Have the military service branches contracted too much work out to civilian companies?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:02:15 -0500

Have the military service branches contracted too much work out to civilian companies?

I've noticed since being in the service 1975 that the Army has contracted a lot of work out to civilian companies (Dining facilities, IT, military police, security, etc.)

Are we hurting our service members transition abilities by outsourcing their jobs and not allowing them to work in their specialities/MOS?

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Jan 30 at 2016 9:08 AM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:08:42 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs in my opinion, the services are contracting too much work out, examples are in dining facilities and truck drivers. Many Service Member need these vital skills to continue to make an impact on the mission and should be doing their jobs that they came in for. As a result, many Soldiers are lacking MOS specific skills I experienced while I was in doing other task.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jan 30 at 2016 9:10 AM

LTC John Shaw — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:10:53 -0500

I work in strategic communications and we simply cannot do everything with Military only based on the current staffing model. Most the contract staff is retired military or veterans. If we had more Signal assets, we could act faster in areas under fire, this is what I miss about seeing everyone downsized. Bottom line, I have learned to value both.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jan 30 at 2016 9:14 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:14:05 -0500

Yes. Living here in Kansas City the Reserve SeaBee Battalion comes to mind how much were these Expert Builders put to use in these last few conflicts? Zip, Zilch, Nada. Reading about our Service Members shocked to death in Contractor made Shower Facilities just aggravates the hell out of me knowing that if my Beloved Seabee Shipmates had made it, that wouldn't have happened.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Jan 30 at 2016 9:17 AM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:17:14 -0500

Armytimes had a story a few months back where it stated military personnel costs were down 6-7%, civilian workforce costs down 1-2%, but contracting costs were unchanged. We have slashed thousands of jobs and couldn't find any savings on the contacting side?

Response by Cpl Julio Rosa made Jan 30 at 2016 9:18 AM

Cpl Julio Rosa — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:18:11 -0500

Great post. Thank you

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Jan 30 at 2016 11:03 AM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:03:37 -0500

Yes! While we were told that it was cheaper and more cost effective - we lost some major skill sets on the Navy side because it became a regulation that certain things were illegal for Sailors to do. This opened the flood gates for some to open small businesses and establish contracts giving themselves the exclusive rights to do the job.

Case-in-point: In Camp Lejeune, Corpsmen are no longer allowed to start IVs on patients before transport to the Naval Hospital in the field because the contract with the base EMS/FD forbid it. Corpsmen essentially are limited to the bare minimum which I think prevents some good moments for them to deal with trauma in a real-time setting.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 30 at 2016 11:06 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:06:42 -0500

When I was the Operations Officer in a STRATCOM Center in Hawaii operating 24/7, I had a staff of approximately 140 half of whom were civilian. It the Soviets had been wading ashore onto Waikiki Beach, the civilian half would have gone home. Where would that have left me? Short-handed, but you couldn't expect civilians to remain in a combat zone, could you? When I took over, each shift was under the supervision of a civilian. My predecessors had made that arrangement to provide civilian employees with a career path that led to supervisory roles at higher pay. I argued that, again, in the event of hostilities, I would lose my chief operations supervisor, and successfully fought for military personnel to be placed at the top of each shift. Now, I'm talking about a time in the late 60's and early 70's. Thus, this problem is nothing new.

Yes, I can understand using civilian contractors for food service, security, etc, thus freeing troops to train or perform the duties for which they were recruited. However, even the most menial tasks must be performed during hostilities. Who will perform them when the civilians scatter to safer places? Who will provide security and food services when a unit deploys? How will they gain the knowledge and experience to do these things for themselves if not when not deployed?

I'm certain that someone has done "cost/benefit" analysis and proven that it is more economical to hire civilians, but civilians don't fight wars. Victory isn't supposed to be economical. It's essential. I believe that once again, we have the perfect example of "Penny-wise, Pound-foolish"

Response by SSgt Mark Lines made Jan 30 at 2016 11:06 AM

SSgt Mark Lines — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:06:54 -0500

The hiring of contractors for "non-essential" jobs is cyclic. Whenever there is a call for a reduction in military expenditures, the powers-that-be tend only to look at the total number of individuals that are on active or reserve service. If they can show a reduction in those numbers, then they can be seen as reducing the United States Military "footprint". This reduction in manpower causes the contracting of civilian employees to fulfill the jobs left vacant by outgoing military personnel. Rinse-wash-repeat. Unfortunately, the contracting of jobs is essential in order to meet the operational needs of our smaller military force. Do I think it has gone too far? Yes. However, until we have realistic numbers used in calculating the needed "total force" strength or we have a reduction in operational requirements, it is something that will continue.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Jan 30 at 2016 11:13 AM

CPO Joseph Grant — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:13:55 -0500

Definitely, this is an attempt to save money in the long run by not paying medical, disability and retirement. Looks good on paper at least

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 30 at 2016 12:01 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:01:05 -0500

It's a product of necessity as LTC John Shaw points out.

The Army Clause (Art 1, Sect 8) mandates that Congress "raises" an Army, while the Appropriations Clause dictates that they cannot permanently fund one.

