Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Federal Contracting: a Plague on Both Your Houses!

President Obama signed the $626 billion defense bill recently, and various columnists and bloggers have decried what is or is not in the final version, including various ships, planes, and helicopters that are of no use or are vastly over budget. To me just as big a problem is the federal government's use of contractors. I'm not the only one who has noticed: the President himself asked for $40 billion in contracting costs to be cut over the next two budgets, and CNAS and others have come out with reports, but more attention needs to be paid.
Contractors come in multiple flavors (for the moment I'm not talking about government contracts to buy goods or materials). Some consider themselves "consultants" and swoop in with their MBAs and PowerPoint flow charts from companies like McKinsey or Deloitte, tell the government what they are doing wrong using proprietary jargon, and swoop on to the next project. A second group are essentially mercenaries, like the infamous Xe (formerly Blackwater) and others who serve in and around combat zones, primarily supporting the troops, but frequently overstepping their bounds. I have plenty of problems with those groups, but for now will focus on the third kind of contractors who are, for the most part, seat fillers hired by various agencies to supplement the federal workforce (whether their physical seats are in government buildings or not doesn't really matter, they are intended to supplement or replace federal employees by their mere presence).
I've worked as a "seat filling" contractor before, and I can tell you it is far from the most efficient way of doing things. Federal employees may be notorious for being inefficient and not hard working, a reputation that is normally false, but I can tell you that contractors are generally no better. Many if not most contractors actually want federal jobs, but have been unable to fight through the bureaucracy. Because contractors, usually make more than federal employees, and because the company makes overhead on top of their salaries, they don't normally end up being any cheaper than federal employees. The Bush administration wanted a smaller government and the flexibility to have a surge of workers, but the contractor complexes that have sprouted up around Northern Virginia demonstrate the long-term nature of federal seat-filling contracting. As the contracting workforce grows and the federal government remains stagnant the size of each portfolio of contracts administered by an individual federal employee increases drastically, leading to a lack of specificity, oversight, standards, and quality of work. Many of my contractor friends are bored out of their skulls in their cubicles in Northern Virginia because the over-worked federal employee only has so much time to look over their work, give them new projects, or do much of his own work, so the contractors sit burning contract hours slowly, wasting everyone's time.
The federal government needs to streamline its hiring process and hire the best of these contractors into permanent government service. As the last wave of federal employees starts to retire they will need replacing, so let the new generation start learning on the job. Hiring people who have served as contractors to administer contracts will lead to better performance from both parties. Federal contractors were intended to serve as short term surges for projects. They should actually serve that way rather than as expensive, non-empowered, de facto federal employees who are contracted out simply because they can't be hired quickly enough or to avoid having a bigger government. End the facade, it hurts everyone.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Air Force Searching for Direction

It's hardly news, but the U.S. Air Force is searching for a raison d'etre. It has barely asked for any money for new programs for the FY2010 budget. Most of its new money is needed to help shut down current production lines for the F-22 and C-17. You know something is wrong with the fighter jocks who run the Air Force can't come up with reasons why they need new expensive equipment. But the fact is the Air Force hasn't been used much in Afghanistan, and can only get so much budgetary support from harping on a potential big war with China down the road.
The Air Force needs to take a page from the Marine Corps' book and reinvent itself. Over time the USMC has gone from shipboard security to amphibious landing specialists to jungle fighting specialists now to counterinsurgency specialists (you could argue for a few more specialties over time in the list as well). 
How can the Air Force remain relevant? Off the top of my head I'd say it has to become much more agile, ready to deploy anywhere much faster, with smaller and more adaptable planes, including drones. At the same time they should become more fuel efficient, able to linger over targets for longer periods of time, gathering intelligence and potentially acting on it as well. Those capabilities would allow it to remain useful and crucial in large and small wars alike.