A quick question for those of you in the know. I have an interview next week for two positions, I was told one is a contracting job, the other is a corporate job. I was told that since one position is a corporate job, it pays less. Could someone tell me the difference between corporate, and contracting job? I am new to the government scene. Thanks!
Government Contracting/Corporate Job.
- Thread starter swm462
- Start date
Having worked in private industry for 20 some years I am familiar with the use of contactors to augment the in house staff.
So the first thing is to define what you mean by "Government Contracting" and "Corporate".
If this is purely a private sector job, not with a government contractor (support contractor) than to me corporate job implies "in house staff", you are an employee of that company.
In this scenario a contractor would be used for a specified period of time to augment the in house staff. In this situation the employee would probably receive a lower salary but would also receive benefits, leave, insurance etc - that would be either partially or fully company paid. The contractor would be given a higher "salary" because the job is short term (specified number of months, and the company contracting out for services doesn't have to pay for benefits and other employee related services (taxes).
If you are talking about a firm that provides contract services to the government and the "corporate" probably means you are not being paid with direct funds.
You are on staff and paid out of overhead. The pay for the employees that are billed to the government is going to depend on what the contact will allow and what the customer wants to pay for that employee. The people who are being billed direct are the ones that pay for the "corporate" positions. The money they pull in includes the overhead to pay for the staff jobs. The salary for the in house people has to be kept low as it affects the "cost" of the people they use to bid for the work. The lower the better.
So the first thing is to define what you mean by "Government Contracting" and "Corporate".
If this is purely a private sector job, not with a government contractor (support contractor) than to me corporate job implies "in house staff", you are an employee of that company.
In this scenario a contractor would be used for a specified period of time to augment the in house staff. In this situation the employee would probably receive a lower salary but would also receive benefits, leave, insurance etc - that would be either partially or fully company paid. The contractor would be given a higher "salary" because the job is short term (specified number of months, and the company contracting out for services doesn't have to pay for benefits and other employee related services (taxes).
If you are talking about a firm that provides contract services to the government and the "corporate" probably means you are not being paid with direct funds.
You are on staff and paid out of overhead. The pay for the employees that are billed to the government is going to depend on what the contact will allow and what the customer wants to pay for that employee. The people who are being billed direct are the ones that pay for the "corporate" positions. The money they pull in includes the overhead to pay for the staff jobs. The salary for the in house people has to be kept low as it affects the "cost" of the people they use to bid for the work. The lower the better.
glhs837
Power with Control
Yeah, Bernie's second para seems to be the one that's relevant. My wife works as a "corporate" employee, where she supplies company support to the "contracted" employees like myself. I act like a govt employee, supporting the govt folks I work with as needed. The folks in my company who supply me with support services like health benefits, security services like my clearance and visit requests, are "corporate" employees.
and those jobs are getting tighter as the "support contracts" are heading to lowest cost wins. Seems the new common practice is to tell the incumbents in a position that they have the right of first refusal on that position with the new "corporation" BUT they will have to take a pay cut. Then for 3 years there is no pay raises or even a cost of living adjustment.
The next time the contract comes up for re-compete, it's deja vous all over again.
glhs837
Power with Control
Yeah, it's been brutal from what I hear. I think that maybe we are seeing light at the end of the tunnel as we rack up more time with the results of those few big "lowest cost, screw the outcomes for the program" contracts. Whats that old saying?
"The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory"
You get what you pay for. And if you are suddenly paying 20% less you are not going to receive the same quality.
"The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory"
You get what you pay for. And if you are suddenly paying 20% less you are not going to receive the same quality.
It's not temporary. It's a fight to save the empire. PTB and PM don't particularly look at things in the light of employee motivation. Don't forget, this is an organization run by Admirals and Captains who are use to giving orders, they are not particularly concerned with the mindset of a civilian workforce they would be glad to be without.
They would be just as content to go direct to the primes and count on their patriotism to deliver the goods. But as long as they are forced into the acquisition rules, they are going to squeeze out as much money as they can for the fleet (read the primes). NAVAIR (NAWC) has already started pushing grades down and removing "high grade" positions - doesn't mean the work has changed, just a "title" change. When you look at Pax River and China Lake, you have facilities in areas that don't offer a lot of competition for professional employees.
You can sort of push these changes through without losing a significant portion of your workforce. A few will retire, a few will pick up and move. But the majority will accept the cut back and the trite, "at least you still have a job" encouragement.
Not sure exactly, but are you talking about a contracting specialist (GS-1102) and a corporate job like management/program analyst (GS-0343)?
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Like Ken says, is this with a company such as Lockheed or with the government itself.
kwillia
n/a
"one is a contracting job, the other is a corporate job"
The contracting job is a billable position... the corporate job is an overhead position... not paid for outright by any contract, but rather out of the company budget.
There would be pros/cons with each. Being hired for a billable position means they are only obligated to keep you for as long as they have that contract covering that position. Being hired to an overhead position means your position will last as long as they can afford it and have a need for the services provided by that position.
The contracting job is a billable position... the corporate job is an overhead position... not paid for outright by any contract, but rather out of the company budget.
There would be pros/cons with each. Being hired for a billable position means they are only obligated to keep you for as long as they have that contract covering that position. Being hired to an overhead position means your position will last as long as they can afford it and have a need for the services provided by that position.
Last edited:
steppinthrax
Active Member
I've been doing government contracting for a number of years now. It pays well and is very rewarding. I would never go to gov unless I get old and or all my property is all paid off. It's pretty possible for the property part to happen pretty soon.
Might be late to the party but I believe the OP is talking about working under a contract as apposed to working for overhead. In my experience they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Overhead work is more secure when times are good because they are not dependent on a contract but if the company looses a big contract or they are tightening their belts the overhead positions are the first to be cut. Contract work is good but you usually have to worry if the company will keep the contract every 3 to 5 years. If you are good at your job you can usually get picked up by the new company but sometimes that comes with a pay cut. I have worked in both areas and the company I used to work for lost a big contract a few years back. They cleaned house on overhead employees, got rid of most management on overhead and cut other departments like IT, HR, payroll, etc.. in half with no notice. Everyone on the contract that was lost was offered work with the new contractor at a 30% pay cut across the board. No one was safe in this scenario. I guess moral of the story is go where you will be happiest now but always be prepared to move on at any given time.
Are you stoned, again?