This means that there must be some "backdoor" means of maintaining the capability. The simplest way is to divide function into Military, Government Employees, and Contractors.

As an examples, use a Base. Do we need Base Personnel to be "Military?" Can they instead be Government Employees and have the Command Staff as Military? We then use Contractors on "short term" (with option years) contracts based on the expanding and contracting needs of the Force itself. Man the Force to size.

It's a fine balance.

The answer from the military will always be "Yes, we're outsourcing too much." However it's an accounting trick. We have to do this, otherwise we cannot function at all. They are NEVER going to increase our military numbers to the point of actual staffing. However, we "might" be able to supplement them using "alternative" means (contract & government).

Response by SFC David McMahon made Jan 30 at 2016 12:02 PM

SFC David McMahon — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 12:02:49 -0500

The short answer-absolutely yes

The solution requires upping our manpower which will never happen until we remove the heavy political influence (and we learn to budget better as a whole)

I could easily speak on this subject for hours and it is my belief this is where we are failing the most.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jan 30 at 2016 1:20 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:20:34 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs there are positions which are inherently governmental such as anything to do with contract administration, decision on which company to select, etc. When i was mobilized I banded head with superior officer because i reminded him that I was a contractor when i wasn't mobilized. He had asked me to do something which was dark gray for me and I let him know. He frequently belittled me after that.
Over the decades I have seen government move to outsource functions which were not considered core capabilities and I have alternately seen them draw back on outsourcing. One of the biggest changes I saw was in the late 1990s when the was a push for headquarters to be reduced. In many areas there had been a more senior GS, NCO or Officer with a more junior GS, NCO or Officer assisting them and learning. I saw the positions changed and in many cases the junior was left while the senior retired or was assigned out of the area. In some cases I saw functions eliminated with no backup within the organization. I had fielded phone calls and and emails from the field asking for assistance or problem resolution. I did my best to meet their needs even if it wasn't in any of my areas of expertise.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jan 30 at 2016 1:22 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 13:22:45 -0500

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; You have to look at the fiscal savings involved in contracting out services.

Once the services are contracted out, they are no longer "personnel expenses" and the people performing the services no longer count against "the allowed size of the __[fill in the blank]__".

Thus, with a "tooth to tail" ration of (roughly) 1 :: 8, the "ideal" solution would be to contract out 100% of all military functions EXCEPT "direct combat roles" and use 100% of the personnel allowance for "direct combat roles" only. This would mean that the "tooth" part of the military could be expanded to 800% of what it is now without spending an additional dime for military personnel.

[NOTE 1:- There is NO prize for the first (or any subsequent) person who detects the logical asininity of the immediately preceding statement.]

[NOTE 2:- Senators and Representatives who need help doing the math should contact Mrs. Donovan at Pinecrest Elementary School for assistance.]

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Jan 30 at 2016 4:20 PM

SSG Leo Bell — Sat, 30 Jan 2016 16:20:11 -0500

I would say yes they are contracting out to much. The military trains cooks but when you go to any base or even a deployment you have civilians working in the DFAC. The only jobs our cooks do now is in the field heating up T-rations. That's not teaching them anything. Plus our military police are seeing the same thing happening. Instead of MP's in the gate they have private security working them so our soldiers have less to do and less training. Why is America taking training away from our soldiers and giving it to civilian company's. Then they want to complain the military spending is to high.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 31 at 2016 12:30 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:30:58 -0500

I guess it really depends on the job. In the 4 contract jobs I've held since I retired, 3 of them were military contract (the first one was with Homeland Security and the reasons I'm about to list also applied to that one). I think that the main reason those jobs were contracted out were simply put, because of manning concerns. The branches simply didn't have enough people to perform those functions. A Marine or Sailor has multiple jobs, whereas the contractor is contracted for one specific function. He's not being tasked with other things.

Also, contractors are actually cheaper sometimes. Sure on paper, our salary is much higher than active duty, but we also have to pay for our insurance, food, etc. We also generally have to contribute more towards our 401k plans. If we get hurt, the military doesn't have to pay our disability. If work is canceled for the day, we don't get paid.

I will say this. As a contractor, when I work with active duty, I always train them how to do my job. So that in a pinch, the active duty people don't have to call me at home when a problem arises.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Feb 1 at 2016 11:27 AM

GySgt William Hardy — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:27:12 -0500

Excellent question Sir and one which as been discussed over drinks. I read with interest some of the responses. I am with those that say that we have too much vested in civilian contracting because I come from the place where my thinking is that the military should be able to operate, other than basic supplies channels, on their own. As a former communicator, I think, I believe, that the military needs their own independent communications system and the old military network should be restored to full operation. Anyone remember the days when everything went through your base/post communications center? There is no reason why the old ASCs around the world could not be put back in place but the lines on the local military bases be expanded so that military could have its own internet. I could probably write pages on this one, but I will leave it here. My point for this topic is that our communications could be much more secure and in the case of Iraq and other combat zones, we should not have to rely on non-military personnel. It is a combat zone! We should be doing it all ourselves.

