Contractors Pay In The Military
Contractor pay is an issue that continues to generate controversy. Various reports indicate some contractors make three to five times as much as uniformed personnel with some making more than the Secretary of Defense makes annually. However, most contractors do not make such staggering salaries local national and TCN earn much less. Most reports show that even with higher salaries it is still cheaper to hire contractors because of the long-term cost associated with benefits to service members, and accommodation for them. There is also the cost of training troops a cost that is not present with contractors. The exact saving cost associated with hiring contractors is difficult to determine. There is also no cost benefit analysis indicating
…show more content…
After decades of downsizing the military, the number of contractors increased to compensate. According to Privatized Military Operations DoD entered into over 3,000 contracts with an estimated value of $300 billion. Contracts continued to increase by 31% by 2007. The Gansler report showed that while the dollar value of Army contracts increased 331% the number of contract actions increased 654%. There was no corresponding increase in personnel to provide oversight of correlating to the expansion. This type of transactional environment favors renegotiation, 56% defense procurement contract renegotiated with a 4.6% increase in price per contract, with some reaching 30% at times. The use of fixed price contracts, that shifts the burden of contract risk to the contractor, will likely increase the price of the contract to offset the assumption of additional …show more content…
Political leader upon deciding to reduce the size of the military force also need to reduce the objectives of our national security strategy. The force produced from downsizing need to represent the operations it is required to undertake for the nation within the anticipated environment. In essence, when the nation restricts military end-strength as a discretionary expenditure, it must also restrict military adventurism and over reliance on the military instrument of national power. Clausewitz related, “The more restricted the strength, the more restricted its goal must be.” However, to preserve true military strength requires military ethos not just numbers. A contracted force with a ration of one-to-one, currently operating, endangers this ethos and the nation’s legitimacy. In a report to Congress, military analysts believe contractors tend to commit more abuses and other atrocities than military troops. Analysts believe the military culture, which focuses on mission success and not profit or contract considerations; make it less likely uniformed personnel will act inappropriately. These analysts and department of defense (DOD) officials believe lax contractor oversight contributes to contractor abuses. Leaders need the courage to mobilize the country to bring more Americans into the military serving the national covenant, not a
After decades of downsizing the military, the number of contractors increased to compensate. According to Privatized Military Operations DoD entered into over 3,000 contracts with an estimated value of $300 billion. Contracts continued to increase by 31% by 2007. The Gansler report showed that while the dollar value of Army contracts increased 331% the number of contract actions increased 654%. There was no corresponding increase in personnel to provide oversight of correlating to the expansion. This type of transactional environment favors renegotiation, 56% defense procurement contract renegotiated with a 4.6% increase in price per contract, with some reaching 30% at times. The use of fixed price contracts, that shifts the burden of contract risk to the contractor, will likely increase the price of the contract to offset the assumption of additional …show more content…
Political leader upon deciding to reduce the size of the military force also need to reduce the objectives of our national security strategy. The force produced from downsizing need to represent the operations it is required to undertake for the nation within the anticipated environment. In essence, when the nation restricts military end-strength as a discretionary expenditure, it must also restrict military adventurism and over reliance on the military instrument of national power. Clausewitz related, “The more restricted the strength, the more restricted its goal must be.” However, to preserve true military strength requires military ethos not just numbers. A contracted force with a ration of one-to-one, currently operating, endangers this ethos and the nation’s legitimacy. In a report to Congress, military analysts believe contractors tend to commit more abuses and other atrocities than military troops. Analysts believe the military culture, which focuses on mission success and not profit or contract considerations; make it less likely uniformed personnel will act inappropriately. These analysts and department of defense (DOD) officials believe lax contractor oversight contributes to contractor abuses. Leaders need the courage to mobilize the country to bring more Americans into the military serving the national covenant, not a