Wait, this is weird. The SEC development branch chief is posting this on behalf of the contractor performing the role? Why?
Jordan, why isn't Aretec posting this one? They should be the ones trying to staff the roles if they own the contract, no? I say this because seeing the government overseer doing the contractor's job doesn't breed faith in the contracting org.
The SEC has more credibility than their no-name contractor, but limited ability to hire (Gov).
So, they hire/manage through contractors.
Personally, I view the fact that the SEC branch chief is posting this as very positive, since it indicates a real investment on the part of the client, as well as a close working relationship.
That's an interesting perspective. I suppose either could be true and it would be hard to discern without a more direct conversation with the government liaison (in any circumstance, not just this one).
I'm not used to seeing this pattern with the agencies I've consulted with, so maybe that's where my bias comes from.
Jordan, why isn't Aretec posting this one? They should be the ones trying to staff the roles if they own the contract, no? I say this because seeing the government overseer doing the contractor's job doesn't breed faith in the contracting org.