Intel Contractors At The Core
Government Inc. was privvy to the discosure of new details about the Intelligence Community's use of contractors today.
See below for some very interesting details that will appear in The Post tomorrow.
"About a quarter of the nation's core intelligence workforce is contractors, perhaps as many as 37,000 private employees who work side-by-side with civil servants as analysts, technology specialists and mission managers, according to a report about government outsourcing by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
"The vast majority of those private spies work in the Washington region. Many of them have been hired since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to augment what had been an intelligence community depleted by deep cuts in the 1990s, officials from the national intelligence office said yesterday. There are about 100,000 government intelligence workers, the officials said.
"Contract workers cost the government about $207,000 apiece annually, compared to about $125,000 for government civilian salaries and benefits, officials said.
"The intelligence world rarely shares such fine-grained detail about national security activity that usually is blanketed in secrecy. Officials said yesteday they did so as part of an annual survey begun last year to help assuage concerns among lawmakers and others about the surging use of relatively costly contract workers in recent years, oftentimes in jobs that once were reserved for government employees.
"The proportion of contractor workers was essentially the same in last year's report.
"'These figures are pretty stunning,' said Tim Shorrock, author of 'Spies For Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.' 'It shows that private contractors are oprating in the most sensitive areas of intelligence.'"
"Intelligence contracting has become a major source of revenue for businesses in the region. Over the last several years, big defense contractors have expanded divisions involved in providing intelligence consultants and services, while smaller businesses have flourished to provide classified consultants and technology support.
"Ronald Sanders, the chief human capital officer at the national intelligence office, said his survey and the disclosure of unclassified findings will help improve the management of the contract workers, who have provided valuable service in recent years. Contractors have offered flexibility at a time of great need, he said.
"'We need to manage this year in and year out,' Sanders said of the contract workforce. 'It's something we do owe the American taxpayer.'"
By Robert O'Harrow |
August 27, 2008; 5:33 PM ET
Previous: Terrorism Inc. |
Next: Nice Try
Posted by: Michael Hardy | August 27, 2008 8:49 PM
The government is the guardian of the "national defense". It is a "government responsibility". It is unconscienable that our national security is in the hands of the "private sector" which has demonstrated time and time again, that its top prioriety is its bottom line.
In addition, I believe there is now a concerted effort by the the companies doing "security clearances" to deliberately disqualify individuals for "Secret" clearances in order to pad the government with "private sector" employees and of course fill all those unfilled posts. Someone might want to take a look at this latest ripoff that is now becoming widespread. Also, how come it costs $10,000.00 upward to $100,000.00 to get a security clearance? At that price, how many "private" companies can be trusted to man posts with qualified individuals?
Posted by: CarmanK | August 28, 2008 11:58 AM
when u say you were "privvy" to the info, why not mention it was from yesterday's news conference?
Posted by: Michael Lent | August 28, 2008 1:23 PM
Sanders' cost comparison figures don't pass the smell test. On the government side, it's simply not credible that the "full lifecycle cost" of an IC employee is that low; not when the current year average salary is already around 90k and the benefit load is another 30-50%. Tack on 15 to 25 years of annuity payments (even those modest FERS ones) plus health care costs, and the true lifecycle cost figure has got to be higher.
The contractor number is similarly suspect. Not that 207k isn't a realistic average annual cost, but if the IC thinks they're not paying a good chunk of these companies' overhead as part of that, they're incredibly naive. As a government vendor you can "build up" your rate in different ways, depending on circumstances, to suit your purposes. For example, because so many IC contractors are housed in government facilities, it's likely not kosher to charge a "full" overhead percentage; so, you just bury it in inflated direct labor rates. But it's a safe bet that contractor staff aren't taking home 50% more than govies in salary. The difference is paying for all those contractor palaces off the Dulles Toll road, and huge bonuses for the firms' officers.
If you read the transcript of Sanders' telecon with the media on this report, it's clear that the cost comparison question is "really, really fuzzy." (his words) It's a complex issue but important to the larger question of appropriately balancing government and contractor resources. Reporters shouldn't take any of this at face value -- everyone involved has incentive to obfuscate, and it'd be better if the media helped cut through the noise, rather than perpetuating it.
Posted by: Been on Both Sides | August 29, 2008 1:12 PM
The cost for a civil servant is really misleading. The author obviously has an agenda—to grow our government even bigger by arguing the job can be done cheaper by the government. Never mind that once they are hired you can never fire them, even when they are no longer needed, but let’s never mind you can downsize by cutting contracts in less than a month. Never mind that you are creating another increase in government annuity that we the tax payer will be stuck with for 15-25 years per civil servant.
Check the writer’s agenda. Another “big government will save us” groupie.
Posted by: Huey | September 3, 2008 3:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
"Contract workers cost the government about $207,000 apiece annually, compared to about $125,000 for government civilian salaries and benefits, officials said."
This tired argument seems to persist despite all reason, accounting of the true long-term cost of personnel and the tangible and intangible benefits that accrue to the government through access to contractor personnel.
If not for contractors providing support, the government would be woefully understaffed and unable to function. In every activity relying solely on government employees, those offices have vacancies that remain unfilled for months or sometimes years. Contractors provide a highly skilled, immediate and flexible workforce that can be built up and scaled down as needed to meet the changing short and long-term priorities of civilian and government agencies.
The labor unions may not like it, but the government-industry partnership is a good relationship that benefits all.