes (why wouldn't you when you have 10k+ employees?) and the usual suspect major contractors - you don't have enough points probably to make up for that when the quantified terms of competition put everyone remotely competent very close on points. If you don't have a veteran as a head, you're probably a subcontractor to a prime and you're going to be handling most of the boots on the ground engineering dirty work. When everyone routinely winds up rating highest in fulfilling the contract, the folks that got extra credit win by default. Heck, the number of PhDs on staff and number of veterans are considered criteria of selection for many contracts even if none of those PhDs or veterans can be expected to be put on the contract (doesn't matter if the PhDs are in English or computer science!). I've been in several contract bidding strategy meetings where it's abundantly clear that despite all the regulations around privileged access that it is routinely violated with only the most egregious cases resulting in prosecution / disqualification.

The SETA system is pretty interesting but has been thoroughly abused by a lot of people up and down the beltway to short-circuit advance their careers into leadership positions despite (interesting enough) no actual prior government experience or even no successful projects consulted for. If my sorry ass can be strongly considered for several SETA positions, something is wrong with the system meant to emphasize meritocracy as well.

With all that said, I have nothing for or against veterans in a business context - they're just people with skills that have varying relevance and strength. I just see little reason to factor that into anything important like whether to interview someone for a federal position that has zero to do with the military (Smithsonian museum of all places has veteran's preferences for many positions, are we going to have curators in combat zones trying to disarm IEDs? Is a tour guide expected to be able to take down an active shooter without a firearm?).

My criticisms of federal government for applies to large private sector companies as well. I really don't view the public v. private distinction as something like a quasi-Keynsian retirement portfolio of bonds v. stocks at all - there are high risk parts of public sector and low risk parts of private sector, and they tend to correlate very strongly with organizational size.

If there has indeed been a focus on "long-term thinking" in public sector, the sheer number of failed projects with such poor quality output of "successes" should have been remediated somewhat after decades of experience managing enterprise-scale IT projects led by a disproportionate number of PhDs and "government-skilled" veterans had their valuable input while our "short-term" focused private sector would be drowning in operational costs and plagued with problems for every large company and only getting worse. Instead, public IT projects are getting wider in scope and demands ever higher with the Pentagon's procurement strategy now shifting to greater non-traditional private sector sourcing due to exorbitant costs and poor results from their usual contractors.