Snapped Shot

Always Watching the All-Seeing Eye

 

Obama: The Business Acumen of an Aardvark

The Obama Administration has just issued an order declaring that federal contractors are "encouraged" to carry over employees when contracts get changed:

The Federal Government's procurement interests in economy and efficiency are served when the successor contractor hires the predecessor's employees. A carryover work force reduces disruption to the delivery of services during the period of transition between contractors and provides the Federal Government the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Government's personnel, facilities, and requirements.

...

It is the policy of the Federal Government that service contracts and solicitations for such contracts shall include a clause that requires the contractor, and its subcontractors, under a contract that succeeds a contract for performance of the same or similar services at the same location, to offer those employees (other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of the award of the successor contract, a right of first refusal of employment under the contract in positions for which they are qualified.


Under this act, if my employer were to be replaced by another contractor on one of the projects we're working on, the new contracting firm would be obligated to try and steal me from my current employer. This activity, unofficially known as "employee poaching," does happen from time to time in the contracting world. The idea is that if the employees on site already know the systems in place, the new contractor will have a better time getting to learn it.

The two problems with this, of course, are that (a) it's not exactly a "seamless" process to replace the entire management structure on the contract with new managers, and (b) it's generally considered harmful to the contracting firm from which the employees were poached. So if Northrop Grumman were to pick up a contract I was on, and they poached me to continue the contract, the company I work for would (theoretically, in my case) be harmed by my loss.

Which, of course, injects a whole lot of instability into the world of Federal Contracting.

One has to wonder if that's not exactly what these benighted buffoons are trying to do.

(h/t Jessica's Well)
 
Snap.com Popups

If they're driving you crazy, please click here to disable them on this website.




Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments [RSS]
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Here is what a handful of random people think about this article. But first, the fine print:
The opinions expressed here, even where approved for display, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website, the management, or any other entity or organization, with the exception of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy. Those opinions we represent in style, yo. Please keep the language in these comments clean, as this is intended to be a family-friendly, work-friendly website. Comments not compliant with this policy will be edited for content where necessary. Abusive or otherwise illegal comments will be reported to the proper authorities, up to and including the aforementioned Vast Zionist Conspiracy. The Management cannot and will not be held responsible for commenters making a spectacle of themselves, even if The Management are the said commenters in question. In other words, don't take yourself so seriously, folks. We're all here to discuss the news, and more importantly, to have fun. Now go get yourself into some OCD treatment program—you obviously need it if you actually read all of this mess.

Mike on 2009-02-03 18:48 #1
*In most cases of a change of government contract, most of the employees look forward to being "poached". Otherwise, they are likely to be laid off by the losing contractor. Most employees are there because of the contract. I worked for 5 different companies for 20 years and never changed my desk.
Reply  
Brian C. Ledbetter on 2009-02-03 20:27 #2
*Good point, Mike! That's definitely another way to look at it!

Regards,
Brian
Reply  

Add Comment

HTML-Tags will be converted to Entities.
Gravatar/MyBlogLog/Favatar/Pavatar/Pavatar author images supported.
Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
BBCode format allowed
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA