Posted on Oct 29, 2013
Soldiers to replace contractors for dining, security services. What's your take?
1.9K
66
19
0
0
0
Army leaders have approved a plan to put soldiers in base operation roles in place of contractors for up to 18 months,
according to a memo signed by Army Secretary John McHugh and obtained by Army Times.
In the memo, McHugh seeks an exception to policy to assign soldiers or units to work temporarily in “mission critical” roles “both
inside and/or outside their military occupational specialties,” according to the memo to the acting undersecretary of defense.
But at least one Army official disagrees with the plan.
“Non-concur!! Not an appropriate function for soldiers,” reads a note apparently from Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal in
an attached document.
About 6,000 soldiers “regardless of MOS” will be called on for installation support duties, according to an information paper,
but a source told Army Times the total could be 14,000 soldiers if the assignments are for six months, and potentially 28,000
soldiers if those duties are for three months. The source spoke on condition of anonymity.
The soldiers would be post-initial training in grades of E-1 to E-5.
according to a memo signed by Army Secretary John McHugh and obtained by Army Times.
In the memo, McHugh seeks an exception to policy to assign soldiers or units to work temporarily in “mission critical” roles “both
inside and/or outside their military occupational specialties,” according to the memo to the acting undersecretary of defense.
But at least one Army official disagrees with the plan.
“Non-concur!! Not an appropriate function for soldiers,” reads a note apparently from Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal in
an attached document.
About 6,000 soldiers “regardless of MOS” will be called on for installation support duties, according to an information paper,
but a source told Army Times the total could be 14,000 soldiers if the assignments are for six months, and potentially 28,000
soldiers if those duties are for three months. The source spoke on condition of anonymity.
The soldiers would be post-initial training in grades of E-1 to E-5.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
9
9
0
I think and have thought for a while that this is an outstanding plan actually. I have been to many installations where the services are run by those in Uniform. It makes sense and costs a ton less. There are installations paying contractors more than 20.00 an hour for gate guards, that equates to much more when you look at the contract price itself. Let's not even start on operations in the military where civilian counterparts are involved. I think the cutbacks to military spending would be less severe if we used Cooks for the Dining Facilities and MP's, SP's etc... for installation access.
(9)
(0)
SFC Ricardo Ruiz
Like your point but contractors get paid by the contracting agency so if the agency bid on the job and got approved for the position what ever they get paid is base on the contracting agency not the army.
(0)
(1)
SFC Ricardo Ruiz
Carl you are missing the point here The army is not paying anyone all this money comes from the US defense budget (tax payer money) but I read your post. My point is base on the title of this post. In the event there is a job for a soldier to do and is replace by a contractor the economy won't suffer as much the majority of soldiers spend all the money on base and tax free on post housing, px, commissary, class 6. But by replacing contractors with soldier we hurt the economy in a bigger scale. As soldiers we need to look past beyond our 25m. We need to help and support our community.
(0)
(2)
SFC Ricardo Ruiz
I have to say to MSG CARL CUNNINNGHAM my apologies for addressing you withouth adding your rank that was not my intention I just saw your post here and saw you wearing civilian clothes and by your profile picture but is not an excuse. And I am so not looking forward to get my career ended or my development affected by you based on a public forum post. I have to thank you for the recommendation on my next elective course I will try my best to add some contracting classes. At last Sierra Vista and their constituents are not ot a townie's but I respect your personal opinion about SierraVista. About how this Town is broken and people around here are so scared to loose everything and they won't be able to pay their bills I was not aware of this but I trust your word. Thanks so much for taking your time to reply and make clear to me how things are in Sierra Vista.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MSG Cunningham,
We are in the financial mess vis-a-vis the military because of legacy costs ie retirement benefits. Contractors, while incredibly expensive on the front end, are terribly cheap when considering that they have no legacy costs. It's like paying the same price for an apartment as for a house. While you rent one and own the other, the onus for repairs, upkeep, taxes, etc don't fall on the renter as they do on the owner. Now, in these austere conditions, we need every body we can get while needing to save money. How do we do this? By cutting the contractors (who are quite useful and cheap, but do cost money, and are a luxury), and dumping it onto the Soldiers. I don't mind it, but let's be honest. Contractors were a cheap investment in dangerous times. As we get leaner, we will expect more from the fewer we have.
We are in the financial mess vis-a-vis the military because of legacy costs ie retirement benefits. Contractors, while incredibly expensive on the front end, are terribly cheap when considering that they have no legacy costs. It's like paying the same price for an apartment as for a house. While you rent one and own the other, the onus for repairs, upkeep, taxes, etc don't fall on the renter as they do on the owner. Now, in these austere conditions, we need every body we can get while needing to save money. How do we do this? By cutting the contractors (who are quite useful and cheap, but do cost money, and are a luxury), and dumping it onto the Soldiers. I don't mind it, but let's be honest. Contractors were a cheap investment in dangerous times. As we get leaner, we will expect more from the fewer we have.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
About time. KBR has been the biggest hole in defense spending since the invocation of no-bid contracts to support efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br>
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
Contracting in general I firmly believe hurts the overall strength of the Armed forces, lets use for example the Intel Analyst position. Active duty Army can't even fill SGT and SSG slots because there is not enough soldiers ready to promote. One big reason if there is a contracting job willing to pay me up to 100K for a year vs what a specialist will bring in overseas est. 45K well thats a no brainer I should take the job and say goodbye to the army and rank structure. Now some will say but that is not for everyone and I agree but. But who usually gets these jobs, the people who are generally the most knowledgeable and experienced. This depletes our military's ability to have experienced and knowledgeable mentors for our junior enlisted and new officers. Another point is that if the Government does not make contracting so enticing then we may retain more soldiers and cut down our turnover rate. Cutting down turnover reduces costs such as training and recruitment. This money could be better spent by the DOD to promote expenditures in the defense industry or heaven forbid give the service members more than a 1% increase in pay per year.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google