"Are these my men?" Dysfunctional DHS

[Ret10Echo]

Egads...


Number of Homeland Security contractors raises eyebrows

How many contractors does it take to perform the Homeland Security Department's mission? About 10,520 in the Washington area alone, if you believe the department's estimate.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a former state auditor, isn't sure she does. During a hearing Tuesday of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs oversight panel, McCaskill grilled Elaine Duke, DHS under secretary for management, about the estimate the department provided her office.

"Those figures are based on algorithms, taking the cost of the contract and taking valid formulas" for estimating personnel required to execute the contracts, Duke said. "They're as accurate as we can get under the current conditions."

When asked why the department couldn't simply perform a head count, Duke said, "There was an attempt about six years ago to start counting contractors. It was put in the Federal Register as a public notice, but [reaction] from industry was so strong the notice was withdrawn."
Industry officials protested the attempt to count contractors on the grounds that their companies were being paid to provide services and information about how many people they devoted to fulfilling those services was privileged, Duke said. "The attitude was, 'You're not buying people, you're buying a service,' " she said.

But McCaskill did not accept that argument. "I think this is something we need to know," she said.

The Obama administration is reexamining the issue, Duke said. "We're looking at that again across the federal government in terms of how should we be counting contractors, how they should be held accountable and what the level of these professional services are [as well as] the definition of inherently governmental work," she said.

Many of the contractors sit in government-owned space, use government-owned computers, and otherwise function as federal employees, Duke acknowledged.

Already the department has identified about 3,500 positions now held by contractors that should be considered core government functions, Duke said.

McCaskill said she would continue to press for more accountability regarding the department's contract workforce. "People may have misinterpreted my interest in this area as being against contractors and privatization," she said. "I'm not. What I'm against is doing it in a way in which we never know whether we get bang for our buck."

Original (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1209/121509kp1.htm?oref=todaysnews")

[Blitzzz (RIP)]

This is a fine example of where Obama's 11 million man Army will be hidden.
Just my belief. Blitzzz

Looks like one of those tells one would find in a good area study.

[albeham]

I am now glad I stayed away. :cool:

There is a lot of contractors in this DOD world, correct me if I am wrong, but they use contractors for it is cheaper?

It was explained to me that the cost of having government work force, is much higher due to the retirement, health care, etc, etc,

But then again I might be smoking... :munchin

[MackallResident]

At my last duty station, I supervised 23 GS employees, and a handfull of contractors. The GS employees for all intents and purposes, had it way better than most of the contractors. The contractors did not have the personnel they needed for the money my dept was paying them.

This is why I think the GOV'T should know the personnel COUNT.

While there, I went over the 10 year old, unrevised contract, and wound up eliminating the whole damn thing, and converted the positions to GS positions, and when doing so, my workload justification provided for three MORE employees than the contractor was providing.

In essence, I feel that the Contractor was collecting, but not actually completing the service agreement.

Furthermore, to caveat on GS vs. COntractor, most of the employees who worked as contractors before the swap, were able to apply, and in essence, be hired on boad as GS.

The supervisor, who i hired as GS, went from being paid as a contractor at a GS-6 level, to becoming a GS-11 employee. The MAIN difference other than pay was the new Position Description for their GS position, which included "other duties as assigned."

Contracts are wasted 9/10 times IMHO. It takes a dedicated supervisor to ensure that the contract work is being done, and that it is updated YEARLY to ensure that funds are not being wasted.

[Ret10Echo]

As with all things there are the good, the bad and the worthless...especially when it comes to contract employees (and GS for that matter). In most instances this has more to do with a poorly written contract (SOW sucks...deliverables are vague, C.O. who wrote it didn't know what he needed to ask for etc...).
Sometimes you get EXACTLY what you asked for. (ouch!)

As to the cost factors, that again is a matter of the labor categories and the type of work to be done. In comparison to a GS position, a contractor is based upon a performance requirement or deliverable and agreed upon rate (for the company, not the individual and this is for a services contract). If the contractor's employee does not cut the mustard then he/she can be cut-away provided proper procedures are followed/met and you (the Fed) did not screw up and get involved in the hiring process.

For a Fed there are different areas involved in the total cost beyond the base wage such as Health Benefits, Insurance, TSP matching etc. The general idea is that you are buying into something for the long-haul. There are probationary periods built in so early-on in the process there are outs. Where things can get a little unusual is when you inherit a GS from a program or area that was cut...but that GS has priority placement. Potential is high for the square-peg, round-hole syndrome.

NOT knowing how many people are scurrying around is unsatisfactory, especially when you consider the percentages involved and the high probability that the contractor staff is engaged in "inherently governmental work" that is only supposed to be done by GS (such as generation of policy).

