4 ms·

So in other words, it sounds like a Peter Principle but applied to government pay control. The incompetent ones stay with government because they couldn't get

So in other words, it sounds like a Peter Principle but applied to government pay control. The incompetent ones stay with government because they couldn't get a job in corporate, and are stuck with low pay and (usually) stability. Well, except for furloughs. Whereas contractors take the "squeeze'em till they squeal" approach and get paid much much more. It always made me wonder why when the govt takes the lowest bidder, and it has all sorts of riders and exceptions to charge a pile of money more... Why does the government accept that arrangement, instead of saying "Nope, you should have calculated that in your costs." If there was an answer, I'd have to say 'incompetence'.

Spooky23 8y ago
I have not worked for the feds, but have spent time in state/local government. Basically the perception of conflict or impropriety drives the process. Additionally, random process gets bolted on by outside parties (legislature, external compliance, procurement regulation authority within the executive) and creates delay and policies of questionable value. Each thing is not necessarily a bad thing individually, but add up to a nightmare process in many cases. It’s not incompetence, it’s a different perception of success. A government procurement officer views success as meeting compliance requirements, and then competing in price. Compliance matters more as the procurement folks face nasty audits or even prosecution if there’s an issue. The same stupidity happens in corporate procurement, but doesn’t make the news because it isn’t public. When I sold stuff to a fortune 50 company in college, they would roll random shit like pencils, toilet paper and chairs into capital equipment leases to goose the books.