Other areas such as food services should be totally military. There is no reason why the military cannot train all food service personnel in a "combined services" training facility and teach everything from field kitchens to garrison cooking. The DFACs I utilized in Iraq were all outstanding, but why contract all those foreigners from India, The Philippine, etc., and worry about security or their protection. Just train more military people to do the same thing.

I would also like to see the military engineers doing the maintenance. Can't tell you how many times the civilian contractors finished a job and half of all the people who were around "inspected" the repair. We were somewhat paranoid and wanted to make sure there were no IEDs being hidden withing the repair.

I know the Air Force had their reasons for eliminating MATS, but having our own transportation system when flying just makes more sense. I am old enough to remember the gray interior and the backwards facing seats and box lunches, but having military pilots fly you into a combat zone just seems more comforting than some civilian.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 3 at 2016 11:09 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:09:13 -0500

Sir, you I am sure you are well aware that the reason why we outsource to contracts is the military end-strength cap. When you are only authorized 400K bubbas, do you want them to be majority warfighters or support troops? Because at the end of the day, that is what it boils down to. Contractors do not count against the mandated end-strength, so you can fill up many of the support roles that otherwise support troops would need to fill, which would have taken away from the number of warfighters you potentially could have had.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Feb 4 at 2016 2:16 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:16:08 -0500

It is corruption and manipulation of a system. All of us that are smart manipulate systems and that is what this is on a grand scale.
Due to force caps set by congress 1,000s of Soldiers are sent packing and personnel costs are down. However, the mission exists and contractors are happy to fill the void. These same companies have lobbyists and donars that work to keep things in their favor. Meanwhile, service members have ill-funded veterans groups and muted senior leaders.
There is nothing honorable in this. War is a business and as we leave service the smartest approach is to just join them, because money talks.

Response by TSgt Nicholas McLarty made Feb 4 at 2016 4:03 PM

TSgt Nicholas McLarty — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:03:58 -0500

I do believe too much work has been contracted out, and I think this is a detriment. I've seen, especially within the reserve component with reserve units on active duty installations where the service is provided by a contractor, that members are not given the experience or training performing their wartime duties (an example is force support/services personnel on a base where the dining facility and lodging function is contracted and they have scheduled weekend workers anyway) during training assemblies, especially in those fields that are being rolled up from specialists to generalists.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Feb 27 at 2016 6:48 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:48:40 -0500

Absolutely. Go to Edwards AFB if you want details. 75% of the base populous is civilian. At one point they closed the DFAC (chow hall) for several years because the civilians didn't think it was needed. There is a time and place for contractors but the military (especially the AF) has gone overboard with them.

Response by MSgt Mark Bucher made Jul 30 at 2017 3:14 PM

MSgt Mark Bucher — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 15:14:17 -0400

The Army doesn't have an exclusive buy on this can of worms. AF contracts out the vast majority of their' service AFSCs so when you do deploy downrange, it's almost all contractors. We sat after 9-11 deployed into the sandbox and lived off of MRE's for almost 3 months before they mobilized enough cooks to open a chow hall. First meal was Thanksgiving, we all gave the cooks a standing ovation.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 30 at 2017 3:51 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 15:51:22 -0400

In all honesty, yes. A lot of things that people trained to do have been mothballed, civilians are a negative in combat areas. Bring back the mess sections, the other groups that were trained before the cut in military personnel.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jul 30 at 2017 5:37 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 17:37:05 -0400

They are just doing job American soldiers don't want.....LOL
The trend went up sharply as OPTEMPO went up...The Active force was needed in the field prepping for deployment, Deploying, recovering from deployment, then REGEN and prepping all over again.
There were NO SM available to run garrison DFACS, do gate guard.
And then there is the continuity issue. ... Strategic and other high level commanders found value in having continuity... the Clean slate every 18 months has value, but it also means good intel and momentum is lost. Institutional knowledge in making the system work for you vice fighting is is lost when you rotate forces though staff positions every few months, to a year.
Do we have too many jobs outsourced, I think we do at times and in places, and in other places and times we could use more outsourcing. No easy answer with this one.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made Jul 30 at 2017 5:38 PM

SSgt Robert Marx — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 17:38:00 -0400

Yes, sir, I believe that the Feds use civilian contractors to support too many critical support services with the armed forces. The Army cannot deploy without civilians so they are all over the theater during wars or combat operations. That is plain wrong in my opinion and the troops resent the higher paid civilians running around and requiring protection.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Jul 30 at 2017 6:03 PM

Maj Marty Hogan — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 18:03:19 -0400

Yes. Painting, mowing, etc is all contracted instead of having lower ranks do it because they do such a shitty job and nothing happens to them. Several customer service careers are gone because you can do it on line now. Might be wrong but that is on you. They taught you how to do it in a cbt. I could keep going....