IMO...if you need a highly specialized staff for a specific project (of limited duration) then a contract vehicle fits. Otherwise you have a bunch of rocket scientists generating power point presentations at a very high labor rate.

[Razor]

Want to end a program and eliminate an entire office tomorrow to meet new budget constraints? If they're contractors, it can be done (but may cost extra to pay the early termination fines). Can the same be said about an office full of GS that aren't being eliminated for poor performance?

As Ret10E mentioned, the immediate cost of a GS may be lower, but the long term costs of the GS will likely exceed the contract rate over the same time period, even considering overhead charges and award fees (if applicable).

Back to the OP...if there's a question of the contract team's ability to perform the work, go ahead and end the contract tomorrow. Get rid of all of 'em, and save all that money. Just don't bitch and whine when the work load becomes unmanageable for the authorized manpower levels.

[The Reaper]

I have a bit of insight into this, having worked as uniform, contract, civilian, and civil service.

The advantage of the contractor is that if you require a left-handed former 18D under 5'6", with blonde hair and a PhD to start next week and to work for an unknown period, they can make that happen. The contractor will make more money than a GS, but the employee will make less. They can also be released from service quickly, and with no long-term committment. They are essentially temp-hire employees who are exempt, but are required to meet hours and deliverables.

The GS (or NSPS) civil-service employee will cost more, be harder to retain and to account for, requires additional incentives, take longer to hire, and will be more difficult to get rid of. They will cost you more than the contractor in total costs and benefits, but they can provide longevity in key positions. They are usually long-term hires, though many positions are term or part time. In some cases, they are union members. They are hourly employees who can request overtime or comp time if their labor exceeds their base hours.

The uniforms are permament employees who are temporarily in a position and location. They will cost roughly the same as civil servants in similar positions and pay grades, but are exempt and can be worked as many, or as few hours as desired. Obviously, serving under arms, they can be made to do things that their civilian counterparts may not, and are subject to military justice.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Sacamuelas]

I have similar experience in the past to TR. His comments are spot on with my past experience working with uniform, civil service, and contract employees/labor.

[Ret10Echo]

Overall I see the failing here as the department was stood-up, they jacked up the process by simply creating an overlay of bureacracy on top of existing bureacracies....(the pre-existing 22 agencies).

So instead of leveraging the existing workforce and making them sit in the same room to work together, there was the standard unrealistic congressional mandate to come up with an agency quick-fast.

Along the same lines as T.R. stated, it (stand-up) had to be done quick and nobody knew what was going to happen....thus a massive influx of contractors. Going into it's sixth year, DHS still does not have a grip on what is right, wrong, up or down. Management has changed and the contract staff is the only continuity so there is probably great reluctance to let go.

Federal hiring practices also make it very painful to transition into a federal workforce.

Contracts are easy (easier) because there is a lower probability of hirerers remorse...

[Richard]

Hmmm...makes me wonder if I could join the crowd and maybe bilk a stipend out of DHS for my 12 ga. shotgun which is only for my personal homeland security - kinda work it along the lines of all the stipends the Ag Dept pays farmers to not plant or to rotate crops. :confused:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

[Ret10Echo]

Hmmm...makes me wonder if I could join the crowd and maybe bilk a stipend out of DHS for my 12 ga. shotgun which is only for my personal homeland security - kinda work it along the lines of all the stipends the Ag Dept pays farmers to not plant or to rotate crops. :confused:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

Richard,
I guarantee that somewhere out there in DHS-land is a grant program that you and your shotgun could qualify for....and nobody would be the wiser.

[Marina]

DHS lady is full of crap.

"How many contractors does it take to count the other contractors? None. It can't be done." BS!!

Each agency submits its budget to Congress. Budget request includes each major program, number of staff, dollars, etc. Most include the exact number of employees. They do that so they can justify more resources. And more higher graded positions, i.e. status, power, compensation.

For example, my office is headed by an Office Director, Senior Foreign Service (I think that is equivalent to a one-star?). To justify a deputy director GS-15, they had to count the number of employees at each grade within the proposed span of control. Of course, they included each contractor on site. To justify a new division chief or branch chief, you have to do the same thing. We have whole divisions and branches entirely comprised of contractors - to justify higher graded positions for GS/FS employees.

All Senator McCaskill has to do is add a provision in some piece of legislation that says agencies must include the number of contractors in their budget requests. The information is available, it just might not be easy to find or aggregate.

Congress could also add a provision that contracting officers have to include in their reports the estimated number of contractor personnel included in each contract action. That type of info is already reported at www.usaspending.gov.

I came into the government from the private sector a few years ago. Two HUGE and disappointing facts I learned:

1. The "overhead" factor is about 30%, that is 30% of employees do nothing - absolutely nothing - even good ones spend 30% of their time slogging through unnecessary bureaucracy caused by the 30% that do nothing. Sadly, the ones that do nothing don't seem to understand what an impediment they are.

