David Bowles Needs To Explain Pay Cuts To NASA Langley Employees
NASA Langley contract employees get pay cuts under new contractor, Daily Press
“In March, NASA Langley announced it had chosen its newest contractor, Alutiiq-Fusion Joint Venture, to provide about 200 employees under Langley’s administrative, media and professional services (LAMPS II) contract. Soon after, Stefula was stunned to discover she would have to take a 37 percent pay cut to keep her job. She wasn’t alone. Several contract workers at the center interviewed by the Daily Press say their salary reductions range from 8 percent to 37 percent, and that countless colleagues have taken similar cuts, or greater. They cite unsubstantiated accounts of a few senior staffers who had their pay slashed by 70 percent.”
“Langley’s new contractor is a partnership between Alutiiq LLC, a Native American-owned business based in Anchorage, Alaska, and Media Fusion of Huntsville, Ala. The companies divvied up employees, with Alutiiq largely handling the administrative and professional staffing and Media Fusion the media services, video production and public affairs. Alutiiq-Fusion also took on a subcontractor, Banner Staffing in Washington, D.C., to handle about a dozen workers for Langley’s Office of Human Capital Management.”
Keith’s note: The most pathetic aspect of this is a refusal to answer questions from the reporter from the Daily Press. Instead the companies involved and NASA Langley PAO simply sent a statement. And no one has heard from Langley Center Director David Bowles. As such, employees have to do their own investigative reporting to find out why they are getting pay cuts. How pathetic and uncaring. People working their asses off for Langley get unexpected and wholly unwarranted pay cuts and their management doesn’t have the spine to face them or the media to explain things?
Let’s hope Sen. Kaine and Sen. Warner take further action since David Bowles and his management team clearly are not going to. Cutting employee salaries with no notice or reason is not the way to go back to the Moon.
Check the service contract act that regulates prevaling wage laws
None of the NASA professional services contracts pay “prevailing wages”. Most pay less than the civil servants the contractors are working with and have a much leaner benefits package. Plus less job security.
Any one here have the contract number for this? I want to run it through the DOL service contract act database
https://www.wdol.gov/sca.aspx
This wage order should be promenently placed in all breackrooms and public spaces
They get around this by using other contractors in the area as the “prevailing wage”, not market salaries in the area.
It’s my undersanding that only certain job categories are coverered by the prevailing wage law.
This has been going on for at least twenty years and at most or all NASA centers. Employees have some assurance of maintaining thier salaries only if the current holder of the contract bids on and wins the new contract, which was often the case in the past but nowadays is rare. Moreover, many support contracts are small business setasides, and the maximum size of the comapny allowed to bid is often less than the number of people actually needed to do the job, precluding the incumbent from even submitting a bid. As a result the companies that actually bid on support contracts, which were once familiar names like “Boeing” or “Pan Am” are now new ventures created as partnerships for each contract. Bids are often submitted by a partnership of three to as many as a dozen companies, usually headed by a small business that may not have any existing employees other than the proposed contract manager. Even the incumbent, to be competitive, often forms a new business entity with new partners for the bid.
Since the competitors which bid on the cantract are not the current employer they can offer the current employees lower salaries if they want to keep their jobs. NASA managers try to keep experienced personnel, but the low bidder usually wins, and it is this bidding process, rather than any conscious plan by NASA management, that reduces salaries. Under the system we have created, there is no choice.
In private industry (SpaceX is a prime example) most “support contractor” jobs would be done in-house, reducing contracting overhead, organizational interfaces, and duplicate management structures, but for NASA, limitations on hiring (and reductions) in civil service personnel preclude this.
Yeah, the same thing happened at KSC last year when they transitioned from the Engineering Services Contract (ESC) to the Test Operations and Support Contract (TOSC). My offer was about $20k less than I was currently making.
Nothing like this has ever happened to this level at Langley.
It happened to a friend at Stennis a couple years ago
I saw it happen several times at JSC – normally the more experienced people would realize that the new contract (no matter who won) could not afford them and they would move to being consultants. Medical plans would be cut, deductibles would rise, contracts would expect “green” or unpaid time, etc.
Daniel, I gotta give you a down arrow on that; I have never heard of that happening to this level generally across the board at NASA Centers. Our support contractor workforce is just as much our ‘corporate memory’ as our civil service workforce in many areas; we really do depend on them, year after year. What appears to have happened here is NOT in NASA’s, or LaRC’s, or the government’s, best interest. There needs to be an investigation by the relevant Congressional subcommittee (seriously), to see if this is somehow, part of a new pattern being set.
And, that this is happening, or at least we’re finding out about it, at about the same time that the Administration has, apparently, decided to turn some/parts of some Centers into FFRDCs (I imply that the decision has been made, not because an honest such assessment is not legitimate; but because the, well, silly 8 week timeline itself, almost shouts out that a decision has already been made)….there seems a possible, disturbing subtext: Have top-level – ie above that of a NASA Center director, or even Administrator- decisions been made, to make it easier to fire/get rid (whatever) people at the Centers? Without having to go through the that pesky process with Congress; or even a BRAC-like process that at least sometimes works with the military?
