[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.