2. Like Razor said, want to end a program fast - cut the budget, the number of contractors will immediately drop. So I learned what a knife edge most program offices are on. They fund their contractors by the hour. WTF? Not only can you easily count that, you can easily cut it. It is a complete fallacy that you can't reduce government. Simply stop feeding the beast.

Dysfunctional! It's criminal. :eek:

Rant over.

Put Carly Fionia or Jack Welch in there and give them a hatchet. Not only would they cut the bloated bureaucracy, they would improve the effectiveness of DHS in meeting its mission of homeland security.

[Richard]

So does that mean I'm still going to have to buy my own 12ga rounds? This country just ain't what it used to be! :rolleyes:

Richard

[Ret10Echo]

I came into the government from the private sector a few years ago. Two HUGE and disappointing facts I learned:

1. The "overhead" factor is about 30%, that is 30% of employees do nothing - absolutely nothing - even good ones spend 30% of their time slogging through unnecessary bureaucracy caused by the 30% that do nothing. Sadly, the ones that do nothing don't seem to understand what an impediment they are.

2. Like Razor said, want to end a program fast - cut the budget, the number of contractors will immediately drop. So I learned what a knife edge most program offices are on. They fund their contractors by the hour. WTF? Not only can you easily count that, you can easily cut it. It is a complete fallacy that you can't reduce government. Simply stop feeding the beast.



There is the empire build portion of things, but as you stated, those personnel numbers are not drawn from thin air. Somebody in the H.R. or upper management has the numbers because the appropriations must cover the bodies in the room.

I believe the 30% may be a bit low :D But I also think that many of the aimless malingering is because the positions that are being hired to were determined so long ago (during the DHS-can-do-no-wrong phase) and there has been no reassessment. Additonally I have seen at least 3 NEW divisions created directly from Congressional mandate (legislation).

The office of redundant redundancy is up and running finally...

[Ret10Echo]

Analysis: No easy answers for a lawmaker's contactor inquiry
December 21, 2009


By Max Cacas
Reporter
FederalNewsRadio


It seemed like a simple question at the time: How many contractors work for the Department of Homeland Security?

At the recent meeting of the Senate's Task Force on Government Performance (part of the Senate Budget Committee), Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) questioned Elaine Duke, the Undersecretary for Management with the Department of Homeland Security.

McCaskill, who chairs a Senate subcommittee on government contracting, noted the receipt of a spreadsheet from Duke's office stating that there were "10,520 contractors working for DHS in the Washington, D.C. area. Of that, 961 work for you (Duke). "

Asked if those figures were accurate, Duke responded this way:

"The figures are based on algorithms, based on the cost of the contract, and using some very valid formulas, so they're as accurate as we can get under the current conditions."

Queried by McCaskill over why a statistical analysis was provided instead of a direct headcount, Duke said it was an issue was one with a history, and one that her office was trying to address with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. She also told of previous efforts by the Bush Administration to obtain similiar information, and how industry push-back was so strong following the notice in the Federal Register that the administration quietly dropped any efforts to press for the contractor information.

For some perspective, we turned to Alan Chovotkin, the executive vice president, and general counsel at the Professional Services Council, a trade group that represents Federal contractors, who offered some thoughts as to why there is no monolithic list of the government contractors:


There have been several initiatives, started with the Army, to conduct not only an inventory of contracts, but also so-called "headcounts" of contractor employees. They've been through several iterations going through the regulatory and legislative process. In one case, it was reports requested of contractors across the board, without any differentiation of the type of contractor or the nature of the work. In another case, the Army would not agree to reimburse contractors for the cost of having to prepare rather substantial reports. And there were even questions that we raised at the Professional Services Council of the legitimacy and validity of counting heads, particularly under particular contract types where there was work to be accomplished, rather than the number of people required to accomplish the work.
Chovotkin says that this kind of information changes all the time, and at best, would provide only a snapshot of the contractor workforce at any given time.

He went on to acknowledge that as a lawmaker, McCaskill has a legitimate interest in understanding how the Department of Homeland Security is managing the department, and how the money is being spent. He also acknowledges that lawmakers have a legitimate interest in the number and type of contracts, and the dollars being spent. In an interview with Federal News Radio, Chovotkin says "we ought to have that discussion," when it comes to how and why a contractor headcount is relevant to agency oversight.

Chovotkin went on to say that in some cases -- providing security IDs to contractors working in a secure facility, or providing support for contractors living and working in Iraq and Afghanistan -- an employee headcount might be important to the execution of a contract, and the mission of the agency.


I think it's less relevant to know how many employees are working on a fixed price contract that's being performed on behalf of the department because there's nothing there that the department can manage. It has agreed through its contract to pay a price for if the price is fixed.
Chovotkin also questions how such a headcount would be administered, whether it would be contractors reporting individually on a company-by-company basis, or whether they would report to a central government entity, similar to reporting for the federal economic stimulus program to recovery.gov.