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 7:14 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 19:14:23 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Sir, when I was stationed at Ft. Ord (90 - 93) it was horrible how much building maintenance work was contracted out, yet they did not provide adequate work or labor. When the army has engineers (and a CORPS of Engineers to boot), why would so much of the work be outsourced? To add insult to injury, some of the WWII barracks that housed troops had black mold, poor plumbing, and other issues not addressed by installation maintenance. Soldiers had to take courses to become certified to make repairs themselves (courses/training provided by the military). In my not so humble opinion, it had more to do with Congressional members seeking funds to make money off of local installations. I remember all of the protestors outside of Ft Ord main gates bitching about our missions, but boy how they piled on when the closure by BRAC to shutdown Ft. Ord. That all stopped when locals realized that this would generate even more money to revitalize and convert the post for civilian use. (Sorry, this may have been a rant).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2017 7:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 19:53:39 -0400

No I don't think so. With so many things going on world wide, Soldiers (all of all branches) are already spread thin. Remember a good majority of Civilian/Contractors you see are ex military. They are basically there to help fill in the gaps while Soldiers train to be battle ready when the nation call. As you can see, military installations from CONUS to OCONUS all the way to war zones in some places are protected by Civilian/Contractors. Why put Soldiers in harms way when you have that Civilian/Contractor making that big money to defend and stop bullets........

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 31 at 2017 12:39 AM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:39:32 -0400

Yes....

Response by SSG Terry Clay made Jul 31 at 2017 9:36 AM

SSG Terry Clay — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:36:12 -0400

I've often wondered if outsourcing contracts to civilian companies was a kind of shell game to decrease accountability for assets and someplace to shift the blame when things get hinky? But, for whatever reason I'd have to agree with these others that there would be less energy and resources required if at ETS service members could continue to work in their MOS or choose to serve in another area that had need of manpower as civilians rather than trying to twerk them into the civilian sector workforce. Hope that made sense. It's early.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 9:45 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:45:33 -0400

I understand the need to contract out but we have done it to much. I understand from history like the old Army Ordnance Corp. Was one of the major factors for contracting out work in firearms design work but for almost everylittel thing has been contracted out and it's become to much of a accountability problem.

Response by LTC Jeff Shearer made Jul 31 at 2017 9:49 AM

LTC Jeff Shearer — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:49:17 -0400

Yes yes yes
Makes me pull my hair out

Response by SFC Derrick Hardison made Jul 31 at 2017 9:59 AM

SFC Derrick Hardison — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:59:35 -0400

Definitely! While deployed to Iraq and Bosnia, I saw that the DFAC was ran by KBR. Why on earth would we have military cooks and contract everything out? All our cooks did was head count for the civilians. Seems to me like the skills of the cooks would diminish if civilians did everything. Even in the field our cooks didnt really "cook" anymore. They heated T-rations up and served those. There was no skill involved in that. Now, cooks are just one example of the way the military is wasting money with civilians. If you train military for a job and invest all that money in them, then let them do their jobs.

Response by SGT Charles H. Hawes made Jul 31 at 2017 10:01 AM

SGT Charles H. Hawes — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:01:17 -0400

In some cases like security i would say yes. After i left the military i went to work in the department of corrections in il. I worked at Joliet in a max security prison. I know that the department and the federal bureau of prisons are always looking for veterans to do these jobs.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 10:02 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:02:34 -0400

Absolutely not. Our contractors are an intrinsic part of the mission and whatbthey do could not be performed by uniformed folks alone. Let's keep focus on keeping professional military MOSs and continue / exoand utilizing contractors for what they are better at lime program budget analysis, cleaning svs, cooking etc. Btw, I also believe that it is cheaper in the mid to long term and also it creates more employment opportunities for transitioning soldiers.

Response by PFC Greg Ortiz made Jul 31 at 2017 10:05 AM

PFC Greg Ortiz — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:05:23 -0400

Way to much contracting. Can't remember the name of documentary i saw, concerning soldiers having to give their uniforms to a contractor as they were not allowed to do their own laundry and the cost the contractor charged was $100 per duffle bag , that is insane

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 10:06 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:06:10 -0400

Depends on the area. I don't think it'd be the best use of our members to resign them to janitorial work.

But I also don't believe we should be outsourcing cyber or cyber systems. They can help augment those critical components but we shouldn't completely outsource portions of those missions.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Jul 31 at 2017 10:12 AM

PO3 John Wagner — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:12:47 -0400

I should hope that the government, as the contract provider, should make jobs available to be posted to service members long before being placed up for general grabs by the public. There is certainly precedent for this both publically and privately. It is reasonable and non discriminatory.

Response by PO1 Mike Dean made Jul 31 at 2017 10:18 AM

PO1 Mike Dean — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:18:36 -0400

Smoke and mirrors to look like they are cutting the defense budget. I agree the force should be made bigger and resume these responsibilities. I'm going to Texas this week to pin my Grandson's Navy Master at Arms badge on him. I've noticed service members doing more at bases since 9/11. The Navy has a sizable MAA community. No rent-a-cops at Great Lakes Navy Training and Recruit Center..... all Navy with side arms and M'4's.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 31 at 2017 10:19 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:19:56 -0400

In a word .. Yes.

