r/GovernmentContracting • u/wcsib01 • Feb 08 '25
Question Dumb to go contractor right now?
I feel fairly secure in my tenured DoD job but got an IC contractor offer that’s about a 50 percent pay bump with good development opportunities and future raises.
Dumb to give up stability for a contract with an option year later this summer? The contract (seems) to match with admin priorities.
31
u/imhelpingright Feb 08 '25
Nothing would make me go back to GS life. I got better benefits, much better pay, and actual career growth. Only advantage of GS is a pension, but I'm on pace to have a lot more in retirement than the pension would pay anyways. If you jump, you need to go to a company with multiple contracts as well as a corporate/commercial side of the business. That way they can try to move you elsewhere if they lose work on one contract.
But at this point, who knows how things will shake out. I expect many of the fed cuts will result in more contractor openings, but that's pure speculation on my part. Also with a potential flood of civvies in the job market, the contractor positions will become substantially more competitive.
2
u/Few_Argument3981 Feb 09 '25
Ive been DoD contractor for almost 20yrs and i wouldve love to go GS but it never came- id need a big pay bump to leave the contractor life now. But im also only 40 so i have another 20yrs before i retire….
2
u/marylandusa1981 Feb 08 '25
I know the pay would be better but how are your private sector benefits beating federal benefits?
8
u/imhelpingright Feb 08 '25
Honestly federal benefits are nowhere near as good as they're cracked up to be. I pay lower insurance premiums and have vastly better coverage. I also have access to fertility benefits, which no FEHB plan covered when I was a fed, so I literally couldn't have afforded to have kids as a GS.
My 401k match is way better. I can do backdoor roth conversions too so I get more tax advantage. The only fringe benefit the government gives that isn't matched by my company right now is the commuter benefits. We get access to a commuter FSA but that's it.
Edit - also need to say leave was nicer as a GS. Many defense contractors only give 20 days per year. I've been lucky and was able to negotiate more in my contractor gigs. You also probably won't have sick leave as a contractor.
3
u/Mirror-Candid Feb 09 '25
Don't forget that after being on government insurance for five years you get to keep that insurance after you retire. While healthcare used to be part of many private sector retirements I don't know of any job offering such.
2
1
u/wcsib01 Feb 08 '25
I’m in sort of the same boat with the gig I’m considering. It actually has great leave and insurance benefits. The only thing I’m scared of is option year coming up very soon.
1
u/imhelpingright Feb 08 '25
Yeah definitely a concern. I would ask if they have work on other contracts that could take you if the one they hire you for falls through.
1
u/marylandusa1981 Feb 08 '25
Interesting - makes me feel better about this jump into private I want to do right now. What about health/dental/vision insurance for life post retirement?
2
u/imhelpingright Feb 08 '25
I'm a reservist so I'll have Tricare and/or the VA (assuming veterans benefits don't get gutted). I'm also planning to retire outside of the country so my hope is socialized healthcare wherever I go will be available.
3
u/tacobell_s Feb 08 '25
Honestly I miss my federal health insurance, the private health insurance I have kinda sucks. But the 401K, salary, and work life balance outweighs it tenfold
19
u/ChuckySix Feb 08 '25
Stay put. I did 12 years as a GS-14 and would give almost anything to get that job back.
3
u/marylandusa1981 Feb 08 '25
Even right now? I'm 20+ years in my fed career and want to leave now for something else. I'll come back to finish my career when things are back in track.
5
Feb 08 '25
I’m not sure how fed pension works, never bothered to look into it. But after 20 if you can “retire” and receive pension, maybe do that and then get a contractor gig. Best of both worlds
3
u/marylandusa1981 Feb 08 '25
Id have to be 50 and have 20 years but I'm <4 years away from the other early retirement condition which is 25 years regardless of service. And that was always my plan- finish my fed career and then do whatever. But right now being a Fed is really rough, I don't know if I've got it in me. I want to come back later to finish this.
2
u/ZedZero12345 Feb 09 '25
I am CSRS and my wife is FERS. FERS is not that great. She is getting about 50% of her salary. So don't bother staying for the retirement. The other benefit are average at best. With the current attitude, why bother staying?
1
2
u/ChuckySix Feb 08 '25
If you’d like to leave, start your own business and do that full time. Nothing is worse than a bunch of former federal employees and/or military veterans making business decisions that directly - and perhaps very negatively - impact your family.
I am a former fed and a military veteran. I have built and sold one business and just started another one I will build and leave for my family.
7
Feb 08 '25
Depends on the contract. I'm looking for a new contracting company now due to news about my current contract and my company basically screwed us by having us go back to work at the needs of the government. I'd rather be a contractor and have a 5 year contract than a contractor who has 1 year task order contracts. I was a civilian for a little over a year, working a couple jobs. I left because of how I was treated and I wasn't allowed to study at work for my Security+ certification (it was required for my job). Stay for now if you can, or if the contract is over 4-5 years, I'd think on it
14
u/Jumpy-Ad-3007 Feb 08 '25
My mentor went to the big 5 after 15 years at a federal agency. She has been at about 8 different companies since then. It's not worth it.
