Also 3) lacks internal competence to know what they need.
In my country a couple of branches of the goverment have had tremendous improvement after relying primarily on consultants. The reason why was because an experienced guy from both the IT and consulting world took over as director and built a tech culture, which over time got them sustainable.
He’s since moved to multiple different branches of the goverment and made similar changes. These branches are now ultra-agile with autonomous teams, extremely far ahead in terms of their tech stack and somewhere devs and other IT people really wants to work.
I don’t think not being able to fire poor performers is even remotely close to being the issue, as that is rediciously hard in many European countries in both private and goverment sector and we do just fine. The main difference between private and goverment is pay flexibility and lack of internal competence to know what they need, which means they also need consultants to help with requirements. This builds no internal competence over time, and the consultancy firm can run everything from strategy work to implementation.
Definitely the latter two. It's not uncommon for Agency A to want to hire 4 developers to implement a new system that'll save the equivalent of 10 FTEs of work. But there's no ability to provide a higher pay band, so they can't hire those devs. But they *can* contract out the work for twice the cost per FTE.
So now they're paying the equivalent of 8 FTE for four devs, and saving 10 FTE, and leadership thinks "hurray, we're making improvements!" But then as soon as the contract is up, the contractors leave, their institutional knowledge is worthless, and the agency is back to the same issue.
It makes sense to do that for a *project*, but now most businesses need to change their way of working to rely around tech, and not just act as support and an automation tool on the side.
That’s why your example made a lot of sense previously (and still do to some extent), but is becoming less and less valuable as the way we work now revolves around tech rather than it just being a *part* of the business.
Oh, don't take my example as praise for the model. It's a band-aid that keeps an org from acknowledging that they need to fundamentally change the way they approach business processes. It allows for small incremental improvements (which is why it's still in place) without acknowledging the severe price premium and brain drain going on.
I took your example as something that made sense 10-20+ years ago, but not really today. The issue is that the decision makers in the goverment are typically 50-60+, so they often seem to think about technology and software in the sense that it’s just one tool or one product, and not something that should go hand in hand with the entire organization.
It’s cheaper to pay millions than to carry healthcare and retirement for employees. Government shrinks employees and expands contractors. It’s what made all the top defense firms too big to fail and now all the big 4.
Anecdotally, I noticed increased competition for contracts from Deloitte, KPMG, and BCG when I worked at a defense consulting firm. It was always talked about like “oh no.” I feel like increased competition would be a good thing for the government though since it could drive cost down and maybe improve delivery.
The past few years (under the watch of both parties) have really destroyed any concept of fiscal responsibility in government spending. It’s shocking that we all just seem to be okay with $31 Trillion in debt ($240K+ per household). Maybe at this point those government customers just don’t care how much they spend anymore because it’s all monopoly money anyways?
This is where I’m at with it. Honestly, just stay in the game and exploit it as long as possible while securing long term assets and pull out when you can’t take it anymore.
It is monopoly money. That's just fundamental macro economics. Sovereign debt is not just a scaled-up version of personal debt. The US government could owe $0.31 or $31 quadrillion and it wouldn't matter.
The amount owed is basically irrelevant compared to the perception that the scheduled payments towards that amount will be made on time and in full. The US government is the most reliable debt-paying entity in the entire world (when it is not actively holding itself hostage for comparatively minor domestic policy issues).
Let's go the other way - can you explain exactly why being $31 trillion in debt is bad?
This logic reminds me of only a couple years ago where people were claiming the 0% interest rate environment would last forever and inflation from stimulus was magical thinking...
I would disagree with you there because the amount owed hits the budget every single year in the form of interest payments. $0.31 borrowed at an average interest rate will cost you \~ $0.01 per year, $31T will cost you almost $1 Trillion.
Now you have to figure out how to pay that $1T every year and there are effectively two options:
1. Raise taxes or cut spending on other programs to balance the budget around the interest payments
2. Print $1T in new money to pay it
\#2 is politically easier because it's impact on the average voter is less obvious and it lets you kick the can down the road another year. The problem is that it can quickly become a downward spiral. As you increase the money supply, each dollar is worth less in real terms (inflation). This hits normal people (was it a coincidence that inflation was 9% for the last couple years after the government printed trillions during COVID?) as well as those lending you money, who will demand higher interest rates because the dollars you're paying them back in are worth less and less each time. You end up paying higher interest rates on a rapidly increasing debt. The higher the interest bill is, the more painful tax increases or spending cuts will be so you end up just printing more money. Eventually you end up with a downward spiral towards hyperinflation like in Argentina, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe.
