Expert speaks out on 'perfect solution' to federal hiring issues creating national security concerns
EXCLUSIVE: Fox News Digital sat down with SkillStorm CEO Justin Vianello, who addressed issues the federal government faces hiring workers, sometimes raising national security concerns, and explained what his company is doing to streamline that process.
The federal government has struggled for decades with staffing issues in key roles like cybersecurity, tech and other high-skill areas, an issue flagged as far back as 2001, according to the Government Accountability Office. Vianello discussed how SkillStorm is attempting to solve those issues.
"If we look at the procurement process and the way it's been structured, there's significant delays," Vianello told Fox News Digital. "So, it can take years to actually get to a point where a solicitation is actually awarded. And then, ironically or paradoxically, post that award, the agency will expect … the particular company to be able to deliver a team in 10 days. So, this process is inefficient and somewhat outdated."
Vianello explained that the current hiring process is "lengthy" and "laborious," sometimes taking years rather than months and creating delays that teams need to properly mobilize and deploy.
"One of the solutions to that issue is to actually allow for an on-ramp time where people can spend between two to four months to custom build teams that have the right skills, that have (the) right certifications that are based in the right locations to rapidly deploy teams and to accelerate IT transformation and automation. And that's really where the SkillStorm model comes in," Vianello said.
Vianello says the company has spent millions of dollars in recent years building a Performance Acceleration Center for Excellence that is essentially a learning management training system with a customized curriculum and content along with a "stable of trainers" in a position to "rapidly upskill and deploy people."
"How do we leverage that infrastructure to build out a solution for the federal government?" Vianello said. "Well, what we do is we leverage that infrastructure to accelerate and train teams. And the way the model works is we both bring people into our program. We train them for anywhere between 10 and 16 weeks. We pay them while we're training them. We help them achieve their certification, and then we deploy them. And we recover the investment that we make by billing them hourly."
That system, Vianello explained, means SkillStorm takes "all the risk up front" and recovers it by billing hourly to the client.
"Now this is the perfect solution to being able to custom-build tech teams, create net new talent for the ecosystem and being able deploy these people over time. But the government is gonna have to change the procurement system to not require people to be deployed within 10 days but allow companies to build these teams over two, three, four months."
Another issue, Vianello told Fox News Digital, is the current hiring process can get tied up with security clearances and become a national security risk.
"That's absolutely part of it, but I think there's a bigger issue here if you look more generally at our model and some of the issues that are facing the market," Vianello said. "Well, if you look at SkillStorm's model, SkillStorm has an innovative cost-effective solution to custom-build U.S.-based tech teams for rapid deployment.
"Now, we have a student debt crisis in this country, and, at the same time, what are we doing? We're offshoring our children's roles to other countries, and we're using visa holders to take up the place of entry-level tech roles. Now, if we don't invest in programs like SkillStorm, if we do invest in these outcome-driven, apprenticeship-type programs, where's the next generation of cybersecurity experts going to come from?
"Where's the new generation of AI innovators going to come from? This is a national security issue that is essential in driving innovation. Right now, there are 500,000 open cybersecurity roles as of January 2025. We are the domestic models, like these apprenticeship models, that can support that gap to make sure that we're protecting national security."
Former General Services Administration (GSA) head Emily Murphy, who previously spoke to Fox News Digital about the GSA's work to streamline government in the era of DOGE, said she has "seen firsthand how outdated federal systems have become one of the most serious yet least discussed threats to national security.
"Agencies charged with safeguarding cybersecurity and digital infrastructure are losing the talent battle to the private sector, and the slow, outdated process for onboarding cleared workers doesn't match the urgency of today's threats."
Murphy explained that the federal government needs a "new pipeline" that "delivers clearance-eligible, project-ready professionals trained on mission-specific tools."
"SkillStorm is doing exactly that, deploying "Stormers," technologists trained on specific tech platforms, at a significant discount. It's a smarter, faster way to secure the talent our government urgently needs.
Vianello told Fox News Digital SkillStorm and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have similar goals in making government more efficient.
"I think DOGE is really focused on IT automation and IT transformation and doing it on an efficient and cost-effective basis," Vianello said.
"We believe, going forward, there's probably going to be more of a push to less full-time employees and more of a push towards efficient contractors coming in and accelerating project delivery. So, again, this really does come back in our belief.
