Currently government IT is operating under this idiotic idea that almost all IT should contracted out because : "We can fire contractors if they don't do a goo

Currently government IT is operating under this idiotic idea that almost all IT should contracted out because : "We can fire contractors if they don't do a good job" "Contractors stay up to date on technology" "Contractors are cheaper because we don't have to pay for their government benefits" So for one, contracting companies that do a bad job may lose out on future work. But the reputation of the big companies is never hurt enough by this to get forced to improve. Even then, the fundamental problem is that government employees are very difficult to fire or even hold accountable so people think it's easier to hire contractors. When really the problem that needs to be solved is accountability in government. Secondly, even if developers who work for contractors stay more up to date, it's really irrelevant because the government is extremely slow to upgrade on anything. We're still running Windows XP in a lot of places. Third, if the bill rate for a developer is about 3-6 times what you'd pay a full time government developer, you're not really saving money on benefits. The thinking is that you only pay a contractor for a few years while they develop something for you, but IT is a continuing need. If your operation relies on software (which almost all of them do), you're going to be paying 3-5 times the cost per developer for the foreseeable future. Over time that certainly costs more than government employees.