And the PSC's Alan Chovotkin believes that if the federal government were to implement a headcount reporting requirement, most contractors would work to comply with the mandate. ------

[Richard]

Max Cacas :confused:

Nice pseudonym! If that's his real name - guy's gonna take a lot of s**t! :D

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[Ret10Echo]

Just to keep things current: :munchin


Number of DHS contractors 'unacceptable'
February 24, 2010

By Jason Miller
Executive Editor
Federal News Radio


Two senior lawmakers are questioning the Homeland Security Department's use of contractors.

Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) wrote a letter to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano asking for assurances that contractors are not doing work that would be considered inherently governmental.

"Since first taking office, Secretary Napolitano has been strongly committed to decreasing the Department's reliance on contractors and strengthening the federal workforce at DHS," Clark Stevens, a DHS spokesman tells Federal News Radio. "Over the past year, we have been actively converting contractor positions to government positions and will continue to build on these efforts at an even more aggressive pace this year. We are working across the Department to identify and make additional conversions as quickly as possible while sustaining the workforce required to carry out our critical mission."

Napolitano told the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which Lieberman and Collins are chairman and ranking member, respectively, that DHS has about 200,000 contractors, and about 188,000 federal employees-not including uniformed members of the Coast Guard.

"When appropriately used, contractors can bring a variety of needed assets and skills to federal agencies, ranging from cutting-edge technologies to specialized expertise," the senators write. "However, the sheer number of DHS contractors currently on board again raises the question of whether DHS itself is in charge of its programs and policies, or whether it inappropriately has ceded core decisions to contractors. As a result, we believe that the current balance between federal employees and contractors at DHS is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable."

For example, the DHS chief information officer's office has a ratio of about 7-to-1 contractor to federal employee. Richard Spires, DHS CIO, says he wants to hire about 40 more federal employees in 2010 and eventually get the ratio closer to 3-to-1.

Spires is not alone in this challenge. Recently, DHS undersecretary of Management Elaine Duke had to answer tough questions from Sen. Claire McCaskill about the number of contractors working in her office.

In the letter, Lieberman and Collins write that DHS recently has begun to balance out the number of feds vs. contractors.

Napolitano is requiring DHS components to reevaluate their human capital plans, the senators write.

"We applaud and encourage this effort," the letter states.

Lieberman and Collins promise to bring up this issue Wednesday at their hearing on DHS's 2011 budget request.

At the hearing, the committee will ask Napolitano to answer three questions, including how many contractors DHS has and what steps the agency is taking to ensure none are doing government-only work.

"We also note that DHS's fiscal 2011 budget request reflects several instances of cost savings resulting from the conversion of contractor positions to federal employees," the letter states. "While the fundamental question in deciding whether a federal employee should perform a task, or whether the task may appropriately be assigned to a contractor, should not simply be which option is cheapest but rather whether or not the government's interests are best served by having the work performed by federal employees, nonetheless it is notable that the shift to a more appropriate employee-to-contractor ratio may well also save the department and the taxpayers money."

[Pete]

"....DHS has about 200,000 contractors, and about 188,000 federal employees-not including uniformed members of the Coast Guard......"

388,000 not including the uniformed members of the Coast Guard.

388,000?

Man, thats a lot of people.

[Ret10Echo]

"....DHS has about 200,000 contractors, and about 188,000 federal employees-not including uniformed members of the Coast Guard......"

388,000 not including the uniformed members of the Coast Guard.

388,000?

Man, thats a lot of people.

Not counting the Coasties...who number somewhere around 40 - 50,000+ so that pops you up over 430,000 bodies.

Sorta makes you wonder what the heck they are doing...:rolleyes:

[Marina]

Among other things, DHS is the new vehicle for "internal security" at the Federal level - overseen by 68 committees in Congress, one or more of which is likely to resemble HUAC or something equally sinister.

And, they are being flooded with money. They are hiring USG employees and contractors faster than you could shake a stick at.

The org chart is eye-popping. (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/photos/orgchart-web.png)

Be very afraid.

:eek:

[Ret10Echo]

Among other things, DHS is the new vehicle for "internal security" at the Federal level - overseen by 68 committees in Congress, one or more of which is likely to resemble HUAC or something equally sinister.

And, they are being flooded with money. They are hiring USG employees and contractors faster than you could shake a stick at.

The org chart is eye-popping. (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/photos/orgchart-web.png)

Be very afraid.

:eek:

Especially if you lay the chart out flat (follow the lines of organization). How does one manage 25 direct reports with no hierarchy? It is no wonder there is a lack of oversight and understanding at leadership levels.