Response by AN Christopher Crayne made Jul 31 at 2017 10:28 AM

AN Christopher Crayne — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:28:56 -0400

To a point. I've seen in the past that civilian contractors have largely been used in many aspects of our military. Contracted out for every job imaginable. On one side it hampers the military by constraining our service members into limited roles in work they need to do. And in order to ensure they have the knowledge and capability to do the job they need more hands on systems. Other side of the coin though, it takes away the excess work and free's the military to go about its duties. I would say it depends on time allotted ,and the ability to get everything completed to readiness status.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Jul 31 at 2017 10:29 AM

PO1 Kevin Dougherty — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:29:44 -0400

I have been out for a long time, and as a Coastie from the early 70's to the early 80's I did not see a lot of that going on, but then most of our units are small and somewhat isolated from major military facilities. In fact, other than TAD for school. I have only been at one unit with military facilities nearby large enough to provide services, when we were homeported in Portsmouth NH, we had both Pease AFB and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard near by.

Having said that, I find the extent of working being contracted out to civilians disconcerting. I suspect that we are indeed hurting our brothers and sisters in their transition to civilian life, and more concerting, our military readiness. I have to wonder how much of this is truly budgetary in nature, in that it is less expensive to pay a civilian contractor, and how much is political in nature, that is services contracted out so the politicians can say they have cut military manpower. I suspect more the latter than the former.

Response by PO1 Mike Dean made Jul 31 at 2017 10:32 AM

PO1 Mike Dean — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:32:29 -0400

Academi Training Center (formerly Blackwater) is about an hour away from me. I have taken several training courses there. They serve a purpose by training private security and law enforcement..... prohibited by posse commitatus. Their trainers are all former elite LEO's and special operators. I also know that FEMA has contracted with them and others to protect storage facilities during emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. Check them out if you want to get in a fun-filled vacation or expand your skills for possible employment opportunities. I was once a Blackwater vendor. The waiting list can be 2 years long depending on course and size of your party. I helped sponsor a number of small LEO groups to go for training. Check out their website.

Response by SSgt Holden M. made Jul 31 at 2017 10:36 AM

SSgt Holden M. — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:36:57 -0400

I totally believe that the government contracts out far to much stuff. One of the places I worked is a perfect example. We had a security section and 3/4ths of them were contractors so if the contract expired and wasn't renewed then we were stuck with one or two people doing all that work which made a huge impact on the mission.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jul 31 at 2017 10:52 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:52:06 -0400

COL Mikel Burroughs IMHO I think we have contracted out some of the very things that made us who we were. I guess I am old school. When you got into trouble, you pulled weeds, peeled potatoes or washed pots and pans or scrubbed garbage cans...there was no talkback and you did it enough realized it wasn't worth the pain. We also cut the grass, worked self help in our barracks, workspaces, and took care of our own flower beds etc. It instilled pride in your work area. Now, I work on base as a civilian and see people walk right by a piece of paper and keep going. They have no pride in where they work.
I am for contracting out food service with GI health workers oversight...it minimizes food waste with the incentive of providing hot meals when available. I am for contracting out Blue water, gray water, and black water disposal in deployment environments. I am for the contracting out solid waste disposal. I am not for the janitorial stuff, lawn care (in immediate building areas) etc that we currently contract for in garrison...builds character and pride in the workforce. I am for contracting our communications in garrison...too much for GI's to keep up with with every one having a computer and phone. I am not for contracting out general services like Force protection, fire and emergency services, CE type stuff...toilets, plumbing, electrical, roads, basic infrastructure...GI's need to to that...helps them prepare for downrange operations with wacky infrastructure problems.
I think overall we contract out too much and have become reliant on contractors and our folks are losing basic skills that are essential downrange.

Response by SSgt Clare May made Jul 31 at 2017 11:12 AM

SSgt Clare May — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:12:51 -0400

Great conversational piece COL. It touches a lot of areas that need discussion. I can see the use of civilians... for cost reductions in some areas, but yet I also see civilian contractors doing my old job at wages times 10 or even 20 that I received... i.e. nuclear shuttles...to and fro... or even officer survival...Why offer me $134,000.00 to teach my stuff in Baghdad when the same E4,5,6 or 7 trainer who could teach the same exact course of instruction after I taught it to him Stateside? Why offer me $121,000.00 to help with convoy security in Afghanistan escorting fuel, parts or supplies when an E2-1,2,3 or 4 can do it for $22-30K per year? It isn't about cost reduction, its about supplementing security with creditable manpower's who are not subjected to the same rules of engagement and thus...keeping the military staffing with the ability to rotate and insure stability in strength. In my opinion of course...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 11:23 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:23:03 -0400

I can't vouch for current happenings, however I know when I was in they did have a lot of contracted personnel AND active duty militants with specific MOS and skills set with permission from company command could become contractors as well.
I only know about it because it's something I did while in service. These contracts were usually reserved to the TFODIN, HUMINT, SRIG, SIGINT, MASINT, SPECOPS and so on. In normal circumstances not many soldiers are aware of having this kind of opportunity until ones unit commander usually full bird and higher requests a meeting with a particular NCO. it's rare anyone under E-5 will be approached as they seek most soldiers with years of experience and high scores across the board and and a certain % of mission completes.
Then you have to obtain a SAM, CCA and ORCA registration accounts. Later you obtain a CAGE code and need to know levels of security clearance depending on the mission(s) undergoing. This separates your contract pay orders from your AKO account or equivalent depending on branch and allows the DOD to keep track of each assignment or mission. Many branches of the government use this system if they.
The government is unlimited on its uses of personnel. Other examples I won't go into detail on are double MOS usually reserved for INTCOL and other specialties close to it, and Double Duty which you see more of use does for reservists and National Gaurds units. Again these usually go through the DCMA and again are limited to those with specific backgrounds, experience and levels of security.

