[jessriedel]

What does it have to do with procurement rules? I was under the impression that it was just that the federal gov't won't pay salaries that are remotely competitive, so the only way they can get work done by competent people is by hiring a contractor who then pays market wages to a consultant.

[nonameiguess]

Eh, I've worked with a whole lot of incredibly intelligent, talented people in the federal government. If there's a problem they have with wages, it's more that they can't retain the best people any more, but it wasn't so much of a problem 20 years ago before Silicon Valley salaries skyrocketed so quickly. The security of the civil service and a guaranteed pension used to make up for the slightly lower pay, but it doesn't make up for 1/3 the pay. Given it takes a literal act of Congress to change the pay bands and Congress won't even fund the existing budget they already passed, they simply can't adjust at the speed of industry.

But they probably will eventually add a compensating bonus for critical work the way they had to do with medical doctors. Physicians that work directly for DoD make an enormous bonus compared to others in the same pay grade but different career field because otherwise they wouldn't be able to hire anyone. They react slowly but eventually react.

What you're talking about, though, is a problem with procurement procedures. It's far easier to get through Congress than any change in operational budget that involves increased pay for federal employees, even if the outcome is otherwise identical. And it frankly makes sense to a large extent. Even if they have to pay way more for a private workforce, they only have to justify it for a several year project. Hire the same number of civil servants and you're committing to employing them for the next 30 years. They need to know they'll consistently have work for them to do. They can't just institute mass layoffs and hiring spurs on the other side the way industry can.

[jessriedel]

> but it wasn't so much of a problem 20 years ago

I mean, ok? 20 years ago is a long time. As you say, pay is now like ~1/3 that of industry, and the pension doesn't make up for it.

> What you're talking about, though, is a problem with procurement procedures. It's far easier to get through Congress than any change in operational budget that involves increased pay for federal employees

Wait, is raising the pay of federal employees considered "procurement"? If not, aren't you agreeing that procurement of software consulting services is an end around the main issue, which is that wages of federal employees are too low (a non-procurement issue)?

[deepsun]

> you're committing to employing them for the next 30 years.

Not really. All my job offers started with "This is at-will employment".

Yes, employers may fear lawsuits from entitled employees, but it's actually not such a large risk as general public believes.

[ketzo]

It is notoriously extraordinarily difficult to fire an underperforming federal employee. It is possible, but generally, you are committing to keeping this person around for quite some time.