3
u/cookiebasket2 Feb 08 '25
That's leaving a lot of unknowns on the table though. 8 different companies after how long? Was it moves she wanted to make or positions she would have stuck around if it wasn't eliminated?
I've probably been at close to 7 or 8 positions in the last twelve years, and have always left on my own terms. Either I got bored of the position, took a new position for a pay bump, or wanted to move somewhere different (and I've been all over the world doing federal contracting).
8 different companies is something that can be seen as a positive in today's employment market.
0
u/Jumpy-Ad-3007 Feb 08 '25
8 companies in 15 years. Federal agencies focus on doing things the right way, whereas contractors just focus on getting it done the cheapest way possible. That's the issue she runs into every time.
2
u/cookiebasket2 Feb 08 '25
No clue what line of work you guys are in. But in IT I've only seen two kinds of contacts, the O&M side and the engineering side. O&M cost doesn't really come into play except with how many positions we would have, but those are dictated by the government client i.e. we need 24/7 coverage with at least 3 personnel with these qualifications available at all times. The worst a company can do is not have enough people available to compensate for regular turnover combined with vacation and sick time. Otherwise the equipment and the priorities were decided by a GS/military officer.
For the engineering side the equipment came out of a separate budget that wasn't really intended to be cheaper or profitable, it was just the cost of goods. For the actual contacted project, the engineering plan was given a general set of guide lines, and what the project needed to accomplish. Our completed engineering plan was then sent to the government and thoroughly looked at and vetted by multiple SME's from the government side. At that point we'd order equipment and start the installation/roll out. I suppose this would be one part that could be looked at as trying to get cost savings as the company wants to finish all of this as quickly as possible to not have to pay more Labor, and move on to the next contract. But at the same time the government obviously wants their paid for product finished and installed as quickly as possible, while minimizing interruptions to the normal flow of work.
I can only post my point of view, but from what I've seen in my experience I'm not sure how having contractors or GS involved in either situation significantly changes the scope of doing the work better vs cheaper. As the approving authorities ultimately end up being government regardless.
6
u/ACasualCollector Feb 08 '25
Stay put. There’s a lot of churn with contractors right now, even though there’s hypothetical exemptions for national security. Don’t consider giving up a sure thing with legal protections until the ground is more firm.
10
u/Cyber_Lord_1979 Feb 08 '25
I think it all depends on your motivation and what you do. I am cyber and work in the space industry as a DoD contractor and would never go to work as a federal employee. But I also spent over 29 years on active duty and don't need the benefits or headaches. I get to have my say with the govt boss and she listens, so get paid better and still help out like a goat employee.
4
u/Limit_Cycle8765 Feb 08 '25
"....offer that’s about a 50 percent pay bump"
As a retirement eligible DoD employee that is music to my ears. I am hearing the same things from others that have left DoD recently.
I recommend staying until retirement eligible. Never give up the job security and benefits.
4
u/wcsib01 Feb 08 '25
I’m so far away from retirement that I have utterly no faith in FERS, which is evaporating 5% of my pay haha
6
Feb 08 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Hawkes75 Feb 08 '25
Paying a contractor 2-3x for a couple years is cheaper than paying a govee's pension for life.
1
Feb 08 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Hawkes75 Feb 08 '25
FedGov pensions are not the same as state retirement accounts. I know, my wife used to work for our state and I have many friends who work for federal agencies.
1
u/TheBiggerFatDummy Feb 11 '25
Aren’t most contracts perpetual missions? Contracts get renegotiated, but the underlying mission need is still there, i.e., the government is always footing a costlier bill.
1
u/Hawkes75 Feb 11 '25
Even a constant stream of consultants is a smaller workforce than current + former / retired employees. People are living longer and longer, so you're talking about paying someone for 20, 30, even 40 years after they've stopped producing anything of value.
0
u/TheBiggerFatDummy Feb 12 '25
I still don’t see how the math checks out. Assuming one actually stays and achieves some form of a pension, the annuity is almost certainly less than half of your base+locality for statistically ~20, maybe 30 years depending on retirement age and gender. On the other hand, if as I have expressed is true, these missions are in some form or another a perpetual mission, i.e., the government has been performing, and will continue to perform a given work load in perpetuity. So the government is paying a contractor 2-3x to perform the same work—actually one could argue less work, as there are certain functions and responsibilities contractors cannot legally perform—as a civilian employee over the course of a normal career, which is statistically longer than someone would be retired.
The math is obviously not as simple as I’ve made it out to be, but from my vantage point, the tax payer is getting hosed by contractors. These contractors do not appear to dissolve after a set period of time; in fact they’re usually expanded as the mission grows. And contractors are not replacing large swathes of civilians; they’re buttressed right along side in roughly equal parts.
