Ironically we had this convo today, a bunch of Gov and Ctr types. The number of horrific cyber sustainment contracts we deal with is staggering. Honestly, our greatest insider threat is the person writing the contract because if they don't bake cyber into the initial contract then we play hell catching up. I could go on and on, but the flaws I see in cyber alone bother me because if we're being missed, what else is being missed?
Contractors are to fill gaps and I've seen first hand how they don't fill "gaps," they are an institution on some contracts. I know, because I was "that guy" for 15 years on TWO contracts. That's not a gap, that's an industry. What's the break point where it is cheaper to go Gov than Ctr? Gotta' be less than 5 years.
That GS-14 or equivalent with no one or almost no one working for them? Why do they exist?
Here's a good one I learned this week.That "replace 1 for every 4 departures" is disingenuous. Say we lose 4 engineers, we don't hire one in their place. Ech II decides where that one person goes. If Ech II says we need more...cyber or contract or financial managers than engineers, it isn't hiring an engineer. It might not even hire one for the losing organization.
We had a major defense contractor deliver PCs that were never patched. Bare bones Win 11 images. Why? Contracting didn't write that in the PWS and when the Gov complained, the major defense firm dropped a polite version of "fuck you, pay me." The solution? Put a couple of contractors on the road for 4-ish months flying around and patching these systems. We are totally spending money wisely and helping the warfighter with that move...