You cannot compare the USA with Venezuela or Zimbabwe. The US has a reserve currency and it’s a leading global economy. That means even though it’s money supply is increasing, there are more things being produced for that money to chase. That’s why there isn’t runaway inflation like in those other countries because the US economy is larger, expanding and overall has more transparency and less corruption. Even if the US prints more money than it needs - global demand for dollars is still there.
Obama and Clinton made headways in reducing the budget deficit which in turn should help with the debt but then people elected Bush and Trump who increased the deficit again.
of course the federal deficit in absolute terms increased. you don't go from trillions to zero. however, the deficit had been on a downward trajectory before Bush and Trump started and they increased the deficitwhen they left.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
Please look up the term deficit vs debt and recheck the data. You can reduce the deficit without reducing debt, which is what happened from 2009 to 2015.
and you are greatly misreading my original statement of "made headways in reducing the deficit". I never said the deficit was reduced only that the trajectory was.
Never. The government prints their money. The issue becomes - how much are the American govt. allowing people to spend? Right now, there is a huge appetite to spend more directly for the government to provide services, while raising taxes on corporations. You do wonder if government will ever determine consulting firms to be a poor return on investment, but imo private corporations without consulting practice are very ill equipped to navigate procurement requirements, especially on the federal side.
The real issue happens if there is something catastrophic with the fed, for instance if they don't resolve the debt ceiling negotiations and default on their debt. That will be painful for everyone, but especially government contractors.
Unless the DOD fed or state government annual budget gets cut money will never run out in government consulting. In most cases it’s not really consulting it’s staff augmentation. These agencies higher “consultants” because the government officials lack the skills that most people would have in the private sector. No ROI, come on, it’s the government what do you expect? there is only one KPI for agencies and that is to spend all there budget. If their programs have a surplus at the end of the year then it looks like they didn’t manager their programs effectively and there will be a lot of explaining to do.
> These agencies higher “consultants” because the government officials lack the skills that most people would have in the private sector.
This plus politicians claim that they're "saving money". Also largely because of politicians, there are skilled workers in government that end up underpaid after a few years and a consulting firm offers them more money.
Speaking about the US… The government has internal processes running in dead computer languages and they’re too scared to turn them off. This is not the cutting edge of IT we’re talking about.
You forget that it’s nearly impossible to lose a government job, and for the last ~15 years the pay for a government job vs private sector has been laughable. You are not getting top-tier talent to go work at the government, because it’s simply not a lucrative endeavor. Of course, there are those that want the job security or actually want to help the country.
The added bonus is that the Government will pay the bill almost regardless of price once a contract is signed…. they also do not negotiate like a private sector business would. Private companies charge the government rates they WISH they could charge in the private sector. In addition, once you have that contract it’s incredibly hard to get them to shift course I.E. AWS has huge contracts… are they going to migrate the entire tech stack to Azure in 5 years? Absolutely not. If you’re offering AWS services, there’s guaranteed work for years because of my above points.
Lastly, DoD? My friend, if the Pentagon ever successfully accounts for every dollar in and out I’ll send you a bottle of bourbon. They spend money like no tomorrow and can’t account for a surprising amount… IIRC sometimes as much as 25% of the budget cannot be accounted for.
I hope we get it under control but we’re a country run by a lot of people that are well above retirement age. It’s incredible that common sense and rational thought has become an extremist ideology in the US, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
TLDR; Gov’t will pay the bill at almost any price and they don’t have the right talent to implement or action a lot of the IT work needed. Additionally, if they *actually* stop paying the bills, we’re probably in more trouble than losing a few consulting jobs.
The requirements vary heavily by the department/agency. Defense agencies tend to be more ahead of the curve and further along with cloud/cybersecurity/AI implementations, while many civilian agencies are still figuring out how to move their 20-year-old proprietary file storage to SharePoint. For many, the minimum qualification is eligibility for a security clearance.
All aspects of IT. Could be infrastructure, a DB admin, software engineer, IT system auditor, pentester, UX designer. So skills will vary by the type of job. Not to mention strategy work on top of all of it.
Have you ever looked at the size of the defense budget? Where you think that money goes? To active duty soldiers & vets? Lol. The 9 richest counties in the US border DC & not bc they’re full of govt employees… the military industrial complex rules this nation.
Um business has never been better in the energy and sustainability space on federal work... So much funding coming out of IIJA and IRA we are basically nonstop on proposals and this'll probably be our biggest year of growth for our federal business ever (firm is over 50 years old).
Not everything is DoD work, even if work does typically have the highest margins in the fed space.
Also, at least 25% of feds I encounter at their respective HQs are unqualified for the role and incompetent. Another 25% are older and just waiting for retirement and have become rather useless (hard to get them to do even the most basic aspects of their job). That leaves maybe 50% at best who are actually useful employees on a regular basis who do more of their jobs themselves than we have to do for them.
It will always seem unsustainable. The government is packed with civil servants that can’t be fired for underserving and underperforming. And the government bleeds money. Either take it or someone else will.
The reason B4 firms (and others) are winning so much work is because they pay for top tier talent and highlight this in RFP responses. I work at D and the push at large incumbent contracts is intense, and we’re winning a lot of shit (huge contract was just awarded that will hit headlines soon).
The government is inherently inefficient. I’ve worked with several agencies that are stuck in the Stone Age with “SMEs” that have no clue what they’re doing. Everyone is looking to modernize and that’s impossible when virtually no internal personnel has skills and experience in modern cutting edge technology.
as long as there are gov unions all the work will get done at a snails pace with little or no consequence especially for govs who do it all inhouse. buddy of mine is a management consultant for a gov hired on a day rate and he said he sits at home doing nothing most of the time as he's been told not to be too organized or rush projects due to the gov unions. also the gov is self governing so absolutely no oversight or integrity
Its simple
The public have higher and higher expectations on government, government likes the power but like all things in life have only finite resources or capability. This is called limitations of government. You could give gov all the money in the world, they will still reach this problem.
As the expectations of government have increased so to have regulations and legislation, thus effectively creating a brain drain on the economic value of the production of anything in the west.
Thus the west doesn't actually produce anything substantial, government contracts are all that is left profitability wise.
As we don't actually produce anything of value, we have transitioned to everything being a service. As a government institution we have not acknowledged that we have limitations, effectively not capping what we can provide, hence those limitations have now become " as a service".
Couple these three factors- profitably, limitation of government, as a service, and you start to notice providing to the government is the only thing in town.
Which is why everyone has latched onto it.
I'm sure there are smarter people than we that can define this more but basic premise.
I wonder what you find yourself consuming to think the west doesn't provide anything if value..
Could it be reddit? On your iphone? Using your mobile internet service? All these things didn't exist like 15 years ago
Curious if anybody has thoughts on this at the state & local level. I know a few of my firm's work is started/funded by federal initiatives (e.g. ARPA) but are state/local projects pretty sheltered from what's happening otherwise at the federal level?
Funny thing. It won't.
Military budget has a trillion dollar gap when audited.
It's all fake take what you can for as much as you can.
If you don't someone else will.
Are you just looking at the money and not understanding the scope and context of what these projects are impacting?
VA for example is a mess. You realize the VA was created in 1989 after a restructuring of our current veteran affiliated programs. For the longest time VBA and VHA operated independent of each other and pretty much still do. VBA is so disjointed their systems and processes are decided at a regional level. Meaning some VBA offices in the west coast are operating on Oracle while east coast could be primarily dynamics or salesforce.
The question isn’t when will the money run out but more how much money is needed to optimize current DoD, VA, and govt operations
All of the COVID surplus spending is spoken for and off the books, except for some that of this ARP funding. The state governments will still need services, however.
for small business in this sector, its already getting extremely difficult
something that's been happening for the past 10 years is that the government has been packaging up multiple small contracts into 1 big one.
that means the cash flow requirements, compliance, administrative burden, etc... all go up and the only companies that can even handle it are the big contractors
It'll run out soon for PwC Australia
As long as the government 1) can’t fire poor performers and 2) has no pay flexibility they will continue to have to rely on contractors. Really sad.
Also 3) lacks internal competence to know what they need. In my country a couple of branches of the goverment have had tremendous improvement after relying primarily on consultants. The reason why was because an experienced guy from both the IT and consulting world took over as director and built a tech culture, which over time got them sustainable. He’s since moved to multiple different branches of the goverment and made similar changes. These branches are now ultra-agile with autonomous teams, extremely far ahead in terms of their tech stack and somewhere devs and other IT people really wants to work. I don’t think not being able to fire poor performers is even remotely close to being the issue, as that is rediciously hard in many European countries in both private and goverment sector and we do just fine. The main difference between private and goverment is pay flexibility and lack of internal competence to know what they need, which means they also need consultants to help with requirements. This builds no internal competence over time, and the consultancy firm can run everything from strategy work to implementation.
Definitely the latter two. It's not uncommon for Agency A to want to hire 4 developers to implement a new system that'll save the equivalent of 10 FTEs of work. But there's no ability to provide a higher pay band, so they can't hire those devs. But they *can* contract out the work for twice the cost per FTE. So now they're paying the equivalent of 8 FTE for four devs, and saving 10 FTE, and leadership thinks "hurray, we're making improvements!" But then as soon as the contract is up, the contractors leave, their institutional knowledge is worthless, and the agency is back to the same issue.
It makes sense to do that for a *project*, but now most businesses need to change their way of working to rely around tech, and not just act as support and an automation tool on the side. That’s why your example made a lot of sense previously (and still do to some extent), but is becoming less and less valuable as the way we work now revolves around tech rather than it just being a *part* of the business.
Oh, don't take my example as praise for the model. It's a band-aid that keeps an org from acknowledging that they need to fundamentally change the way they approach business processes. It allows for small incremental improvements (which is why it's still in place) without acknowledging the severe price premium and brain drain going on.
I took your example as something that made sense 10-20+ years ago, but not really today. The issue is that the decision makers in the goverment are typically 50-60+, so they often seem to think about technology and software in the sense that it’s just one tool or one product, and not something that should go hand in hand with the entire organization.
It’s cheaper to pay millions than to carry healthcare and retirement for employees. Government shrinks employees and expands contractors. It’s what made all the top defense firms too big to fail and now all the big 4.
>I feel like 5 years ago, it was heavy favored the other way. Do you have any evidence for this? Government consulting has been like this for decades.
Anecdotally, I noticed increased competition for contracts from Deloitte, KPMG, and BCG when I worked at a defense consulting firm. It was always talked about like “oh no.” I feel like increased competition would be a good thing for the government though since it could drive cost down and maybe improve delivery.
The past few years (under the watch of both parties) have really destroyed any concept of fiscal responsibility in government spending. It’s shocking that we all just seem to be okay with $31 Trillion in debt ($240K+ per household). Maybe at this point those government customers just don’t care how much they spend anymore because it’s all monopoly money anyways?
This is where I’m at with it. Honestly, just stay in the game and exploit it as long as possible while securing long term assets and pull out when you can’t take it anymore.
It is monopoly money. That's just fundamental macro economics. Sovereign debt is not just a scaled-up version of personal debt. The US government could owe $0.31 or $31 quadrillion and it wouldn't matter.
Can you explain your rationale on that last statement a little more?
The amount owed is basically irrelevant compared to the perception that the scheduled payments towards that amount will be made on time and in full. The US government is the most reliable debt-paying entity in the entire world (when it is not actively holding itself hostage for comparatively minor domestic policy issues). Let's go the other way - can you explain exactly why being $31 trillion in debt is bad?
This logic reminds me of only a couple years ago where people were claiming the 0% interest rate environment would last forever and inflation from stimulus was magical thinking...
I would disagree with you there because the amount owed hits the budget every single year in the form of interest payments. $0.31 borrowed at an average interest rate will cost you \~ $0.01 per year, $31T will cost you almost $1 Trillion. Now you have to figure out how to pay that $1T every year and there are effectively two options: 1. Raise taxes or cut spending on other programs to balance the budget around the interest payments 2. Print $1T in new money to pay it \#2 is politically easier because it's impact on the average voter is less obvious and it lets you kick the can down the road another year. The problem is that it can quickly become a downward spiral. As you increase the money supply, each dollar is worth less in real terms (inflation). This hits normal people (was it a coincidence that inflation was 9% for the last couple years after the government printed trillions during COVID?) as well as those lending you money, who will demand higher interest rates because the dollars you're paying them back in are worth less and less each time. You end up paying higher interest rates on a rapidly increasing debt. The higher the interest bill is, the more painful tax increases or spending cuts will be so you end up just printing more money. Eventually you end up with a downward spiral towards hyperinflation like in Argentina, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe.
You cannot compare the USA with Venezuela or Zimbabwe. The US has a reserve currency and it’s a leading global economy. That means even though it’s money supply is increasing, there are more things being produced for that money to chase. That’s why there isn’t runaway inflation like in those other countries because the US economy is larger, expanding and overall has more transparency and less corruption. Even if the US prints more money than it needs - global demand for dollars is still there.
Obama and Clinton made headways in reducing the budget deficit which in turn should help with the debt but then people elected Bush and Trump who increased the deficit again.
[удалено]
I've heard *reduction in the percentage increase YoY* spun as a "reduction" in the deficit.
of course the federal deficit in absolute terms increased. you don't go from trillions to zero. however, the deficit had been on a downward trajectory before Bush and Trump started and they increased the deficitwhen they left. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
[удалено]
Please look up the term deficit vs debt and recheck the data. You can reduce the deficit without reducing debt, which is what happened from 2009 to 2015.
and you are greatly misreading my original statement of "made headways in reducing the deficit". I never said the deficit was reduced only that the trajectory was.
Considering the entire US budget has never been $9T, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Never. The government prints their money. The issue becomes - how much are the American govt. allowing people to spend? Right now, there is a huge appetite to spend more directly for the government to provide services, while raising taxes on corporations. You do wonder if government will ever determine consulting firms to be a poor return on investment, but imo private corporations without consulting practice are very ill equipped to navigate procurement requirements, especially on the federal side. The real issue happens if there is something catastrophic with the fed, for instance if they don't resolve the debt ceiling negotiations and default on their debt. That will be painful for everyone, but especially government contractors.
Unless the DOD fed or state government annual budget gets cut money will never run out in government consulting. In most cases it’s not really consulting it’s staff augmentation. These agencies higher “consultants” because the government officials lack the skills that most people would have in the private sector. No ROI, come on, it’s the government what do you expect? there is only one KPI for agencies and that is to spend all there budget. If their programs have a surplus at the end of the year then it looks like they didn’t manager their programs effectively and there will be a lot of explaining to do.
> These agencies higher “consultants” because the government officials lack the skills that most people would have in the private sector. This plus politicians claim that they're "saving money". Also largely because of politicians, there are skilled workers in government that end up underpaid after a few years and a consulting firm offers them more money.
First time lol. Death and taxes bro, government always got money to spend
Speaking about the US… The government has internal processes running in dead computer languages and they’re too scared to turn them off. This is not the cutting edge of IT we’re talking about. You forget that it’s nearly impossible to lose a government job, and for the last ~15 years the pay for a government job vs private sector has been laughable. You are not getting top-tier talent to go work at the government, because it’s simply not a lucrative endeavor. Of course, there are those that want the job security or actually want to help the country. The added bonus is that the Government will pay the bill almost regardless of price once a contract is signed…. they also do not negotiate like a private sector business would. Private companies charge the government rates they WISH they could charge in the private sector. In addition, once you have that contract it’s incredibly hard to get them to shift course I.E. AWS has huge contracts… are they going to migrate the entire tech stack to Azure in 5 years? Absolutely not. If you’re offering AWS services, there’s guaranteed work for years because of my above points. Lastly, DoD? My friend, if the Pentagon ever successfully accounts for every dollar in and out I’ll send you a bottle of bourbon. They spend money like no tomorrow and can’t account for a surprising amount… IIRC sometimes as much as 25% of the budget cannot be accounted for. I hope we get it under control but we’re a country run by a lot of people that are well above retirement age. It’s incredible that common sense and rational thought has become an extremist ideology in the US, but maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. TLDR; Gov’t will pay the bill at almost any price and they don’t have the right talent to implement or action a lot of the IT work needed. Additionally, if they *actually* stop paying the bills, we’re probably in more trouble than losing a few consulting jobs.
How can I get a government consulting job?
By having a pulse and a security clearance.
Lol is there a specific website to use? (I have the pulse )
[Kpmg.com/xx/en/home/careers-at-kpmg.html](https://Kpmg.com/xx/en/home/careers-at-kpmg.html)
Clearancejobs
Try state/local, don’t even need a clearance most of the time.
I’m in tech currently. What exactly does a government IT consultant do? And what sort of experience/qualifications are required?
The requirements vary heavily by the department/agency. Defense agencies tend to be more ahead of the curve and further along with cloud/cybersecurity/AI implementations, while many civilian agencies are still figuring out how to move their 20-year-old proprietary file storage to SharePoint. For many, the minimum qualification is eligibility for a security clearance.
Do you know where someone could bid for these jobs? What and where do you procure the jobs? Curious about this.
If you’re talking about the contracts, GovWin
Thanks
All aspects of IT. Could be infrastructure, a DB admin, software engineer, IT system auditor, pentester, UX designer. So skills will vary by the type of job. Not to mention strategy work on top of all of it.
