Federal Gov't DoD Procurement Insourcing Directive & Minority Owned/ Small Businesses

@bamabelle,

That article says nothing about "insourcing". It only deals with cuts in the military budget itself.

Quote:

Insourcing has nto stopped.

Obviously you aren't reading your articles before you post them. I suggest you do that in the future. Your earlier article quite clearly stated that the insourcing program was ending.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I believe that the contractor trade association is only trying, as I am, to bring awareness to this inconsiderate action being taken by congress/ the DoD/ the government. They dug themselves into this financial hole, why should the people who are simply doing their jobs have to take the fall for someone elses problems?

How would you feel/respond if the government was saying that they were going to take your job away because of a problem they had caused, but you losing your job so that they could keep theirs was just the best solution that they could come up with?

I, no matter my relation to this situation, would have the same stance: I do not think this is the kind of thing that our government, who is supposed to stand for our rights, should be doing. I know that you don't really care, or don't seem to care, that this is affecting people because it is not affecting you and your family/friends, but I do. I also see that you don't think that I have backing for my stance. I only say what I know and that is why I have researched this: so that I can understand the situation and be able to spread the word about it. I know I am doing what I can. Smile

1 Reply

@parados,

Those were the article author's words. Not Secretary Gates words. Therefore it is an assumption. Until those words come from the Defense Secretary's mouth or Congress takes away the initative, it is still in action. The most that I gather from that article is that the government will not be creating new government jobs in place of the private sector contracting jobs, but they will still be eliminating private sector contractor jobs as well as ranking military personnel jobs. That is from the previous article.

1 Reply

@bamabelle,

Do you honestly not understand that DoD procurement contracts are extremely lucrative? These aren't just people who are 'doing their jobs.' They are charging a very high rate to the government, to me, to do those jobs. Insourcing is an attempt to lower that amount of money.

Frankly I think our DoD and military budget should be slashed in half, completely, and the vast majority of useless jobs gotten rid of. We would STILL spend more money than every other country combined, if we did that, and save hundreds of billions a year. So I don't really have any sympathy at all for those in the military-industrial complex who bitch when their stream of easy money is cut off; I wish we would do it ten times as much.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@bamabelle,

Cuts in military spending are something different.

You can't seem to be able to tell the difference between the 2.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Right Cyclo.. But the government isn't insourcing any more. They are not hiring new government workers to do the jobs that contractors were doing. They are just cutting contractors.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Right Cyclo.. But the government isn't insourcing any more. They are not hiring new government workers to do the jobs that contractors were doing. They are just cutting contractors.

Cutting their roles completely?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I do understand that the private contractors do get paid....according to the amount that the government approves. The contractors have competitive bids and the government decides which one to go with. If they decide to go with the higher amount or not have the competition for the contract, that on the government. That's not on the contractors heads.
In the original article that I posted, it says that they are lowering the amount of money they will pay contractors by 10% in the next 3 years (except for those contractors based in Iraq and Afganistan). Is it necessary to also take away the complete jobs of the people? No!

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This from bamabelles article

Quote:

Yesterday's announcement and the underlying rationale offered in its support are full of ambiguities that raise many more questions than they answer. The perceived cost savings offered thus far are unconvincing. Moreover, the announcement itself is premised on the false notion that the path to cost savings and enhanced efficiency and effectiveness lies in arbitrarily reducing the size of the government's federal contracting workforce.

Quote:

Statements by Defense officials that these cuts are a preemptive strike to forestall further deep cuts in military spending ring hollow and their impact on Virginia's economy in a time of recession is inexcusable.

Gates has proposed cutting the military budget which doesn't include just contractors.

0 Replies

@bamabelle,

bamabelle wrote:

I do understand that the private contractors do get paid....according to the amount that the government approves. The contractors have competitive bids and the government decides which one to go with. If they decide to go with the higher amount or not have the competition for the contract, that on the government. That's not on the contractors heads.

So what? If the contractors bear no responsibility, then they can hardly bitch when their lucrative money stream ends.

Quote:

In the original article that I posted, it says that they are lowering the amount of money they will pay contractors by 10% in the next 3 years (except for those contractors based in Iraq and Afganistan). Is it necessary to also take away the complete jobs of the people? No!

