Army vows to cut 7,000 contractor jobs this year

Plan calls for transferring contractors jobs to Army civilians

Army Secretary John McHugh told a Senate committee today that the Army plans to give outsourced jobs that are associated with inherently governmental functions to its civilian employees.

The Army intends to insource 7,162 positions this fiscal year, McHugh said in testimony before the Armed Services Committee. From fiscal 2011 to 2015, the service aims to take back 11,084 positions and give them to civilian employees. Of those, nearly 3,988 are for acquisition-related work, he said.

“Civilians are assuming increased responsibilities within the Army,” he said.


Related story:

Defense officials hone their insourcing strategy


In fiscal 2009, the Army saved significant resources by bringing back in house more than 900 “core governmental functions,” McHugh added.

Core governmental functions, sometimes called critical functions, are jobs that are very close to inherently governmental functions, or work that only a government employee can do. Outsourcing core jobs can force the government to rely on the private sector's knowledge, and contractors potentially can unduly influence the government, officials say.

“The Army is recouping intellectual capital by insourcing former contracted positions,” McHugh said.

The Army identified these positions to insource in its ongoing contractor inventory review process.

Like McHugh, other military officers and Defense Department officials have announced plans in their fiscal 2011 budget proposals to take away numerous jobs from contractors, in areas such as acquisition and procurement.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

Reader Comments

Sun, Jan 2, 2011

I have been both DA-CIV and CTR within the same organization. CIV positions at my installation for IT are a rarity! The DoD seems to like to keep the CTR's in this realm due to the specialized expertise of IT that most CTR's in IT have, plus the Army saves millions of dollars a year in benefits and not to mention retirement! CTR's benefits are NOT covered in the awarded contract ergo not paid for by the GOVT, and all GOVT awarded contracts can be cxled after its initial term, or choose not to fulfill the full term(i.e. 5 years if all options excersized with an initial performance period of 3 years)

Tue, Mar 23, 2010

I have been in the “dark side” , contractor world, for over 10 years and I have seen all types of civilian and government employees. From the upmost of dedication, acumen and professionalism to the not so hot end of the spectrum. I can account for one of the above posters comments regarding the ease of establishing contracts for specific skillets or short term projects, and then moving on without the hassles of moving the GS,CS,YA,etc… to another section. I won’t even get into the sub-par govt employee and the circus it takes to remove that individual. AS a contractor, the client can request your removal if you are not performing to the PWS and you’re out the door. I don’t mean to focus on the ease of removing an individual. I do want to say that the relationship b/t industry and government is as old as the nation and cannot survive w/o each other. What I see is the knee-jerk reaction of complying with the current administrations goals w/o regard as to the consequences of in sourcing most functions will cost in the near-term. What I don’t see mentioned here is the government deliberately “stealing” industry talent to return a function in house. Whether inherently a governmental only function or not, what does that say for the contractor that invested time, money on that individual; sourced him to fulfill the customers mission, and the customer is now hiring that individual off from the contractor? And, of course, no finder’s fee. This seems to align with the current administrations apparent economic stimulus motive of job creation by growing government while stealing from private industry. What is the individual supposed to do if the overall costs of relocating to another position, one that won’t get in sourced, do. I don’t blame the individual, for we all have our motives. Dark times are ahead indeed.

Mon, Mar 22, 2010

I think we need to go back 15-20+ years or so and consider that history shows contractors are cheaper as the various A76 and other studies have shown. when you consider the medical, retirement, etc, studies/experience show contract costs are less than civil service. Separately, contractors are easy to get/use then get rid of for short term jobs. Its virtually impossible to get rid of (or move) excess civil service. Additionally, its easier to specify certifications, etc for contractors than for civil service. I have no objection to civil service for the 'gov required positions' but to do it for purpose of getting unskilled employeed isn't the way to go. Admittedly, now that retired military officers, retired civil services can now come back as civil service makes it easier to get experience.

Sat, Mar 6, 2010 Geek DC

Far too long the mantra is that industry could do things better, faster, cheaper. Functions were outsourced to give retiring military jobs in industry, harsh but true. Lobbyists wielded far too much influence. True experience within the Government was lost as the most senior and knowledgeable people left to industry. We know have a workforce that is hollow and needs to be rebuilt. How producing ammunition and designing and building Military specific hardware could ever be viewed as not a Government function was nuts. Companies whose work is almost 100% military or Government is the result of the cry to downsize Government when in fact we just changed the packaging.

Wed, Mar 3, 2010 John

Our division assigned all additional duties to one position. They opted to hire a CTR because at the time we were losing slots as people left. Where regs require a Gov in charge, one is assigned but the work is done by the CTR. This frees a lot of GS-9 through GS-14's time to focus on the mission.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close
SEARCH
contracts DB

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Read More

  • Is SBA MIA on contractor fraud? Nick Wakeman

    Editor Nick Wakeman explores the puzzle of why SBA has been so silent on the latest contractor fraud scandal when it has been so quick to act in other cases. Read More

Webcasts

  • How Do You Support the Project Lifecycle?

    How do best-in-class project-based companies create and actively mature successful organizations? They find the right mix of people, processes and tools that enable them to effectively manage the project lifecycle. REGISTER for this webinar to hear how properly managing the cycle of capture, bid, accounting, execution, IPM and analysis will allow you to better manage your programs to stay on scope, schedule and budget. Learn More!

  • Sequestration, LPTA and the Top 100

    Join Washington Technology’s Editor-in-Chief Nick Wakeman as he analyzes the annual Top 100 list and reveals critical insights into how market trends have impacted its composition. You'll learn what movements of individual companies means and how the market overall is being impacted by the current budget environment, how the Top 100 rankings reflect the major trends in the market today and how the biggest companies in the market are adapting to today’s competitive environment. Learn More!