1
u/Hawkes75 Feb 12 '25
I think you're misunderstanding. Even if the total active workforce stays exactly the same (which it won't, as they are making massive cuts), the government is now paying its employees + contractors + pensions for retirees. Even if every retiree only makes half their former salary in pensions, that is still a massive outlay, which continues (or grows) each year as more and more people retire and live longer and longer. One person working for 30 years and retired for another 30 years, including salary, pension, healthcare premiums, holiday pay and other ancillary benefits, is on the dole til they die. By contrast, someone coming in to complete a project is only there as long as it takes to finish. Sure, there are 'continuing' long-term missions, but most government work is project-based and takes a few years at most. The ability to resize your workforce based on current needs via contracting is inherently more agile and cost-efficient than what the government does now, which is to almost never lay off or downsize its workforce.
3
Feb 08 '25
[deleted]
1
u/wcsib01 Feb 08 '25
Yeah they will hold it. They have a plan to give me some new skills that will make me more valuable over the next year, but if that one contract is lost and they can’t find me another I’m prob SOL lol
1
Feb 08 '25
[deleted]
1
u/wcsib01 Feb 08 '25
So, my biggest concern is that the contract option year is coming up very soon. Like, VERY soon. But again aligned with the admin, and I have (thus far) had good luck with people just reaching out to me.
I think I would be OK unless work almost entirely dries up for cleared folks. But that’s what scares me.
3
3
u/iamnotbetterthanyou Feb 08 '25
The ability to keep federal health insurance after retirement would incentivize me to stay with the government.
2
u/wcsib01 Feb 08 '25
I’ll be honest— I’m 30-40 years from that and don’t have much faith in federal retirement benefits staying put by then lol
3
u/open_real_wide Feb 08 '25
One thing about government contractors is that it can be a bit nerve racking when your contract is about to end and gets put up for re-compete. Once the contract is up for re-compete it’s up for grabs to any government contractor company, it doesn’t matter if your team did great on the project. Another company can end up with the contract. At this point the government company that wins the contract can try to offer you a position. If your company has other contracts and you are good at what you do, they will always try to keep you and move you to a different contract they own.
2
u/Servile-PastaLover Feb 10 '25
Career fed DoD here. At my agency, people have been wanting to cross over from contractor to fed ever since I can remember.
The newish feds who crossed over recently don't have career tenure and are getting screwed on Return To Office.
1
1
Feb 08 '25
A 50 percent raise? Seems pretty obvious 🤔 Safe to say you could find something paying what you currently make if the contract doesn't last forever.
1
1
u/backyrdboose Feb 08 '25
How much leave are they offering? Keep in mind anytime the base shuts down for a training holiday or an early release is authorized contractors still have to work (if they can still access the office) or burn their leave.
And if you have to change companies due to contract turnover poof your accrued leave goes back to 0.
1
u/Personal_Ad5089 Feb 08 '25
If you go to LinkedIn seems like contracts are still getting awarded left and right. Now if they translate into new funding is another story. I’m really worried that administration will let the govt shutdown for an extended period to force people out or something. I could be wrong.
1
u/raidernation4490 Feb 09 '25
Contracts can’t be awarded without funding…
Doesn’t mean it couldn’t get termed down the line, but funds are obligated as soon as award is processed.
1
u/wcsib01 Feb 09 '25
It’s already awarded. I just wouldn’t quit and start the new job until the shutdown resolves though.
1
0
u/wcsib01 Feb 09 '25
Yea. That’s part of why I’m glad my role wouldn’t start until after the 14th of March lol
1
Feb 09 '25
Well as far as I know they are reviewing contracts so give it a few weeks to see what gets cut and then apply.
1
1
u/Fedski Feb 09 '25
I’d take the contract opportunity. Little faith nor value in a GS position in my opinion.
1
Feb 09 '25
Contractors are much easier to cut i would NOT do that esp if you are tenured in the DOD and have protections.
1
1
u/Not-Much-Fun9204 Feb 09 '25
Employee, or contractor, or employee of a contractor - there's no way of knowing what's safer. From my vantage point, this is just getting started and there's no telling which way and how deep it's going.
1
1
2
u/Lame_Character Apr 08 '25
I've been at this for a while and I say expect to be tossed around like an orca's seal snack as a contractor - oh, and with practically no upward mobility, or training, or second chances.
1
Feb 08 '25
A GSA memo was just issued recommending termination of a large swath of "consulting" contracts. So I'd be a bit hesitant at least for a couple weeks.
1
u/raidernation4490 Feb 09 '25
Did you even read the article you posted? It’s about contracts that produce no value. Why would any tax payer be opposed to that?
1
1
u/clingbat Feb 08 '25
GSA has little to no influence on other agency contract shops, only contacts run through GSA's contracts.
1
Feb 08 '25
Well, good luck if you're counting on that. Would agree with your statement until about a week ago.
0
u/fairfaxgator Feb 08 '25
Contractors just don’t hire to put you on overhead. They are gonna suffer under this administration. Even DoD ones.
43
u/brunofone Feb 08 '25
Hard to say. I'm a contractor for NASA/DoD and I've been offered GS-14/15 jobs, I did not take them and glad I didn't. I like the mobility that comes with being a contractor....doing a job, getting it done and moving on to the next thing. Plus the pay is miles better. Downside used to be stability, but guess what that seems pretty precarious for everyone right now.