Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

651–660 of 684 posts

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

#651

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…

There are consultants who bring real value. They’re experts at the top of their fields, offering skills not available in-house. They help upskill staff, deliver results, and provide knowledge transfer that has long-term benefits. Those people deserve to be paid well for what they bring.

But too often, consultants are brought in to do work that existing staff could already handle or to maintain systems that should’ve been fixed years ago. It’s not always outright corruption, but it props up managers who rely on outside help to get by. And many of these consultants aren’t adding value — they’re just billing for work that could be automated or easily solved.

One example involved consultants paid to babysit an outdated system. It was generating massive reports, and instead of fixing the root issue, someone had to manually delete files every few hours. Thousands per week were spent when a simple script or hardware upgrade could have fixed it. It’s wasteful and completely unnecessary.

This isn’t rare. It’s everywhere. And while it’s not always illegal, it’s driven by self-interest, favoritism, and comfort. That’s where the real waste is, and that’s where the cuts should happen.

Consulting used to be about value. It was a profession grounded in skill, purpose, and a drive to contribute. Now, it’s often about milking the system. People leave the public service knowing they can return as consultants and get paid two or three times as much, just because of who they know.

We’ve replaced public service and merit with opportunism. Instead of building better systems and serving the country, we’re incentivizing people to exploit it. And the worst part is, it’s become normal. But it shouldn’t be. This is structural corruption — accepted, embedded, and everywhere.

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

#652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should go back to being hunters and gatherers?

Yep, those are only the options - social security or hunter gatherer.

What version of society are you proposing we go back to then?

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

#653
post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also create a selection bias for people who are bad at what they do and can’t get a better paying job.

Again, this assumes the main motivation is money. Ie if they could get a better paying job, they would. You can select for highly skilled people who also aren’t putting money as the top priority. The point I’m getting at is that pay can be a noisy proxy for skill and we should probably not assume they are tightly correlated in all domains. One person once said the people at the NSA are much more like Marines than Sil…

> The fact that so many people look at a job as a money optimization problem says a lot about society.

Yes, to an extent.

Looking at the costs of housing, especially in a market like DC, the motivation isn't "making lots of money" per se, but rather "maybe I can actually make enough to afford the mortgage on an 800k crapshack" and the acknowledgment that gov roles aren't likely to cover that.

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

#654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Raytheon in geointelligence services a long time ago and saw this happen and it wasn't a particular mystery why. Raytheon had acquired a smaller company decades back that handled all the ground processing for US spy satellite collections. This was a small group of like 50 people who'd been working in an extremely niche domain that was also classified and they'd been doing it for 20+ years each. The govern…

>these are legitimately the only people in the world who can do what they do at the level they do it Lol, is this a joke? Any good dev can do software development. Most people aren't willing to work for peanuts, don't want to stop using drugs for a clearance, or are ideologically opposed to building weapons used to kill children or propagate genocide. Sounds like Raytheon employees are all good on those fronts, rathe…

Not all software work is generic CRUD work. Some work requires actual, domain level expertise that has been built up over decades. Admittedly, this work is few and far between and usually you wind up shoveling shit into a dumpster fire...

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

#655
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still don't generally need to use consultants. Even at the poor rates of pay in many government teams, there are still some decent technical staff who don't just chase the dollar. Bear in mind the salary standard is normal market, not FAANG/SV. Consultants are nearly always used so that managers can say "we went with BigCo, its their fault" when things go wrong. ie. they are generally a political choice rather t…

As a computer scientist who worked as a research scientist i was paid more as a Federal Surfguard (beach lifeguard) than i was doing TS cleared work with the government. The GS scale is fundamental a broken wager. When I gradated college the government was willing to pay 75K for employment. I had offers from private industry as internships making more than that per hour. They were easily 15K off my next offer and tha…

if you work for the government you can get your student loans forgiven without the tax burden, you get retirement, you get 1 hour of k-time (time off) per week of work, which means a day off every 8 weeks, or 13 days+ a year of PTO, plus sick leave, plus health insurance that is pretty good, plus...

maybe it's different at the federal level, but at the state level it's pretty hard to beat the benefits, unless you're strictly looking for hourly wages. Not everyone needs $500,000 a year, nor wants it.

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

#656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair and transparent are arguable. I have never met someone who deals with the government on a regular basis that has ever described it as effective, and at this point I am willing to sacrifice some fairness and transparency for effectiveness.

In a fairly recent interview where he was asked about DOGE, Bill Gates estimated 10-15% waste in government spending. Saving that amount is not worth all the collateral long term damage Trump is doing. You may not put much stock in another billionaire's opinion, but personally I think he's been engaged with our system enough to have a good perspective on things. That doesn't mean every government operations are 90% e…

First of all, my comment has nothing to do with Trump, so let's leave him out of it.