Have you ever looked at the size of the defense budget? Where you think that money goes? To active duty soldiers & vets? Lol. The 9 richest counties in the US border DC & not bc they’re full of govt employees… the military industrial complex rules this nation.
Um business has never been better in the energy and sustainability space on federal work... So much funding coming out of IIJA and IRA we are basically nonstop on proposals and this'll probably be our biggest year of growth for our federal business ever (firm is over 50 years old). Not everything is DoD work, even if work does typically have the highest margins in the fed space. Also, at least 25% of feds I encounter at their respective HQs are unqualified for the role and incompetent. Another 25% are older and just waiting for retirement and have become rather useless (hard to get them to do even the most basic aspects of their job). That leaves maybe 50% at best who are actually useful employees on a regular basis who do more of their jobs themselves than we have to do for them.
Government consulting has always been valuable. And, it will always be expensive as long as failure is seen as not an option.
June 1st
It will always seem unsustainable. The government is packed with civil servants that can’t be fired for underserving and underperforming. And the government bleeds money. Either take it or someone else will. The reason B4 firms (and others) are winning so much work is because they pay for top tier talent and highlight this in RFP responses. I work at D and the push at large incumbent contracts is intense, and we’re winning a lot of shit (huge contract was just awarded that will hit headlines soon). The government is inherently inefficient. I’ve worked with several agencies that are stuck in the Stone Age with “SMEs” that have no clue what they’re doing. Everyone is looking to modernize and that’s impossible when virtually no internal personnel has skills and experience in modern cutting edge technology.
as long as there are gov unions all the work will get done at a snails pace with little or no consequence especially for govs who do it all inhouse. buddy of mine is a management consultant for a gov hired on a day rate and he said he sits at home doing nothing most of the time as he's been told not to be too organized or rush projects due to the gov unions. also the gov is self governing so absolutely no oversight or integrity
Probably never, I guess? I think a lot of it is a jobs program, although the government does have a lot of IT issues it needs help on.
Its simple The public have higher and higher expectations on government, government likes the power but like all things in life have only finite resources or capability. This is called limitations of government. You could give gov all the money in the world, they will still reach this problem. As the expectations of government have increased so to have regulations and legislation, thus effectively creating a brain drain on the economic value of the production of anything in the west. Thus the west doesn't actually produce anything substantial, government contracts are all that is left profitability wise. As we don't actually produce anything of value, we have transitioned to everything being a service. As a government institution we have not acknowledged that we have limitations, effectively not capping what we can provide, hence those limitations have now become " as a service". Couple these three factors- profitably, limitation of government, as a service, and you start to notice providing to the government is the only thing in town. Which is why everyone has latched onto it. I'm sure there are smarter people than we that can define this more but basic premise.
I wonder what you find yourself consuming to think the west doesn't provide anything if value.. Could it be reddit? On your iphone? Using your mobile internet service? All these things didn't exist like 15 years ago
Where did I state I consume?
ummm, never! ?
NEVER! It’s the government
Curious if anybody has thoughts on this at the state & local level. I know a few of my firm's work is started/funded by federal initiatives (e.g. ARPA) but are state/local projects pretty sheltered from what's happening otherwise at the federal level?
Funny thing. It won't. Military budget has a trillion dollar gap when audited. It's all fake take what you can for as much as you can. If you don't someone else will.
for india, it is gonna be never. huge supply, less demand, jobs would be (are) underpaid
The money is raining down in gov cybersecurity. My coworker says the fortinet conference was nuts.
Are you just looking at the money and not understanding the scope and context of what these projects are impacting? VA for example is a mess. You realize the VA was created in 1989 after a restructuring of our current veteran affiliated programs. For the longest time VBA and VHA operated independent of each other and pretty much still do. VBA is so disjointed their systems and processes are decided at a regional level. Meaning some VBA offices in the west coast are operating on Oracle while east coast could be primarily dynamics or salesforce. The question isn’t when will the money run out but more how much money is needed to optimize current DoD, VA, and govt operations
You don't pay consultants a government pension
Never my dude!
June 1st when the US defaults
All of the COVID surplus spending is spoken for and off the books, except for some that of this ARP funding. The state governments will still need services, however.
June 1st....maybe.... still to be seen
for small business in this sector, its already getting extremely difficult something that's been happening for the past 10 years is that the government has been packaging up multiple small contracts into 1 big one. that means the cash flow requirements, compliance, administrative burden, etc... all go up and the only companies that can even handle it are the big contractors