Hope that clarifies some mis understandings COL Mikel J. Burroughs

Response by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr made Jul 31 at 2017 11:34 AM

1stSgt Nelson Kerr — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:34:04 -0400

I believe that outside of war-fighting and direct combat support tasks should be performed by civilians. Soldiers and Airman cost too much.

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Jul 31 at 2017 11:43 AM

LT Brad McInnis — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:43:57 -0400

If it is jobs that our SM's do anyways, then yes. I remember talking to IT guys who got out, came right back to do the same job they were doing, at a higher pay rate. To me, that is wrong.

Response by LTC Eugene Chu made Jul 31 at 2017 11:50 AM

LTC Eugene Chu — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:50:33 -0400

Late response....it is a mixed bag. Although we have lost some uniformed roles and potential competencies, it is an opportunity for veterans and reservists. I am an active duty officer veteran with prior enlisted time. I currently perform a DA contractor role at the Pentagon, but also drill as a reservist.

Response by PFC Lisa McDonald made Jul 31 at 2017 12:19 PM

PFC Lisa McDonald — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:19:30 -0400

I just want to know how they are going to keep a camoflage pattern when they start requiring corporate sponsor patches on the uniform?

Response by SGT Jim Ramge, MBA made Jul 31 at 2017 12:49 PM

SGT Jim Ramge, MBA — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:49:49 -0400

When you employ those services to contractors it does remove certain hardships endured by the soldiers in only time... Meaning this, basic soldier skills, education, training, take away many of the time from the regular duty day, so soldier in. Retain career fields are now working 12-14 hour days CONUS to comply with those basic skills. We ran into that when I was working 24/7 shifts as an MI troop.
Secondly, when we decided to catch up with the civilian populous, the amount of training it takes to get one up to speed with certain fields is years, not months, e.g., IT career fields. Similarly, medical folks are trained and brought into the services as NCOs or Officers. Their are certain fields that can be done similarly to those with the tech environments and then provide either a bonus or like the medical fields, NCO/Officer positions when enlisting or commissioning! The force structure could use some updating with regards to that type of technical training because it is a skill set that must be learned prior to coming into the military, or these folks will be in school for years, utilizing their entire enlistment to educate them to do the jobs.
Once they do this and modify the process, they can offload the contractors.
The other thing they can consider is similar to some of the line units in the maintenance fields. Create government WG positions so you keep them long term in the National Guard and/Reserves! You are then remove the world of the contractors, you are able to keep government control over, and the soldiers are more likely to stay vice depart!

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jul 31 at 2017 12:57 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:57:24 -0400

In Iraq I have seen $40,000 military jobs turn into $80,000 contract jobs. One must also add to the equation the money the contract corporation receives.

Response by SPC Woody Bullard made Jul 31 at 2017 12:59 PM

SPC Woody Bullard — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:59:41 -0400

I think the 558th MP Company and 619th Ordnance Company in West Germany back in 1969 may have started the contracting out to civilians when Germans were hired to work KP duty in the mess hall. The German contract KP workers were paid from a fund which was collected from us in the 558th and the 619th troops. This was done to allow the troops to give their full attention to perform our duties at our assigned NATO site in the FRG. While civilian contract KP workers relieved us of that duty I do not believe it is a good idea to contract out to civilians military MOS fields of duties that should be performed by well trained troops. The U.S. military should not become a contract service of civilians working a military MOS. If the contract out trend continues the military could "retire" several MOS duty fields. Not all civilian contract workers have completed basic combat training so we just hope the Russian or Chinese military do not get aggressive.

Response by SGT Patrick Hebert made Jul 31 at 2017 1:00 PM

SGT Patrick Hebert — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:00:50 -0400

I think that outsourcing does hurt our military not only personal but our security to much information is aloud to leak to the wrong people

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Jul 31 at 2017 1:07 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 13:07:11 -0400

I think in some ways we are hurting our mobility ability because (depending on the Svc deploying) and where we are going .. an advance team of the Contractors (hopefully former military personnel that would know what to do when deploying with a Military unit/knowing when to stay back until motioned forward and other abilities). There are times when a unit may have to deploy asap and not have time to set-up-rely on a contractor like Haliburton. Could you imagine the Navy having to set up a foreign port where there is none and NOT having a Seabee outfit accessibility and Haliburton is already s'where else setting up for another deployment. Need a company of Marines to provide Security... whoops..
S'body reduced the troop strength.. can we get blackwater or a group equally capable there fast enough?.. I'm glad we leave a President who is trying to build our Military back up. "That other guy". Was in the pockets of civilian Contractors.. Pres. Bush (both of them) relied on Contractors but were not trying to cut our Military as bad as "that other guy"*
We need a capable Military with capable personnel in all career fields !