"To the solicitation process, how do we tighten it up? How do we make sure that once an award is made and that technology is implemented, it's not outdated? Because, if that continues to happen, how are you going to continue to attract technologists, young technologists who want to be part of the change?"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
18 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes
A federal judge in California finally approved a $2.6 billion settlement for college athletes that upends a century-old tenet of college sports—the notion that schools cannot pay the athletes that play for them. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Friday ushered in a new era—a professional era—for college sports by signing off on a plan for the NCAA and the five most prominent sports conferences to settle a class-action lawsuit with current and former college players. The deal will give backpay to some, as well as creating a system in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes. Schools are poised to begin implementing the new model this fall. The decision has been months in the making, drawn out in its final weeks by the judge's insistence that the NCAA find a way to stop current athletes from losing their roster spots. The settlement would 'enable NCAA schools to share their athletic revenues with Division I college student-athletes for the first time in the history of the NCAA,' Wilken wrote in her 76-page opinion. She added that it was 'expected to open the door for Division I student- athletes to receive, in the aggregate, approximately $1.6 billion dollars in new compensation and benefits per year, with that amount increasing over the next ten years.' Each school that elects to share revenue with athletes will start by distributing more than $20 million in the coming academic year. That amount will reach about $32.9 million per school by 2034-35, the end of the injunctive-relief settlement, Wilken wrote. The settlement brings the biggest changes yet to college sports, which until recently had banned athletes from earning much more than a scholarship, room and board. It comes on the heels of years of upheaval that have included loosened restrictions on off-the-field compensation for players, liberalized transfer rules and blockbuster television deals for schools and the chaotic conference realignment that followed. Yet during all of that time, many college sports leaders had still resisted paying athletes directly from the billions of dollars in revenue they helped generate. Now, that restraint is off. Schools have been readying for months for the settlement effects to land on their athletic departments, most immediately by transforming how they recruit and manage rosters in football and basketball. 'People have been doing a lot of work on a contingent basis to try to create the infrastructure that's envisioned by the settlement,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said ahead of the final approval. 'It'll definitely be rocky and kind of messy coming out of the gate, because big things are that way.' Private equity has already been circling college sports, pledging to inject capital into schools but also to advise them on how to grow their sports business. And athletic departments are openly wrestling over what the ruling means for the future of Olympic sports on campus. Most of these sports do not generate much revenue, but American campuses serve as the primary Olympic training ground for Team USA. The settlement largely immunizes the NCAA against similar claims, a provision the association considered essential as it seeks to move past decades of court battles over payments for players. But it will almost certainly not end litigation over the shape of college sports. It isn't clear whether the money needs to be distributed equitably in accordance with Title IX, the federal statute that requires publicly funded institutions to provide equal opportunities to male and female athletes. Aside from preparing for schools to distribute roughly $20 million a year to athletes, the settlement didn't specify how exactly much should be allocated to each sport. The majority will likely go to football, the financial engine of most athletic departments, as well as men's basketball. Female athletes have raised questions over the payouts they are set to receive and what fair compensation looks like for them going forward. 'This settlement doesn't come close to recognizing the value I lost,' LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne said in an unsuccessful attempt to object to the settlement. There's also the open question of whether athletes getting paid by their institutions are working for them—a distinction that could open up schools to more legal challenges. But even without employee status, the settlement will transform the relationship between players and schools. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Laine Higgins at and Rachel Bachman at
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
Associated Press
27 minutes ago
- Associated Press
153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Numbers to know
The groundbreaking case leading to the transformation of college sports in the United States comes nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed a complaint against the NCAA and the five most powerful conferences alleging they were unfairly being denied of pay for use of their name, image and likeness. The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken resolved three antitrust cases — House vs. NCAA, Carter vs. NCAA and Hubbard vs. NCAA — that became known collectively as the 'House case.' The class-action lawsuits contended the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC violated antitrust law by not providing benefits and compensation to athletes and restraining athletes' ability to make money for endorsements and sponsorships. Incremental gains won by athletes in previous lawsuits against the NCAA set the stage for the House settlement and the all-out professionalization of college sports. A look at key numbers associated with the case: 389,700 Athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016-24 and could be eligible for back payments 101,935 Class members who submitted a claim form or updated their payment information, which represents approximately 26.2% of the 389,700. 357 Athletes who opted out of the settlement and could pursue their own remedies. $2.8 billion Back damages to be paid to current and former college athletes who were denied the opportunity to profit from the use of their NIL rights. The amount will be paid in $280 million installments over 10 years. The NCAA will use reserves and insurance to cover about 40% of the payments. The rest will be covered by the NCAA reducing its annual distributions to Division I schools. 95% Estimated amount of the $2.8 billion that will be paid in back damages to football and men's and women's basketball players in the power conferences. $20.5 million The 2025-26 pool of money each Division I school can distribute in direct payments to athletes beginning July 1. The amount represents 22% of the average revenue generated by each school from the five defendant conferences and Notre Dame. 153 NCAA rules that had to be eliminated to allow schools to provide additional benefits to athletes under the settlement. $600 All Division I athletes will be required to report to their schools and the Deloitte clearinghouse any and all third-party NIL contracts with a total value of $600 or more, if payment occurs after July 1, 2025. The clearinghouse will determine whether the amount is commensurate with the athlete's fair market value. $20 billion The widely accepted estimate by University of San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher of additional direct compensation athletes will receive over the next 10 years. $10 billion The estimated amount of damages faced by the NCAA and the five conferences if they avoided a settlement and lost at trial. $475 million Plaintiffs attorneys' request for legal fees. The figure is based on attorneys receiving 20% of the NIL settlement fund and 10% of the additional compensation settlement fund as well as an injunction relief award of $20 million paid by the defendants. That does not included about $9 million in expenses attorneys are claiming. ___ AP college sports:
