Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 684 posts

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#371

Post by calvinmorrison »

ethbr1 wrote: post #92
calvinmorrison wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they're a order of magnitude higher for some reasons though. I work in consulting, and occasionally larger enterprises approach our firm. We almost always decline because their requirements from vendor screening, to change review boards, to just the amount of sheer meetings it takes to enact a change to a title change on the website home page - its not worth it. A couple times we made the mistake of giving a 'go away…

This ^ and uncertainty If I had to break down how consulting contracts are actually priced, it'd be: - 50% work - 35% requirement ambiguity - 15% customer management overhead

Basically, but with big companies with on hand lawyer litigation is much more likely. They want things like contingency plans, licensing information, even asking what our own financials look like. We just walk and focus on clients who don't have so much risk

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#374

Post by bumby »

ksec wrote: post #313
bumby wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counter point: Salary should be decent, but I’m not wholly convinced it needs to be at “market rate.” By having reasonable rates but below “market” value, you are likely creating a selection bias for people who are in it for the mission more than they are in it for the money. I think that’s a good thing. It’s like the idea that politicians should be allowed to trade stocks or else you won’t get the “best” talent. I…

It shouldn't be market rate because you get job safety. Most have never worked in private sector before and has no idea. Salary should be dependent on Jobs nature and ability. Not by grade. Currently it is simply a power structure and hierarchy. People should be promoted on merit. Unfortunately most working in public sector lack the ability to judge. If you think power play, bureaucracy and failing up is a thing in l…

>Most have never worked in private sector before and has no idea.

The average tenure in the U.S. government is 8.2 years. The average age is 47.2 years old. I don’t know how to reconcile the facts with your claim. Either most have been unemployed for a couple decades before coming to work for the government or it has some wonky distribution or something else is going on that you should elaborate on.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#375

Post by ch4s3 »

3D30497420 wrote: post #200
ch4s3 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The size of the federal workforce has been remarkably stable for decades[1]. It hasn't dipped below 2.7 million since 1967 ad only recently cracked 3 million again. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001

And in 1970 the US population was 203 million compared to 340 million now.

The comment above wasn't about per capita reductions.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#376

Post by LunaSea »

whimsicalism wrote: post #249
azemetre wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you see only capital is allowed to bargain with the government, labor is not allowed to for "reasons" that somehow always seem to benefit capital at their expense.

workers are allowed to bargain against the government, as in “i will not take the job at the pay you are offering.” both private companies and workers should not be allowed to band together to deny the government all contracts until they get the one they want.

> workers are allowed to bargain against the government, as in “i will not take the job at the pay you are offering.”

In the same way that someone is allowed to not breath underwater.

A lot of people don't have the luxury of choosing.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#377

Post by Vegenoid »

_mlbt wrote: post #238
ceejayoz wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ship has sailed now, though. The benefits and job security can no longer be counted on. Government is gonna have to compete more on salary, or accept worse candidates.

I said usually for job security because I am familiar with the current administration’s actions, and the benefits have not been touched and would take an act of Congress to change. Trust me, there are still lots of talented individuals who are eager to join the government workforce, even now.

I don’t really trust you on that. Why is the government workforce not more capable if there are lots of skilled people who want to work for them?

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#378

Post by projectazorian »

reaperman wrote: post #342
adamgordonbell wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, there's some sort of arbitrage happening. There is some department in the government that's very unsexy and has a very real problem that could be solved by a smart finance MBA student diligently working on it. But there's no way that diligent young employee would want that job. Nor no way if he had it that anyone would take him seriously and put his changes in place. He doesn't want to work for that un…

Only place this falls apart is that Accenture / Deloitte are really not sexy. Like being a federal employee at a similar pay scale would actually be more sexy. McKinsey/BCG maybe this makes sense.

Consulting employees make more money and are not subject to the absurd federal hiring process. Plus they can jump between projects more readily.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#379

Post by SamuelAdams »

glitchc wrote: post #347

It's interesting reading conversations in this thread. Everyone wants government to hire competent individuals. Yet, when it comes to a personal choice, the very same individuals decline the lower compensation. Everyone then wants government to pay salaries comparable to the private sector. Yet no one wants to pay extra (income, land, sales) taxes to actually support the massive increase in government spending that's…

The narrative around fed jobs has changed recently too. A fed job used to be a lower salary, but much stronger job security. Now with the new administration government job security is gone, so federal jobs overall are simply not as attractive anymore.

Re: Pentagon to terminate $5.1B in IT contracts with Accenture, Deloitte

#380

Post by anon84873628 »

FloorEgg wrote: post #340
heisenbit wrote: post #217

Consultants are misused if employed on a constant basis instead of employing enough senior staff directly. There are well known drivers on both sides that tend to promote such an unhealthy setup. What is concerning at the US government is not cutting consulting but at the same time cutting staff and on top creating a hostile environment for senior staff. This is unprecedented and is not something one would do in the…

I'm not paying close attention to all the noise, so forgive me if I am way off base. But aren't they effectively doing a values purge/refinement/reset? Similar to what Elon did with twitter and what few companies have managed to do to transform themselves? My point is (in an effort to maintain a most respectful interpretation) that I imagine the environment is becoming more hostile to people with certain values while…

You're being way too generous about the values they're trying to set. If it were about "people who value outcome over process", they would have done cuts in a way that keep those type of people, and programs that already have good outcomes.

Instead they just cut everything uncritically, because the outcome they want is for nothing to work.

And the value they want in the remaining people is personal loyalty to Trump, not loyalty to the law or expertise in their job.

Post reply on HN