Was recruited via LinkedIn, and began with a 30 minute phone screen. Followed by a 3 hour interview split up into 1 hour meetings with different people. Each interviewer had no idea what position I was interviewing for, and the entire process felt extremely disorganized. At one point, one of the interviewers asked when I applied for the position, to which I responded that they reached out to ME. Interviewers felt clocked out the entire time, and each of them were on a different team/department within the company, so they were disconnected from the role that I was interviewing for. One of the interviewers also mentioned that he's seen some teams that have been overworked in the past, which was a red flag to me. By far the worst interview experience I have ever had. Got a call from the recruiter a few days after the interview and told me to hang tight, as I was being heavily considered (I already knew at this point I most likely wasn't getting the position). Crickets for a few weeks until I got a generic email informing me that they moved on with a different candidate. The process was very telling about the organization and teams.

TL;DR: Unrealistically low compensation, zero transparency, a poorly managed interview process, and a strong suspicion that there was never a real job to begin with. As a federal employee with direct experience working alongside contracting firms, I’ve seen the best—and the worst—of how these companies operate. Unfortunately, Nava fell squarely into the latter category. What I encountered was a disorganized, opaque process that felt more like a box-checking exercise than a legitimate recruitment effort. Red Flags from the Start I was contacted by a recruiter who offered only a vague overview of a supposed position. When I asked for a job description, I was told there wasn’t one—just “several opportunities in the works.” That’s recruiter speak for "there is no actual role right now," and it immediately raised concerns. Interview Process: Sloppy and Exhausting Despite providing wide-open availability over two weeks, Nava crammed three hour-long interviews into a single block, back-to-back. I was told I’d get breaks—none were given. Each interview bled into the next, with no regard for basic professionalism or candidate experience. Interview 1: Standard behavioral questions, though the latter half became painfully repetitive. - Interview 2: A technical architecture scenario involving a data migration problem. Interview 3: A live coding session derailed by a distracted interviewer. During the coding interview, I outlined my approach and received an initial green light, only to be stopped midway and told I was going the wrong direction—despite following prior guidance. This cycle repeated several times. The interviewer admitted they weren’t familiar with the language I was using and appeared to be multitasking, only occasionally paying attention when directly prompted. Compensation: A Disgrace to Federal Contracting The salary range I was quoted ($110K–$130K) wasn’t just below market—it was insulting. I was told the upper end was reserved for developers with 7+ years of experience, which only made the offer more absurd. Federal agencies typically pay well over $200K per developer to contracting firms, so there is clearly significant room to negotiate. Nava’s quoted range appears less about market alignment and more about maximizing their own margins at the candidate’s expense. This predatory compensation model isn’t just unethical—it leads to high attrition, poor team stability, and ultimately damages the federal programs they’re supposed to support. And yes, agencies take notice. When contracts aren’t renewed, contractors are left scrambling—usually without internal reassignment options. The Job Likely Didn’t Exist The lack of a job description wasn’t just a minor inconvenience—it strongly suggests this was all speculative. Contractors often preemptively interview candidates when they hear of potential agency needs. This lets them show the government they’re “ready” with candidates, boosting their chances during contract recompetes. It’s smoke and mirrors, and a complete waste of time for applicants. No Leadership Involvement Not a single hiring manager or team lead was involved in my interviews. I spoke only with other developers. That’s atypical and unprofessional—particularly for what was framed as a full-time engineering role. It suggests that either the role didn’t exist, or the company wasn’t taking the hiring process seriously. Inefficient, Thoughtless Process Rather than a staged interview funnel, Nava throws candidates through every hoop up front. There’s no effort to qualify candidates early, and no willingness to spare your time—or their own team’s. It’s an inefficient process that wastes hours on candidates they likely already know they won’t hire. No Feedback, No Closure After all of that, I received no feedback. Just a vague rejection. No explanation. No insight. Not even a polite thank-you. For a company whose mission supposedly centers on civic tech and public good, this level of disregard for candidates is incredibly disappointing. Final Verdict Nava's interview process is a cautionary tale of what happens when a company is more interested in contract optics than in people. The disorganization, lack of transparency, and rock-bottom pay point to a company that values profit margins far more than talent or integrity. If you're serious about federal contracting work, look elsewhere. There are better, more ethical companies out there. This was a complete waste of time. I find it extremely frustrating that Nava would jerk around candidates and wanted to take my time to provide insider knowledge so other people don’t get their hopes up for a dead end path.