*Obama

Response by MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2017 2:04 PM

MGySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:04:29 -0400

Tricky question, mainly due to the emotions tied with time in Service. The Service chiefs fight their hardest for the most amount of authorized personnel and funding, reality is that Congress gets the say-so. Bearing this in mind, when positions inevitably slide towards contract positions I normally find the incumbent contracting companies are looking to hire veterans or Reservists, particularly if they worked at the same activity in uniform. I prefer more uniforms, but when it's not up to us anymore, this is a close second-best.

Response by Donna Brickey made Jul 31 at 2017 2:46 PM

Donna Brickey — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:46:30 -0400

In general, I would agree with Mikel. As long as a person can contribute to the needs our military has, I do not see why we don't just let them use their skills. Being a civilian however, I do not know why the contracting is occurring. Perhaps the military wants not to pull its members from areas of greater need? The key for a person who does work in the type of roles listed by Mikel while in the service, if they week a civilian career later, will then be to highlight their accomplishments and leadership responsibilities in that role on their resume.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Jul 31 at 2017 2:54 PM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:54:30 -0400

You were saying "cheaper and more cost effective" SCPO Canter.. We had a Couple Civilian Cooks that complained when it was my turn to hold down the
Kitchen.. while they were out in the Dining Rm. On break. My job was to keep the kitchen tidy, keep an eye on the food cooking.. pan food that as ready in the kettle and ovens placed in the warmer ot the line if needed. Them guys wanted to shut e'thing in the kitchen down and e'one
Take break at the same time. <- It just can't be done that way.. S'body needs to
Be keeping the kitchen secure..

Response by SSgt James Tadlock made Jul 31 at 2017 5:10 PM

SSgt James Tadlock — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 17:10:22 -0400

Yes, I think so. Not so much when I was in mostly kitchen dining hall duty.

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made Jul 31 at 2017 6:26 PM

SGT Eric Knutson — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:26:58 -0400

Way too much in my opinion, when things are done by the troops there is accountability in the actions (whether the CoC follows up is another issue) and everyone is, theoreticly, ready for deployment at the drop of a hat (understanding some profiles are non deployable) You do not get as much back talk either. since we have actually employed contractors for pretty much everything except armor forces, Fleet itself and most of the AF, we can actually compare services. At the beginning of the GWOT how many times have we been sued because (Blackwater comes to mind) contractors went off the reservation? Contractors collect 3 - 10 times the pay that their active position costs, but then they expect the Regular guys to come in and bail them out. I was in during the transition with food services and watched places the moral went into the toilet because the food went from good, made with pride, and creativity to a inner city McDonalds that just wanted money, and the DFAC manager laughing at the Post Commander that there was nothing he could do about it. Of course, like everything else, just follow the money and you will see that the owners of these different contracting companies are either politicians, relatives of politicians or really close friends of politicians who are then skimming as much money as they can off the top, or inflating the cost of their products.
I remember hearing of a bunch of dock workers who were slowing up the war effort during WW2 because what the Military need done violated their rules (this was in Australia I believe) so the Commander removed them at gunpoint and had his troops do it instead, job done in half the time. As soldiers we know that we do not always have the specific training to do everything, this is what inspires us to "figure it out" and become more confidant in our own abilities and therefore more effective leaders and all around people. I think this might be a part of why employers look toward collage kids instead vets in some cases, just a thought on that though.

Response by Dennis Aubuchon made Jul 31 at 2017 6:31 PM

Dennis Aubuchon — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:31:18 -0400

I agree that contracting work out is not the right thing to do. As mentioned when individuals separate from the military they need to have some experience to be able to transition back to civilian life.

Response by GySgt Melissa Gravila made Jul 31 at 2017 8:57 PM

GySgt Melissa Gravila — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:57:31 -0400

I think we have, IMO when we have "military only" it builds comradarie, brother/sisterhood, and we dont have to worry about labor legalities. We just work til we are done
S/F

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jul 31 at 2017 9:34 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 21:34:34 -0400

Yes, mess halls, trucking, security, communication, etc.. It is one thing to have things runs by retirees, CIF comes to mind being hired by DOD. But we have cut things to the bone to push troops out in the field. That sounds good, but their slots are taken by contractors, which are paid well, but have little health care, retirement, etc., and the parent company makes a fortune. Now supply missions quite frequently are run by contractors, not supply/transport troops. Most of our gate security in contracted, cutting down on MP slots. Some parent contract companies are just flat a rip off to the government!

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jul 31 at 2017 11:34 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 23:34:55 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs The civilian workforce has continued it's insidious creep in performing many military MOS positions. 1953, Ft Knox, I hand delivered a letter of acceptance from the Post Ordnance Officer to the company commander. When I was tested for a position in Ordnance, it was done by civilian workers!

His written denial of my request stated that I, in my assigned slot was vital to the unit's mission! Ha!

If the unit had a mission, I was not privy to it. We were simply a holding company for troops awaiting a 'call' from OCONUS Units in need of one of our MOSs!

