Contract Maintenance

[pourts]

Can someone explain or provide a good link to get me schooled up on how contract maintenance saves money? I am not doubting it, it just seems counter intuitive that the actual employee gets paid more, but it saves the service money. Is it mainly a recruiting/ size of the force issue, to create a shorter "tail"? Is it because the military is just inherently that inefficient that its cheaper to have contractors do it? Or is it originally designed to be a short term fix that we just kept around?

I'm not talking about Blackwater or anything like that, or serving chow or mowing the lawns. Mainly maintenance and PR.

Also, what are the main differences between contractors, and civilian GS employees? Besides the fact that one works for the DOD and the other for Lockheed/ whoever.

This thread is related, but I didn't want to stir up an old rumor that was not true to begin with:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134884&highlight=contract+maintenance

 

[BigIron]

Can someone explain or provide a good link to get me schooled up on how contract maintenance saves money? I am not doubting it, it just seems counter intuitive that the actual employee gets paid more, but it saves the service money. Is it mainly a recruiting/ size of the force issue, to create a shorter "tail"? Is it because the military is just inherently that inefficient that its cheaper to have contractors do it? Or is it originally designed to be a short term fix that we just kept around?

I'm not talking about Blackwater or anything like that, or serving chow or mowing the lawns. Mainly maintenance and PR.

Also, what are the main differences between contractors, and civilian GS employees? Besides the fact that one works for the DOD and the other for Lockheed/ whoever.

This thread is related, but I didn't want to stir up an old rumor that was not true to begin with:
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134884&highlight=contract+maintenance

It might not just be a matter of cost savings. It also has to do with guaranteed manning issues. There are a finite # of qualfied (not just rated Sailors) who can work on the aircraft. If you lose one, it may take months to replace him/her because the way the Navy manning plan works. That potentially decreases readiness. If you use contractors, you pay them a certain dollar amount for the contract; they come to work on time and maintain the aircraft as specified. Sometimes contractors only do special inspections or mods. Sometimes (like the VTs/HTs) they do everything. I'd say the majority of the contractor force are military retirees, or folks who have been in the military.

 

[Gatordev]

It also allows for the Navy to not have to pay the extras, like housing, medical/dental, etc. They leave that up to the contractor to pay.

 

[pourts]

It also allows for the Navy to not have to pay the extras, like housing, medical/dental, etc. They leave that up to the contractor to pay.

I am assuming that the total compensation package of the contractor (salary, health insurance, etc) is better than that of the sailor (salary, BAH, health care, shopping at the commisary, etc) who is doing the same maintenance job. I am assuming the prior military guys who do it aren't taking a pay cut. Am I wrong in that assumption? So my question is if the civilian compensation is higher and yet it is cheaper to have the contractors do it, how is that possible?

 

[pourts]

It might not just be a matter of cost savings. It also has to do with guaranteed manning issues. There are a finite # of qualfied (not just rated Sailors) who can work on the aircraft. If you lose one, it may take months to replace him/her because the way the Navy manning plan works. That potentially decreases readiness. If you use contractors, you pay them a certain dollar amount for the contract; they come to work on time and maintain the aircraft as specified. Sometimes contractors only do special inspections or mods. Sometimes (like the VTs/HTs) they do everything. I'd say the majority of the contractor force are military retirees, or folks who have been in the military.

So it may not necessarily be cheaper, but it yields a more reliable output? Interesting. I would have thought there would be a greater risk from civilian maintainers quitting or striking, rather than from not being able to quickly replace an enlisted maintainer.

I guess maybe the other reason they have it in VT and HT is that those a/c are tracom only, and it would be expensive to retrain enlisted on a T/M/S that they would never see in the fleet. But, don't we do that anyway when maintainers switch between aircraft throughout their careers?

 

[Hozer]

Sadly, it is not working that way.

It's all about the bucks as Dev said earlier. Here the folks get paid well, but the Nav doesn't pay medical, housing, etc.
Plus, they literally work bankers hours. They are also very efficient since this is their specialty, less man hours req'd. The Contractor is always trying to shave bucks, so they'll wait to do a Daily inspection until the last minute, so it'll be good through the cross country weekend.
Some things that wouldn't slide in a fleet squadron, "slide" here.
Plus these planes don't require the constant corrosion maintenance that fleet aircraft require. Dev can testify to how much maintenance time is actually devoted to just basic anti-corrosion (grade 4 anyone?) and routine pm work which would cost mega-bucks because a labor hour is just that.

I'm not saying it's bad, just different. And nuggets have no interaction with blue shirts which is a shame, but I'm old.

But, I'm just a hinge IUT, so what the hell do I know?

 

[Gatordev]

I guess maybe the other reason they have it in VT and HT is that those a/c are tracom only, and it would be expensive to retrain enlisted on a T/M/S that they would never see in the fleet. But, don't we do that anyway when maintainers switch between aircraft throughout their careers?

There used to be Navy maintainers in the Tracom, but nowadays, there just aren't enough bodies to go around. Obviously the devil is in the details, but striking probably causes some issues w/in the contract. If they quit, they quit, but the jobs are pretty sought after, which is why you see the same people at the job over the years. There were plenty of faces I recognized from when I was a stud when I came back as an IP, so they desire the job.

I am assuming that the total compensation package of the contractor (salary, health insurance, etc) is better than that of the sailor (salary, BAH, health care, shopping at the commisary, etc) who is doing the same maintenance job. I am assuming the prior military guys who do it aren't taking a pay cut. Am I wrong in that assumption? So my question is if the civilian compensation is higher and yet it is cheaper to have the contractors do it, how is that possible?

