The Compelling Rappelling Stories of a Government Contractor

They’re at it again. The government contractors who rappelled down the side of the Washington Monument and the National Cathedral to assess the damage from the August earthquake are now scaling the Air Force Memorial to check for cracks and corrosion.

Engineers from the “difficult access team” at engineering firm WJE (not a PSC member) are a shining example of what contracting looks like when it’s done right (which is 99 percent of the time).

These important inspections highlight why government and industry must work in partnership to do great things and why contracting can be smarter than hiring in house staff. In this case, the high cost of keeping a band of rappelling engineers on staff would be prohibitive, especially when one considers the rare and temporary need at hand. Although some who say contractor billing rates are too high would disagree, the duration of the work is an important factor in determining when to hire a contractor and when to hire an employee. It’s far more taxpayer friendly to hire a short-term contractor to do specialized work, like rappelling down the side of a national landmark, than it is to hire that person on permanently and thus making the taxpayers foot the bill for pension and lifelong health care costs, even if the short-term contractor costs are “higher.”

But such smart partnerships are in jeopardy. If Congress chooses to arbitrarily further limit the costs contractors can reimburse for salaries of their best, brightest and bravest employees, it may be impossible for companies to do work with the government, especially when it comes to high-skill or high-risk work.



Photo via nps.gov.

Great Moments in Contracting History: Riding the (Micro)Wave

A magnetron.

Recently, the Wired blog Danger Room published a rundown of nifty gadgets developed with government funds that also changed the way we live our everyday lives. While many know that GPS and the Internet were spun from government-funded ideas, did you know that the humble kitchen appliance known as the microwave was the result of a government contract?

The microwave, it turns out, was an unhappy accident turned happy, as Danger Room explains:

Percy Spencer, an engineer with the defense giant Raytheon, thought he was building [a] magnetron for radar sets. Suddenly he discovered his pants were a sticky mess. A Mr. Goodbar he kept in his pocket had melted from the heat emitted from his active radar set. From that embarrassing accident came a multimillion dollar industry — and one of the great twin blessings and curses of the American kitchen.

Photo via.

International Development Spending is Smart Contracting

Smart.

With the congressional super committee and others mulling the return on investment for various government programs, there has been a misguided call to cut foreign aid and other international development assistance. It seems nobody is really asking, or bothering to answer, the question: What do we get for the development dollar? The answer: jobs, economic growth, and security abroad—and at home.

An October Professional Services Council white paper for Congress and other stakeholders explains how international development assistance, often delivered through contracts with U.S. firms, does more than create strong foreign economies and governments. The white paper explains that foreign assistance benefits Americans by creating American jobs, establishing strong and stable allies, and opening new markets to U.S. companies.

Among the key highlights noted in the white paper:

• More than 10 million U.S. jobs are tied to exports and U.S. companies gain access to the growing markets of the developing world via international assistance and development spending. (p. 3)

• U.S. aid has allowed countries such as South Korea to successfully “graduate” from recipient to donor nation and cemented the United States’ role as a favored trade partner. (p. 3)

• Studies show that every $1 spent through trade assistance generates $53 in U.S. exports. (p. 6)

• As troops drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, every $4 spent by State will save $45 in Defense Department spending. (p. 6)

With that return on investment, we can’t afford not to continue foreign assistance.