Dave Huntsman
I am not suggesting it is in NASA’s interest, or even presenting an opinion. I’m just reporting observations, and noting that salary reductions following contract transitions are driven by the contracting process, in which price competition is clearly a primary criterion for selection, and not by a conscious decision to reduce salaries. It isn’t even clear to me that the periodic termination of support contracts (rather than extending them indefinitely at the option of the contracting agency as long as performance is satisfactory) even makes sense. It might be better to relax Civil Service restrictions, as the USPS did. and do more work in-house,
This seems to be very common, there are several hundred at a center in florida that have experienced this in the last two major contract renewals.
It’s happened at JSC on a major contract. Incumbent won the rebid, but at a cost of a 10% pay cut to all employees. The nearest competitor was going to do the same (or cut the equivalent number of jobs). I suspect it will happen again soon. NASA Contracting is only interested in lowest cost.
One way they try to do that is to cut out a level or two of management, which sounds nice. Of course, to make sure costs are contained, they tighten the required reporting criteria and require more reporting, which was typically done by said managers. This ain’t the old days, that’s for sure.
There are engineers with 30+ years of experience working in entry/mid-level positions. NASA technical managers now expect that level of performance/experience for a discounted price. Unfortunately, that is not sustainable and when those older engineers retire, the experience and corporate knowledge will be lost and NASA will be stuck actually getting what they’re paying for.
Since these contractors don’t manufacture anything, they just provide services, the only way to win a contract is to cut costs – and people are the cost. This has been happening for years and the only option for employees is to find a better job. Contract performance will take a (short term) hit but the system will adjust. The experienced contractors will leave and less qualified people will replace them, civil servants will do more of the work that contractors used to do. Look for the government to just do less.
It seems like there is pressure on the civil service force as well, there are fewer of them yet expectations are still the same.
I don’t understand why this is an outrage. NASA has had a push for quite a while to “green” contracts, lowering labor rates. A job that previously required a “senior engineer” is now graded as an “engineer”, and the billable rate is lower. The incumbent can compete for the lower-rate job, the company can take a loss on that position (and pay the incumbent their former salary), or the company can hire a lower-rate (and assumedly more junior) engineer. Why would the center administrator get involved in commenting on that?
Interesting how the only people who say it is OK to cut people’s salaries for no good reason say so anonymously.
I didn’t read unfunded_dreams’ comment as a statement that he thought it was okay, and more pointedly questioning why people are only becoming outraged _now_, since this seems to have been a common practice for quite some time. This just happens to be the largest and most egregious example in recent memory.
When financially squeezed, NASA turns to its contractors to reduce costs (it’s one of the primary reasons why they exist–as opposed to an all civil-servant workforce), and the most effective way to do that is to reduce payroll, one way or another.
In theory, a center administrator should not have a say in how a contractor manages their work force, if it is within the requirements of the contract. In practice, it can be a convenient way for NASA to wash its hands of some ugly business.
You say that there is “no good reason” for the salary cuts but I would think you know the reason: NASA doesn’t have the money. I do agree that it is pretty gutless to not be up front about it.
Keith, I think you are jumping to the sensational and skipping the pragmatic. Part of the deal we strike as contractors is that we have less stability. If the government needs 20 years of continuity from a position, they need that to be a federal position (or maybe a FFRDC). When the center contract office demands a reduction in costs during a recompete, this is what it looks like.
No one cut your friend’s salary. Their contract ended, they do not have a job. There is a new job on a new contract to do that work, but the terms are much less generous. The government can’t have cheaper labor rates and pay their individual contractors the same-that magic doesn’t last long in business.
WRT “No one cut your friend’s salary”. Huh? I never said that. As for salary cuts – newsflash – there have been salary cuts. And who is “we”? You use a fake name. Are you a NASA civil servant? Do you work in LaRC procurement? I wonder how a civil servant would react if their salary got cut like this.
You are drinking the Capitalism Kool-Aid. Try looking from the POV of labor, where a single individual has no fundamental choice, largely because of the one-to-many organization charts.
In a different world these engineers would withhold services- and be protected by law when they do. Nowadays the only one protected are companies. Period.
/inflammatory rant.
under the service contract act if there is a union contract in effect or one comes into effect that becomes the prevaling wage order.Fringes are a part of every DOL wage order to so you want to load up on those in the union contract
best of all the union contract lives on 1 year after a contractor change
This brutal tactic of pushing out or deeply cutting people near retirement for “green” cheaper workforce a new phenomenon within the Aerospace industry (or even corporate arena). Civil servants have been frozen or very low cola for several years with severe cuts on the horizon too.