I don't know, but big picture-wise, it's not the Navy's concern. They (basically) concerned w/ the bottom line and number of assets available. If the contractor can't meet the numbers, then they get hammered by the Navy. When I first came back to Whiting, L3 didn't have nearly enough lineman to go around. After Sikorsky took over, I noticed a bunch more new faces on the line. When I made a comment about it to Issue, she immediately responded that it was because "...this contractor understands our needs..." and that to meet the contract, they needed more bodies. How Sikorsky does that, I don't know.

Obviously it goes both ways. When the Navy wants more than what's in the contract, the contract folks can raise the flag and for quite some time at Whiting, the demand was exceeding what the contract (and reality) could provide. For those that were around in the spring of '08, that's when issuing of aircraft switched to TIMS and everyone had plane waits. It wasn't the fault of the maintainers nor TIMS (per se), it was because TIMS was forcing the contractor to follow the rules rather than just do it the Navy/Marine Corps way and just get it done. As a result, TIMS was adjusted to a more realistic expectation of airplanes and the waits decreased.

Sorry for the history lesson, but just an example of how it can work in each others' favor. The overall requirement though is holding the contractor to the contract, which was apparently an issue down in Corpus for some time, based on my limited experience with them as well as hearing from Corpus IPs.

 

[Gatordev]

Words...

But, I'm just a hinge IUT, so what the hell do I know?

All true stuff. Your post beat me to it. From my experience up at Whiting, things ran relatively smoothly except during those week or two long periods when they were renegotiating the contract. Sounds like that's not always the case down at NPA.

 

[Flash]

Can someone explain or provide a good link to get me schooled up on how contract maintenance saves money? I am not doubting it, it just seems counter intuitive that the actual employee gets paid more, but it saves the service money. Is it mainly a recruiting/ size of the force issue, to create a shorter "tail"? Is it because the military is just inherently that inefficient that its cheaper to have contractors do it? Or is it originally designed to be a short term fix that we just kept around?

It saves a lot of money in the long term, and a big part of the reason (something that I either missed or am surprised that no one else pointed out) is that there are a lot less of them. Since they generally have more experience and the planes they are working on have much less equipment (very little if any mission equipment) they can get by with much less people. In total, while they pay the individual people more they are paying a lot less in the end for the whole package.

Also, what are the main differences between contractors, and civilian GS employees? Besides the fact that one works for the DOD and the other for Lockheed/ whoever.

The government still has to pay for all of the benefits for civilian employees. There are also a lot of rules that come with GS employees, some good and some bad. In many cases, in the long run, it is smarter to use contract employees. In the case of TRACOM maintenance, I think they are the better choice.

 

[bert]

A lot of the answer comes down to different "colors" of money.

(And if you don't already know it, the explanation of different "colors" of money is long-winded: https://akss.dau.mil/askaprof-akss/qdetail2.aspx?cgiQuestionID=20506&cgiSubjectAreaID=15 wade through and drill down the links if you dare - the link is to explain colors of money in general, not this specific situation).

By shifting budget off personnel accounts we help make the most of our authorized end strength.

 

[Huggy Bear]

No barracks, no chow halls, smaller PSD, less legal issues, fewer masts, fewer duties and watches to man, less medical required, smaller gyms, etc. - no wonder it's cheaper to just hire a contractor for the navy.

 

[Flash]

No barracks, no chow halls, smaller PSD, less legal issues, fewer masts, fewer duties and watches to man, less medical required, smaller gyms, etc. - no wonder it's cheaper to just hire a contractor for the navy.

That depends on how much you are paying the contractor. In some areas, it is cheaper to stick to government. But in the case of TRACOM, I think contractor maintenance is the way to go.

 

[pourts]

A lot of the answer comes down to different "colors" of money.

(And if you don't already know it, the explanation of different "colors" of money is long-winded: https://akss.dau.mil/askaprof-akss/qdetail2.aspx?cgiQuestionID=20506&cgiSubjectAreaID=15 wade through and drill down the links if you dare - the link is to explain colors of money in general, not this specific situation).

By shifting budget off personnel accounts we help make the most of our authorized end strength.

OK, thanks everyone. Sounds like there are lots of factors that go into the decision.

When they start downloading more FRS training to the TRACOM, will they need more enlisted maintainers for the NVGs and other systems?

 

[AeroMaintenance]

With the contract maintenance you don't have to worry about retirement or disability, that's up to the company who they work for.

You also don't lose time with them going to the rifle range, collateral duties, gas chamber, PT, inspections, drivers ed, etc.

If a Marine/Sailor screws up and say they pop on a piss test, we've all seen how long it takes before they're gone. On top of waiting months to get them out they're not allowed to work on the aircraft. If a contractor screws up they can be fired on the spot and replaced.

You don't have to spend two years (one year in school and about one year to get them proficient on the aircraft) training contractors. That training and time costs a lot of money. When you hire a contractor they are ready to go the day they're hired.

Don't look at the day to day cost or hourly cost, look at the long run. A 10 year military mechanic will cost much more than spending the money for 10 years on a contractor.

 

[phrogdriver]

Also, in regards to facility maintenance, cleaning, mowing lawns, and the like we train Sailors and Marines to be warfighters, not lawn jockeys. While there's always some scut work to be done, having a guy enlist to fix planes and having him mow the road median instead would corrode enlistment and retention.