| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| ODNI Dispels Myths about Contractors, Intelligence Community |
| 2010-07-21 |
| In response to yesterday’s first installment of The Washington Post’s “Top Secret America” series on the Intelligence Community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a document dispelling some common myths surrounding the IC’s use of and relationship with contractors. In the document, ODNI outlines some widely held misconceptions about the IC and contractors, including insufficient oversight of contractors, private contractors inappropriately performing “inherently governmental” functions and contractors costing more than their government counterparts. Addressing the belief that there is a lack of proper oversight of contractors, ODNI wrote how the IC in 2006 instituted its first-ever, annual inventory of core contract personnel, resulting in an intelligence policy directive. With four specific objectives, the directive reinforces the prohibition on the use of contract personnel to conduct inherently governmental activities; prescribes the circumstances in which contract personnel may be used to support IC missions and functions; and beginning in 2011, requires IC elements to plan for and project the number of contract personnel they require. On the myth about private contractors carrying out “inherently governmental” activities, ODNI said the IC neither condones or permits contract personnel to perform inherently governmental intelligence work. However, core contract personnel may perform certain activities, such as collection and analysis. “[H]owever, it is what you do with that analysis, who makes that decision, and who oversees the work that constitute the “inherently governmental” functions,” ODNI stated. “Allocating funds, prioritizing workload, and making critical decisions remain strictly within the purview of government employees.” Addressing the topic of cost, ODNI acknowledged that while contractors on average are more expensive than their government counterparts, there are certain occasions when hiring contractors is more economical. “[I]n some cases, contractor personnel are less costly, especially if the work is short-term in nature, easily available commercially, or requires unique expertise for immediate needs,” ODNI wrote. “Overall, core contractors enable the Intelligence Community to rapidly expand to meet short-term mission needs or fulfill nonrecurring or temporary assignments, and then shrink or shift resources as the threat environment changes.” In addition to publishing the myth-dispelling document, ODNI also released a Q&A-formatted pdf addressing the post-9/11 IC, which answers questions on whether there been a proliferation of new intelligence offices, why there still are numerous problems related to information sharing, and what ODNI has accomplished so far. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #7 Butthen who would the government get to deploy to these crap holes overseas or surge here in CONUS to do the thier bidding? You'd be surprised how many GS's are over in Afghanistan (not including the dozen or so former corpsmen that got called up from the IRR). But then again - I'm with the Marines. The army does things differently. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-07-21 19:48 |
| #6 If a problem does exist, it has been my experience over the years that it probably originates not with the contractor (who can be terminated in an instant without cause), but rather the unionized federal employee. The solution is rather simple. Just do away with the civilian contractors. Wouldn't it be better to terminate the union before it destroys the Union? |
| Posted by: JFM 2010-07-21 08:26 |
| #5 There's enough of both types to supply plenty of evidence for any argument. In fact lots of them fit into both categories at different times in their careers. Sort of like any large number of people. However, unions have had a uniformly deleterious effect on every industry they have organized. Those in the government should be cognizant of that fact as they allow the power of union thugs and goons to infiltrate their formerly secure if only moderately rewarding sinecures. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-07-21 07:03 |
| #4 Upon reflection, the comments above may be a mischaracterization of the many dedicated Federal employees in our system. To those I apologize. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-21 05:30 |
| #3 There has never been a great deal of love lost between DoD, career, unionized federal employees and intelligence community (IC) contractors. Oftentimes, contractors have acquired their skills and security clearances through professional, uniformed service in the one of the branches of the military. Even though many DoD federal employees began as members of the military, they sometimes view the uniformed military with contempt. If a problem does exist, it has been my experience over the years that it probably originates not with the contractor (who can be terminated in an instant without cause), but rather the unionized federal employee. The solution is rather simple. Just do away with the civilian contractors. But then who would the government get to deploy to these crap holes overseas or surge here in CONUS to do the thier bidding? I'm afriad obese, lazy, unionized feather merchants who can't or won't deploy, can't be granted or hold the required clearance, or fail to pass a polygraph or refuse to take a urinalysis won't be much assistance. Here at Tara we permit the field hands eat under the trees beyond the barn where they can't be seen or heard. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-21 02:42 |
| #2 Lawyers, guns and money. Leakers = money |
| Posted by: newc 2010-07-21 01:22 |
| #1 YOU leakers have me pissed off. You may be hearing from my lawyer - aholes. You are the direct opposite of intelligence. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-07-21 01:17 |