4 ms·

You do understand that the reason the government uses contractors is specifically because they do NOT want to hire software engineers for projects that do not l

You do understand that the reason the government uses contractors is specifically because they do NOT want to hire software engineers for projects that do not last more than a year or two, similar to how most private companies now operate? It is incredibly hard to lay off federal workers, not to mention a typical GS14 will make more than a good dev after adding in federal benefits, pension, etc. Yes some of the big boys are wasteful and overpriced, but I can ensure you that the federal government itself would be 5x worse, especially since, in DC, at least, the typical GS level employee has absolutely no experience in software engineering, and many times less authority to make good decisions. Anyway, I've seen a few of these types of enterprises sprout up in the last 5 or 6 years in DOD land. They are sometimes referred to as 'boutiques' in contrast to the big players like BAE, Northrop, Lockheed, etc. They tend to have much younger engineers, SV type office environments, and a lot of hubris. I'm currently making a good salary via cleaning up their MongoDB, Node, and bloated AngularJS messes that never performed half as well as the old systems running Java and a real RDBMS.

evgen 10y ago
Projects only last a few years, so it is hard to hire good devs. Because you can't hire good devs it makes mediocre body shops look appealing. Sounds like a pattern for a death-spiral. Rather than paying wasteful and overpriced contracting shops, such as the ones that employ you, perhaps what is needed is an organization, such as 18F, than can maintain a core of competent devs and build infra and tooling that works across orgs. If the project is short-term then the contracting shop that should be used as a first choice is 18F, and only if they cannot hit the target or specialist development work is needed do they put out a request for an outside party.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  This is precisely what the UK's Government Digital Service does - they've got a team of experienced, motivated, technical staff who's job is to assist other parts of government build and manage technical services. They've got teams dedicated to common infrastructure such as payment processing or notifications, and other teams who are working on specific projects, either building themselves or assisting those departments in building their own digital teams to do so.
  - jacques_chester 10y ago
    Australia's Digital Transformation Office[0] is growing into something similar too. All three of them are using Cloud Foundry as their platform. By way of disclaimer, I work for Pivotal, which is the leading donor of engineering to Cloud Foundry. [0] https://www.dto.gov.au/ https://www.dto.gov.au/
Spooky23 10y ago
I've been in leadership positions in self-sustaining, non-Federal IT service delivery orgs. Government uses contractors for lots of reasons -- many of which are more about shifting risk/accountability. Operating in a unionized environment is challenging because of the inability to fire, but that's more a leadership issue than a cost issue. For most of the infrastructure services we built, during the growth phase, we'd be 25% FTE cost (including benefits), 25% contractor cost, and 50% hardware and software, with the mix depending on the service. Software projects had more contractor cost, and some specific, high skill infrastructure areas had more contractor cost. The key to a sustainable service is distinguishing build/grow from operate. When the service is in a operate/steady state phase, the government employee staff should be running it 100%, and bringing in SME contractors as needed. That's how you operate effectively. As you do this stuff, you build a cadre of smart employees who develop the ability to build more and be flexible. You never run out of projects. By owning the services and processes, you save money unless you're totally inept.
vostok 10y ago
> It is incredibly hard to lay off federal workers, not to mention a typical GS14 will make more than a good dev after adding in federal benefits, pension, etc. Do you have some more information on this? To my uneducated eye, it looks like GS14 (with benefits) is substantially less than a good software dev would make in the private sector. I would be very interested in a government job if I am incorrect.
- Mekkanox 10y ago
  Fed benefit programs are usually better (lower deductibles, larger provider network) than what a private company going through Carefirst or another provider can get. Depending on how high up you go and how long you stay in, the pension can become very lucrative, in addition to a 5% full match 401(k) starting from day 1. Granted the salary at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels are on the lower end than compared to Silicon Valley, but it's actually around what an engineer with similar experience can get in the DC/NoVA area, in my experience. Not to mention that it's basically impossible to get fired as a GS unless you royally screw up. Usually this means committing a felony outside of work, or committing serial sexual harassment in the workplace, etc.

evgen 10y ago

Projects only last a few years, so it is hard to hire good devs. Because you can't hire good devs it makes mediocre body shops look appealing. Sounds like a pattern for a death-spiral. Rather than paying wasteful and overpriced contracting shops, such as the ones that employ you, perhaps what is needed is an organization, such as 18F, than can maintain a core of competent devs and build infra and tooling that works across orgs. If the project is short-term then the contracting shop that should be used as a first choice is 18F, and only if they cannot hit the target or specialist development work is needed do they put out a request for an outside party.

jon-wood 10y ago
This is precisely what the UK's Government Digital Service does - they've got a team of experienced, motivated, technical staff who's job is to assist other parts of government build and manage technical services. They've got teams dedicated to common infrastructure such as payment processing or notifications, and other teams who are working on specific projects, either building themselves or assisting those departments in building their own digital teams to do so.
- jacques_chester 10y ago
  Australia's Digital Transformation Office[0] is growing into something similar too. All three of them are using Cloud Foundry as their platform. By way of disclaimer, I work for Pivotal, which is the leading donor of engineering to Cloud Foundry. [0] https://www.dto.gov.au/ https://www.dto.gov.au/

Spooky23 10y ago

I've been in leadership positions in self-sustaining, non-Federal IT service delivery orgs. Government uses contractors for lots of reasons -- many of which are more about shifting risk/accountability. Operating in a unionized environment is challenging because of the inability to fire, but that's more a leadership issue than a cost issue. For most of the infrastructure services we built, during the growth phase, we'd be 25% FTE cost (including benefits), 25% contractor cost, and 50% hardware and software, with the mix depending on the service. Software projects had more contractor cost, and some specific, high skill infrastructure areas had more contractor cost. The key to a sustainable service is distinguishing build/grow from operate. When the service is in a operate/steady state phase, the government employee staff should be running it 100%, and bringing in SME contractors as needed. That's how you operate effectively. As you do this stuff, you build a cadre of smart employees who develop the ability to build more and be flexible. You never run out of projects. By owning the services and processes, you save money unless you're totally inept.

vostok 10y ago

> It is incredibly hard to lay off federal workers, not to mention a typical GS14 will make more than a good dev after adding in federal benefits, pension, etc. Do you have some more information on this? To my uneducated eye, it looks like GS14 (with benefits) is substantially less than a good software dev would make in the private sector. I would be very interested in a government job if I am incorrect.

Mekkanox 10y ago
Fed benefit programs are usually better (lower deductibles, larger provider network) than what a private company going through Carefirst or another provider can get. Depending on how high up you go and how long you stay in, the pension can become very lucrative, in addition to a 5% full match 401(k) starting from day 1. Granted the salary at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels are on the lower end than compared to Silicon Valley, but it's actually around what an engineer with similar experience can get in the DC/NoVA area, in my experience. Not to mention that it's basically impossible to get fired as a GS unless you royally screw up. Usually this means committing a felony outside of work, or committing serial sexual harassment in the workplace, etc.