[quote=CA renter]In most of the cases I’m aware of, the contractors in D.C. need special security clearances and are very specialized. That could account for most of the difference, though it probably doesn’t account for all of it.[/quote]Clearance does cost money but no where near that much.
[quote=CA renter]Like the Bay Area and the need for “mobile” engineers now, there was so much demand for contractors in D.C. that the rates went up very quickly over the past decade or so.
But yes, when you combine powerful lobbyists, lots of tax money, and the desire to “spend it into the economy, right now” there is a lot of room for all kinds of shenanigans. This is why I say that the #1 place to look for fraud and abuse is where public money and private enterprise meet. Always was the case, and always will be.[/quote]I totally agree with this. But I wouldn’t call this fraud. I just call it plain old capitalism. When you’re spending other people’s money, you don’t care about how wasteful you are. On the other end of that transaction. No one in their right mind would charge any less than what your customer is willing to pay. Did you or anyone you know say to their boss, it’s ok, you don’t have to pay me $X, you can just pay me $X/2 because I don’t think it’s fair to charge you $X? So, there you have it, a customer that spend other people’s money and the contractor who’s trying to get the most money for their work.[quote=CA renter]Also, though I do not know this for sure, the cost of the contractor might be the cost that the govt pays a private company for the contractor (usually the case as far as I’ve seen). This cost would include all the overhead and profit for the corporation, this is not necessarily what the contractor is receiving individually. There is a lot of bloat, as usual, where the middleman is concerned.[/quote]You’re probably right. I don’t know how the study calculated the pay, but if it’s just comparing base pay, then this is a faulty study. Now that I think about it, $135/hr sounds about right for what a high end contracting firm would charge a company. Those contracting firm is a business and does make a profit. They also have to pay for HR/Sales/admin/etc. people that the client doesn’t have to pay for, so part of that $270k goes to those people. Then of course, the company itself would take a cut from the top as well. Which is why it’s usually cheaper to hire directly instead of outsourcing to a contracting firm. The cheaper way would be to hire independent contractors and take care of the clearance, training, etc. yourself. But again, it’s probably easier to just outsource it to various different government contracting companies. After all, you’re not spending your own money, so why make your life harder.
So, this does not prove your statement:
[quote=CA renter]Thought this was interesting, too. I guess “privatization” doesn’t really save money, after all. Gee, who would’ve guessed?[/quote]
This isn’t privatization, this is government being lazy and and outsource the jobs to government contractors.