Another potential brutal hit these people might face is their future pay increases. Usually people catch up under such contract changes in their annual raises. This might not be the case for this contract. It wouldn’t surprise me that Alutiiq bid a nearly flat budget say of 1% increase based on the low interest rates and high unemployment depressing wages continuing. Now the inflation is much higher and Alutiiq promised all profits “go to the native community as dividends and to fund job training, scholarships and social and cultural programs”. Hence, Alutiiq might have no room and be boxed into paying very low increases for years to come. With NASA projected flat budgets, this bid probably looked attractive in the evaluation process.
Civil service has gotten pay raises every year since 2014. They were frozen for 3 years, but had good raises before that. Plus they get step increases.
I worked on several contracts and never got a bump with a contract renewal or even change in contracting company. Once I took an effective 15% cut due to increased benefits costs and mandatory uncompenstated overtime.
The problem is that NASA still expects the same technical performance, but for a lower cost. You can only do that for so long before the performance drops to what they are actually paying for.
Usually to keep this from happening we would ask the contractor in the RFP what their “retention” plan was for current employees. They would invariably respond that they would offer the same or better salary and benefits for current employees. I guess that LaRC did not include this in the RFP, which makes them equally culpable in this situation. Contractors need to be treated as valuable members of the NASA team.
Competitors normally aim for an 80% retention rate – they figure that people like their jobs and moving is traumatic. NASA knows that this has happened many times before and they will survive – again.
Unfortunately a big part of this sort of event is the mis-management of big projects like the James Webb Space Telescope – NASA is far over budget and behind schedule. Now this is a “different color” of money but it can be reprogrammed, costs saved on people makes NASA look a bit better elsewhere, etc.
The NASA budget is increasing so you would think that they would invest in their people across the board but that is not the way they operate. NASA appears to be squeezing both civil servants and contractors – and cutting costs such as “yards and guards” as well. They will keep cutting until something breaks – and then spend to recover.
—
“Langley’s new contractor is a partnership between Alutiiq LLC, a Native American-owned business…” Let me guess, sole sourced contract?
No, but probably competed within a “set aside” category.
It appears not
https://govtribe.com/projec…
Wait it is a 8a set aside!
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/off…
Overall, Langley’s board rated the Alutiiq-Fusion team “exemplary.” They weren’t the lowest bib- a lower bid was rated only “moderate level of confidence”
“As an Alaska Native Corp., Alutiiq shares can’t be bought, sold or traded, and profits go to the native community as dividends and to fund job training, scholarships and social and cultural programs”.. So it looks like Alutiiq doesn’t do any profit sharing with its employees. So that may be nice and and PC that NASA likes, but it costs and affects salary and benefits too
Alutiiq also bid 3.6 percent under the prior LAMPS 2012 contract. In addition the workforce is older, looking towards retirement”. From my perspective working at a NASA Langley, many contractors were paid about 10-15 percent more for managerial than the market and about 10 percent less for their top notch could get paid elsewhere in a comparable position. In my own personal case, I retired early. I actually am getting 25% more that I was as a civil servant, senior engineer, and am less burdened with the bureaucracy busy work- that is I can work more efficiently.
Nasa Langley has been pushing getting a younger, cheaper workforce in the civil service as well. That’s why I took an early retirement and work almost exclusively for non government, for profit commercial. The corporate engineering I am involved with is less concerned about cheap labor- they tend to be more concerned about what they get for their money. With the unemployment so low, many who turned down the Alutiiq offers will probably be better off in whatever new job they land. Unfortunately, the Hampton roads area is limited in comparable managerial jobs at the same pay- so it’s not surprising many accepted the lowball offers for a variety of reasons such as spousal and or family reasons. There’s little NASA Langley can do. They picked it, gave it a high rating, and get mostly the same or comparable workforce for less. The gov tends to look at the per hour cost rather than what they get per hour in work. I also noticed a lot of hiring friends and spouses as contractors at higher salaries. So in some cases, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 40% lower pay offers or the alleged 70 % cuts might have even been warranted. Most of the cuts were probably around 10-15% reflective of the lower bid to win based on lower local salaries for the position.
Nothing new here. It called outsourcing and has been going on in private companies for many years. Contractors are not your employees and cant be treated as such. Ironically the federal government enforces that via the IRS.
Yes, there is something new here. Nothing on this scale has *ever* happened at NASA Langley in the past. The extent of the pay and benefit cuts is unprecedented, which is probably why the Daily Press wrote a front page above the fold Sunday story about it. Usually the newspaper is a cheerleader for LaRC. Don’t think they’ve ever written a critical story before.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/off…
https://www.fbo.gov/index.p…
https://www.fbo.gov/index.p…
Here are documents that tell you who the contracting officers are by name and contact
I am busy looking for the old and new wage order
https://www.wdol.gov/
This is really just continuing the trend here at NASA Langley. First Custodial, then Grounds, now Lamps… This isn’t just hurting morale on these contracts. Contractors whose contracts turn over in a year or two are also taking note. The writing is on the wall.