The July 20 Washington Post article questioning the intelligence community for tapping the vast array of private-sector talent to meet immediate intelligence needs after 9/11 glosses over the government’s most basic need: to respond with agility to changing threat environments.But it does not gloss over less factual points. Namely, the second installment leads with the idea that government contractors, and the employees who work for them, are money grubbing profiteers only interested in serving their shareholders and with no interest in doing the public good.
Really? So the eight contractors represented by stars on the wall of honor at CIA headquarters risked and lost their lives, not because they loved their country and not because they wanted to protect it, but because they were greedy? That’s not right. But given how this information is framed in the story, it appears that the Post’s reporters and editors disagree. To quote directly from the article:
"The intent of the memorial is to publicly honor the courage of those who died in the line of duty, but it also conceals a deeper story about government in the post-9/11 era: Eight of the 22 were not CIA officers at all. They were private contractors. To ensure that the country's most sensitive duties are carried out only by people loyal above all to the nation's interest, federal rules say contractors may not perform what are called "inherently government functions." But they do, all the time and in every intelligence and counterterrorism agency, according to a two-year investigation by The Washington Post. What started as a temporary fix in response to the terrorist attacks has turned into a dependency that calls into question whether the federal workforce includes too many people obligated to shareholders rather than the public interest."
The real story, which the Post glosses over, is that these professionals are highly skilled in areas where talent is in short supply and in high demand across the global economy, even in areas unrelated to intelligence. As a result, competition for this talent is fierce and the salaries earned are outside the government’s salary caps and thus beyond its reach. Should we begrudge skilled professionals for wanting to earn what they’re worth?
Those concerned that private sector profit motives can sometimes conflict with the government's best interest, ignore the fact that a well-written, well-managed contract—the terms of which are set by the government—enables the government to drive and incentivize behaviors that are in its best interests and to penalize behaviors that are not by withholding payments and terminating or recompeting the contract. Indeed, the most significant interests for companies are not their immediate profits, but the sustainability of their business relationships with the government. They are powerfully motivated to ensure high quality and ethical performance since their failure to meet those objectives could well cost them both immediate penalties and opportunities for future business.
The thousands of contractor employees supporting federal agencies make great sacrifices for this country and, as demonstrated in the story, some have made the ultimate sacrifice because they want to see our country safe and secure, not because they want to earn a buck. But if they do both in the process, so be it.