Yes, it is! Because we are heavily in deficit as a nation and a huge amount of stuff these contractors do is useless, just the military-industrial complex furthering it's own existence.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@bamabelle,

Quote:

In the original article that I posted, it says that they are lowering the amount of money they will pay contractors by 10% in the next 3 years (except for those contractors based in Iraq and Afganistan). Is it necessary to also take away the complete jobs of the people? No!

They are cutting spending by 10%.

1 Reply

@parados,

reduce by 10 percent their spending on service support contractors during each of the next three years.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

1st...I would like to thank you for actually talking about this. No one else wants to and I am not trying to do anything but talk to people about this....so thanks! Smile

2nd-What do you mean by the ocntractors bear no responsibility? I am confused.

3rd-Contractors do have important jobs. They have these jobs because the government cannot handle the jobs themselves so they found someone else to do it for them. If you look at other nations, even local/state governments, you will see that they even see how it is benificial to outsource a lot of their jobs that they cannot handle.

1 Reply

@bamabelle,

Quote:

they are lowering the amount of money they will pay contractors by 10% in the next 3 years

Quote:

reduce by 10 percent their spending on service support contractors during each of the next three years.

There is a very real difference between those 2 statements. Do you recognize what it is?

1 Reply

@parados,

I am sorry....I don't follow your question. Smile

How is the money that the government spends to pay the support contractors different?

1 Reply

@bamabelle,

bamabelle wrote:

1st...I would like to thank you for actually talking about this. No one else wants to and I am not trying to do anything but talk to people about this....so thanks!

2nd-What do you mean by the ocntractors bear no responsibility? I am confused.

If you say that it isn't the contractors' fault that they get paid such high rates, that it's the government's fault, then the contractors hardly can complain when those rates get cut or their jobs are eliminated. The flip side of bearing no responsibility is that you don't get to complain when things change.

Quote:

3rd-Contractors do have important jobs. They have these jobs because the government cannot handle the jobs themselves so they found someone else to do it for them. If you look at other nations, even local/state governments, you will see that they even see how it is benificial to outsource a lot of their jobs that they cannot handle.

I think outsourcing is almost never beneficial. It is mostly a way to funnel public money into the private sector, to make one's friends and political connections rich. The proliferation of private contracting in our military is a cancer upon it, not a beneficial thing. The fact that they do it in other nations has no bearing on this whatsoever.

I would also content that a lot of these jobs aren't necessary and amount to wasted money - which is why they are an easy target to cut.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@bamabelle,

I know that sounds smart alec...i really don't mean to come off that way. I truly am trying figure otu what your point with that question is.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am not saying the the contractors are not at fault for charging high rates. I am saying there are other contractors that may charge lower rates but they don't get considered because they may not be in well with the government. Does that make sense or am I just being even more confusing? Sorry if I am.

I know that other nations are not part of this, they were simply an illustration. That is why I also included our local anmd state governments. One of the key roles that a private contractor has is that they have the ability, in most cases, to get the desired product/result faster and more efficently than the governemnt could. I don't see how that is a bad thing?

1 Reply

@bamabelle,

bamabelle wrote:

I am not saying the the contractors are not at fault for charging high rates. I am saying there are other contractors that may charge lower rates but they don't get considered because they may not be in well with the government. Does that make sense or am I just being even more confusing? Sorry if I am.

No, that's not confusing, but it does support my point that contractors get paid high rates based on a variety of factors which may or may not be tied to their performance.

Quote:

I know that other nations are not part of this, they were simply an illustration. That is why I also included our local anmd state governments. One of the key roles that a private contractor has is that they have the ability, in most cases, to get he desired product/result faster and more efficently than the governemnt could. I don't see how that is a bad thing?

I think it's an assertion, not a fact. And that speed of procurement comes at a high cost. Do we need things procured that quickly?

You should realize that there's lots of waste in such a system, lots of assumptions which then turn into money from the taxpayer's pocket, and for what?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@bamabelle,

A 10% reduction over 3 years is quite different from a 10% reduction each year.

1 Reply

Federal Gov't DoD Procurement Insourcing Directive & Minority Owned/ Small Businesses

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know