I would doubt Gates's number because I have never been in a company that had 15% or less waste. e.g I don't think you could find a tech company out there that couldn't reduce its AWS bill by 15% without any service degradation, but it's just not a priority.

But the meaning of "waste" is highly subjective so some people wouldn't count that type of inefficiency as "waste". It may take a lot of resources to follow the process that the government mandates or use the ancient technology that it uses, and if the government efficiently follows the process with the existing tech, then it's not "wasteful." But I would call the process itself and the failure to upgrade the tech waste.

As for corruption vs bureaucratic inefficiency, why should I favor one over the other except by cost comparison? If the government pays $100 million to build a road that really costs $50 million because the contractor is owned by the governors cousin, that's a lot better for me than paying $200 million for the same road because the bureaucratic process to keep the governors cousin from unfairly getting the contract costs $150 million. And that's not even getting into the fact that the bureaucratic path also costs more in terms of time.

IMO the process is just as much graft as the nepotism. All those lawyers and consultants and government employees that consume the $150 million are just as much the recipients of ill gotten gains as the governor's cousin. I recognize that this can't be eliminated, so I simply would choose whichever one was cheaper. And in the US I think we are in a situation where the bureaucracy consumes much more than would be taken by corruption. China is quite corrupt and yet their government gets a lot more done for a lot less money, and in a lot less time than ours does.

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

#657
post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I care? It has no effect on me. That's between the shareholders and management. Government bloat comes out of my paycheck.

But ... Trump will increase spending. Musk's financial future is dependent on increasing spending. They want to INCREASE the load on your paycheck, not decrease it.

Not really. Trump has cut the budget of NASA which is the part of the government that is the biggest customer of Spacex. They have also want to get rid of EV tax credits which are a huge source of income for Musk. Financially he would be much better off under a Harris administration.

I think these are both extremely stupid policies, but its just not correct to say that the Trump administration is increasing spending to benefit Musk.

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

#658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you worked with body-shop consultants? I think I'd take my chances with an idealistic E-3.

I was on a 6-month project with some body shop consultants. We were a small, boutique consultancy that outsourced work to a much larger body shop. They barely did any work, and what little work they did was some of the worst quality stuff I've seen in my life. They told us they had completed "phase 1" of a project. It didn't work at all. And we still paid them.

I do wonder how the proliferation of LLM-aided programming will impact this.

I'd much rather have a "vibe" generated codebase as a deliverable over what these body shops churn out.

Speaking from experience with both.

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

#659
post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the problem I see is that I can think of a lot of careers (teachers, basically all of healthcare, certain kinds of engineers, etc.) where "below market pay" is translating to shortages and the need to push under or unqualified workers into roles they're not suited for. This leads me to believe that the problem isn't necessarily finding some highly skilled people to accept below-market rates for mission-drive…

I think u/lotsofpulp addresses this in a comment below. I agree with that position: the reason it is becoming harder to fill those jobs has more to do with the lowered quality of the job than the pay. I'm not sure the pay argument holds. For example, where I live, the average starting teacher salary is higher than the median overall salary. When you couple that with the fact they are on 4-day workweeks and get substa…

A serious problem with teaching is that the quality of the job is lower the better you are as a teacher. Good teachers spend a tremendous amount of time outside of school hours on grading and preparation. They also have effectively lower pay as they’re buying classroom supplies with their own money. But if you don’t care much about teaching and just do what it takes to keep the job, you can skip most of that.

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

#660
post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think substantially increasing Congress’s pay would result in better politicians. Dishonest people who are only in it for the money can find plenty of ways to profit from the office. As it stands, $174k is not a whole lot of money for a job that requires a ton of travel to the extent of basically requiring you to own two houses. This low pay means that non-wealthy members of Congress have a hard time of it. Non-…

> Low pay selects for rich and corrupt politicians. Ignoring all the other non-salary pay they get, I'll buy that low pay can select for rich politicians because it means you can't rely on your Congressional salary to make ends meet. But it only selects for corrupt politicians if the main motivation is to make money . That is the presupposition that seems to frame your whole argument, and the one I have been pushing…

> But it only selects for corrupt politicians if the main motivation is to make money.

Everyone has some motivation for money. So this introduces bias towards the corrupt at any level. That’s especially true for a pay level that really is not enough for the expenses the job requires.

You seem to be assuming that being in it for the money implies corruption. I don’t think that’s even remotely true. There are plenty of honest people who value high pay. As it currently stands, Congress attracts dishonest people who are in it for the money because there are plentiful opportunities to make money dishonestly in that job. It doesn’t attract honest people who are in it for the money, because the honest pay sucks. If you pay them really well then that second category will compete for positions. It won’t be corrupt people versus true believers, it’ll be corrupt people versus true believers and honest people who want a well paid job. This would be far better than what we have now.

Post reply on HN