In my limited experience at one of the "Big 7" mentioned above, I believe the biggest reason for this trend is competition for contracts. What better way to get to a low price on a proposal than to have an expert from the requesting organization on your staff. This is not to say these employees are engaging in Conflict of Interest: using information not available to the public, or by setting biased ground rules. What I mean to say is that they have organizational experience to know how to best serve the customer. That's incredibly valuable in getting management comfortable with a lower, more competitive price. It reduces [the appearance] of risk, but that can lead to its own separate set of unintended problems (200% program cost increases anyone).

Would the government and industry be better served by less "cross pollination"? Doubtful since there are real efficiencies to be gained with the hiring of ex-government employees. When that person's organizational knowledge is combined with the freedom that comes from operating outside the government, the rewards are reaped by both the American public and industry. Oh, and those types of rewards (efficiency, innovation) are rarely reported here or elsewhere in the media...

Consider for a split second the money the U.S.A. has spent on the tools and weapons of war since the current chain of wars began in 1914. Consider what might have been done with that fortune if it had been used for peace instead. A lot of criminally greedy people would have been much poorer, and billions would have been way better off. Imagine! What kind of world will we have if we ever wise up? What kind of world do we have now?

Mitch Clogg, Candidate, U.S. Congress

It is hard to be critical of these kinds of hiring practices when the typical evaluation criteria for competition of contracts is heavily weighted toward resumes and direct past performance and program experience. If companies did not try to hire this kind of experience to find a way into new programs, then you would be writing articles about how contracts were non-competitive with 99% going to incumbent contractors.

Most small businesses like ours don't have the opportunity to pick up the top DoD officials after they retire, but we do have other advantages for doing business with the government. One of the advantages of being big is that you can afford to pay for the top-tier professionals in their field. Unless the GAO expects all retiring Colonels, Generals and Navy Captains to give up all the experience and expertise they have gained during their careers and become clerks at Home Depot, I think they should make sure we have good rules in place to manage COI and then allow these men and women to continue to participate in the work they know best.

If the GOA and Post columnists can't live with that, then perhaps they should be advocating to have Congress change the rules and stop forcing these folks to retire at the peak of their careers when they are still in thier 40's and 50's.

You can't have it both ways.

Wait one minute here. In recent days a slew of Congressional voices joined the White House in condemning the "new G.I. bill" because the way the educational benefits are structured to start after 3 years of service and would "harm retension initiatives and goals" at a time the military branches are hard up for warm bodies.
Are there any initiatives to counteract the hefty salaries dangled by war profiteers to attract Pentagon personel?
Or is this another 800lb gorilla stuck in a revolving door, i.e. the federal government and lobby shops?

In addition, why decry a benefit like education aid for G.I.s but keep completely mum about the large numbers of them lured away from the military by mercenary contractors like KBR & Blackwater? I haven't heard of any initiatives to keep those G.I.s in the military, have you?

The "outsourcing of government agenda GWB ran on in 2000 and instituted upon taking office has had, at best, marginal success, but in its wake has caused some very odd consequences, and upside-down results, such as the above.

Must you sensationalize a normal yearly GAO Report to Congress? Can you not report the facts in an unbiased way? Is your career based on callous distortion to fit your own, your editor's, or your paper's view?

I'm not saying that every company, every former DOD senior and acquistion offical is 100% in compliance with the two-year restriction. I am saying your article presents an imprecise view of the GAO Report.

Your opening, attention-grabbing, headline states that the GAO is "worried (your emphasis) about the numbers of Pentagon officals who leave the government, sign up with defense contractors and go back to work as hired guns for the government." Your next state that "Tens of thousands of former defense workers now work for contractors."

The opening GAO Report summary reports: "In 2006, 52 contractors employed 2,435 former DOD senior and acquistion officials....' The summary opening goes on to say "at least 422 ...could have worked on defense contracts related to their former agencies and at least NINE (my emphasis) could have worked on the same contracts for which they had oversight responsibilities or decision-making authority while at DOD (if proven to be true, the nine could be in violation of the law). The last sentance (conclusion) of the GAO Summary's opening paragraph further states: "While contractors could have employed quite a few former DOD officials on assignments related to their prior DOD positions, there could be appropriate justification for each of these situations."

You do your readers and the public a disservice to distort the facts to make your point. What are you, a politician running for office, or a reporter?

One obvious reason the demand for people recently working for the government is so high is that security clearances could take up to 20 months for personnel new to the government.

No corporation is willing to hire someone without a recent clearance if a clearance is necessary.

I work for one of the big seven government contractors (although I have never worked for the government), and am the daughter of a retired Air Force officer who, after going back to school for his Master's degree, worked for a couple small defense contractors. I believe the experience a former DoD employee brings to the table is invaluable in terms of REALLY understanding what the end-user needs are and having ideas as to what new kinds of systems or new features on existing systems would be helpful. As long as the COI rules are clear and people abide by them so that the contract-awarding process is fair for all contractors, I am all for former DoD employees going to work for contractors when they retire or otherwise leave the DoD. What a great use of their experience for these people who still want to serve their country!

And, for those who would rather spend money on peace than on creating weapons of defense and war, do you not value your freedom of speech, of thought, and of religion -- or even your freedom to go to the grocery store, the mall, or the car dealership and buy what you want -- or the freedom to go to school, the park, church, or anywhere else without fear of a bomb exploding or having your tongue cut out? There are many nations (North Korea, Iran, and others) who would gladly steal our peace and our freedom. The ONLY thing which keeps them from that is the fear of retribution. If you doubt that, try going to those countries and trying to carry on life as you did here in the States, where those who serve protect your freedom. In many Muslim countries, I would be executed simply for being a single woman living alone (which they would regard as scandalous). Here, I have the freedom to live where I please, to own a home, to get an education, to use my talents at a good-paying job -- even to manage others!, to drive a car, to go to church, to live without fear, to shop where and when I want, to go to the movies, to dance, to think for myself, to vote, and to marry whomever I choose. God bless America!

You Liars

All we had to do was go back and read what President Eisenhower said in his Farewell Address about the Military Industrial Complex.
Of course, we could also pass a law prohibiting such employment like Congress has. Whoops, like Congress is supposed to have. Go interview Trent Lott about that!

So, how do you think it feels when the consultant hired to assist the government with their contracting out mandate is a former federal employee (military and civilian) who also has ties to those bidding for the government jobs. NOT SO GOOD.