In today's world, PMCs don't count against body counts for troops deployed!

Response by Col Dona Marie Iversen made Aug 1 at 2017 8:34 AM

Col Dona Marie Iversen — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 08:34:23 -0400

Yes, too many contractors without military expertise doing jobs that 'WE" should be doing...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2017 4:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 16:53:12 -0400

It drives me absolutely batty to see civilian contracted police and security on my post. Absolutely batty. The reasons are the same many of you have already pointed out. To have groups of MP's with no garrison facility to work at does them a disservice. They lose the skills that are a job requirement. With MP's at least, if they aren't doing the job, the skills perish. Then when finally called upon to do the job, hardly anyone remembers how to do it correctly. This may have been an acceptable trade off when Iraq and Afghanistan were still hot and heavy and MP's were all used for force protection, convoy security and other missions, it is no longer feasible. I think that we need to take back the job!

Response by CSM Tony Blair made Aug 2 at 2017 10:05 AM

CSM Tony Blair — Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:05:20 -0400

Back when was early into my service, I knew another PVT I would play basketball with at the post gym. He was a computer repair specialist, but because all the equipment was contracted out, he could not work on them. He went to the IG, so the only place in the army where the equipment was not contracted out and he could do his job was,
Hawaii!!!!
So they PCS'ed him there and I lost my buddy for life.

Response by MSG Mark Million made Aug 2 at 2017 10:25 AM

MSG Mark Million — Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:25:21 -0400

Lets see, our cooks rarely cook, our MPs don't often guard or police, and our medics usually don't do the predeployment screenings. Those things are usually contracted in the National Guard. Hmmm.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2017 1:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Aug 2017 13:31:52 -0400

yes , we should go back to all or most military personnel dealing with our business.

Response by CSM Bruce Trego made Aug 2 at 2017 5:52 PM

CSM Bruce Trego — Wed, 02 Aug 2017 17:52:43 -0400

I had to really think about this topic. And it's early for me. In the early days of my Army life I was making about $72 a month. And it was my obligation to be there. It didn't cost much to pull me from training or MOS duties to have me on KP or burning s---t. It was all part of the job. Now there is a lot of money involved. And the training is a lot more intense. It is developed for soldiers that want to be there and train to their best. I can see that it is easy to have contractors take over some tasks that allow the soldiers concentrate on critical jobs. That being said we are losing something by not allowing our troops to fully grasp what Army life is all about. Sometimes the low man on the totem pole needs to have different incentives to improve, and just more money is sometimes not enough. And spending a day with the cooks while on KP is a real learning experience! I guess I learned a lot about ME while doing duties like KP and S can stirring.
Now comes the hard part. What about MOS related duties being contracted out? It is a loss to those soldiers that would take those positions. I know of many soldiers that went into civilian life and got jobs because of the training they got in the military. I think that there should be continued training and use of our soldiers in ALL MOSs not just for their future but for the future of the safe and strong military. Civilians have the ability to contract and there-by change what they originally said they would do. That is good sometimes but bad at other times. In short, the contractors can work in the states where our military need to train. They can even do the training. And they can do the day to day work while our guys are training. But in combat situations the military should take the lead in all MOS positions. Security, cooks, maintenance, etc. should be in place in combat zones. I may be out in left field but I just have strong feelings about this. Thanks for letting me vent!

Response by SSG Donald Gallaway made Aug 3 at 2017 7:29 AM

SSG Donald Gallaway — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 07:29:45 -0400

While I liked the KP and the grease pit cleaning left to the Koreans .. I think that there are some things That should Not be taken out of the control of the military Like security .. ect..

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2017 8:58 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 08:58:10 -0400

Absolutely, Sir.

I would say the most upsetting to me is MP's/gate guards. MP's used to be the primary gate guards unless they were deployed, in which units would be tasked to provide the guards until they returned. Now, civilian company's get a contract to guard the installations and units still have to provide Soldiers as gate guards 24/7.

I've seen this the most at Ft. Benning. The Soldiers that are tasked with gate guard duty, are checking the ID cards and what not, while the civilians watch the Soldiers do just that.

The problem with this is, a security company was given a contract to provide gate security and units are still short guys from being tasked out to guard gates.

I'm sure that the contract only requires them to provide a specific amount of guards, for certain times, etc. but that seems to be a problem as well. Why give a contract to a company, if you still have to provide personnel?

Of course I don't know financial details on the matter, but that's just an opinion looking in from the outside.

Response by CMDCM John F. "Doc" Bradshaw made Sep 1 at 2017 4:53 PM

CMDCM John F. "Doc" Bradshaw — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 16:53:35 -0400

Yes Sir, just my Opinion. We need more control over our Own Branches of Service with our Military Leadership voicing needs and concerns to Congress and POTUS!!!

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Sep 6 at 2021 11:23 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 06 Sep 2021 23:23:59 -0400

Without a doubt this is major problem.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2021 12:18 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:18:20 -0400

Quite simply yes they have. In some cases contractor work I get like the job I had where you needed the continuity, although I briefly returned to my contractor job as a reservist blue suiter. There are too many things being handed to contractors that could be done by service members.