LM may be the largest supplier of IT services to the government; this is above and beyond all the ultraexpensive hardware.

The TSA contract is an example of business process outsourcing, common in the commercial sector for > five years.
The work is dreary transaction-processing and recordkeeping for the most part, but with direct dealings with the government employees and emp. candidates, too ("customer service").

No, there is nothing about this contract that involves "overseeing" government human resources, nor supplying them.

And, no, it doesn't make sense for a contractor in this role to supply or "oversee" government employees. This contract is for HR services to all employees. There have never been TSA HR employees in the roles LM will assume because from the start the agency bought HR services from multiple contractors.

HR BPO has been around for several years in the federal sphere.

If trying to catch the scent of bad odor or stir things up, am not sure this one is going to offer much. But it will be interesting to see what your digging unearths.

There's a reason Lockheed is Numero Uno in Washington. I just came across this nugget as well. It seems Lockheed has landed a gig training the poor saps over at the National Geo-spacial Intelligence Agency as well. $18.3m isn't a bad day's work.

Lockheed used to do this in the commercial space and sold that part of its business to ACS a few years back...guess they decided to get back into BPO with government.

Two interesting aspects of this deal: (1) LM HR is incompetent so far as its own employees are concerned, offering a confused and disconnected set of services with no -- none, nada, nil -- measures for service level quality. LM's HR groups are truly the left hand disconnected from the right hand. (2) How did Accenture lose this to Lockheed? TSA started with ACN on HR BPO five years ago, so how did a weapons-maker beat out a much more advanced IT services provider?

Lockheed used to do this in the commercial space and sold that part of its business to ACS a few years back...guess they decided to get back into BPO with government.

Two interesting aspects of this deal: (1) LM HR is incompetent so far as its own employees are concerned, offering a confused and disconnected set of services with no -- none, nada, nil -- measures for service level quality. LM's HR groups are truly the left hand disconnected from the right hand. (2) How did Accenture lose this to Lockheed? TSA started with ACN on HR BPO five years ago, so how did a weapons-maker beat out a much more advanced IT services provider?

I run into guys in high paying contractor jobs that work inside government buildings along side the civil servants... "cheeks in the seats" they call them... I call them "shims". If you're a mechanic or engineer, you will know what a shim is.

Now we have a whole company of shims managing a government agency's HR operations. What will the politically appointed leaders of these agencies think of next?

And they criticize the government leadership in China and North Korea? Are we really any different, is this really capitalism or some kind of greedy anti-capitalism?

Let's get real about making government work for the people of the U.S.