Jump to content

Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel


Guardian

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Guardian said:

...in every case, the contractor affirmed that the employee left voluntarily, i.e., resigned from their job.  Could an offer of more money or better fringe benefits have kept them on longer?  I don't know.

So, why are you so keen on evaluating key personnel?

If evaluating key personnel and having key personnel clauses is not giving you any good results, I recommend you stop doing those things.  If those employee departures affect cost, schedule, or quality, I hope you record the facts in your past performance evaluations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ji20874 said:

So, why are you so keen on evaluating key personnel?

If evaluating key personnel and having key personnel clauses is not giving you any good results, I recommend you stop doing those things.  If those employee departures affect cost, schedule, or quality, I hope you record the facts in your past performance evaluations.

I hope the OP is getting your point.  I went and refreshed myself with all comments made by the OP and I may have missed it but the only issue seems to be that key personnel changed during contract performance.  I did not see that having the key personnel move on caused a contract performance issue.  If it did then I might understand the OP's concern but if it did not, and the only issue is hey John Doe left the contractor's employment and was a key personnel, then I too wonder why there needs to be a stipulation for key personnel by name and they are evaluated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are times when the evaluation of "key personnel" makes sense.

For instance, when contracting for research and development, I would be keen on evaluating the credentials of the proposed principal investigator and co-investigators.

https://www.umass.edu/research/policy/pi-and-co-pi-roles-and-responsibilities#:~:text=Principal Investigator (PI) – A,applicable laws and regulations and

https://www.brany.com/evaluating-an-investigators-qualifications/

In system development programs or projects, it may be important to evaluate the qualifications of the proposed program or project managers and deputies. Maybe also the chief systems engineer. If you are entering into a contract for the development of something as important and expensive and difficult as, say, the Webb space telescope, wouldn't you be keen on evaluating the credentials of proposed program managers? I would.

And in such cases, might it be reassuring to know that the key person you think highly of has made a contractual commitment to the contractor to stay on the job until it's finished? If so, require the successful offeror to enter into a project or term employment contract with the key person. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than a mere letter of commitment.

Would I do that for a proposed manager of a janitorial services or grounds maintenance contract? No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ji20874 said:

If evaluating key personnel and having key personnel clauses is not giving you any good results, I recommend you stop doing those things.  If those employee departures affect cost, schedule, or quality, I hope you record the facts in your past performance evaluations.

 

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

I hope the OP is getting your point...I did not see that having the key personnel move on caused a contract performance issue.  If it did then I might understand the OP's concern but if it did not, and the only issue is hey John Doe left the contractor's employment and was a key personnel, then I too wonder why there needs to be a stipulation for key personnel by name and they are evaluated.

The point being made is not lost on me.  There are no performance issues associated with the loss of named key personnel to document, at least none that have been brought to my attention.  I am administering and monitoring this contract carefully.  My concerns then become 1) did this particular contractor receive an award over competing contractors based on proposed key personnel that wound up not sticking around for any meaningful length of time, and 2) did we base our trade-off decision on this contractor proposing more impressive KP than their competitors, therefore awarding at a higher dollar amount for something never realized?  If past performance did not suffer, what continues to be the motivation for potentially paying more for particular names and their CVs?  Our contracts require the contractor to replace the KP with someone of equal or better qualifications.  Why am I buying a Patagonia coat when it winds up being switched out before the end of the season with a similar looking coat from Costco that proves to be just as warm, functional and stylish?  Why do I persist?  I am trying to find that sweet spot between doing what, as a business advisor, I believe is optimal and being a good steward of the agency's customer service initiative.  A competent attorney provides his best advice to clients.  However, if those same clients opt to take the stand against the advice of counsel in spite of their own interests, then there is little that person can do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

 

The point being made is not lost on me.  There are no performance issues associated with the loss of named key personnel to document, at least none that have been brought to my attention.  I am administering and monitoring this contract carefully.  My concerns then become 1) did this particular contractor receive an award over competing contractors based on proposed key personnel that wound up not sticking around for any meaningful length of time, and 2) did we base our trade-off decision on this contractor proposing more impressive KP than their competitors, therefore awarding at a higher dollar amount for something never realized?  If past performance did not suffer, what continues to be the motivation for potentially paying more for particular names and their CVs?  Our contracts require the contractor to replace the KP with someone of equal or better qualifications.  Why am I buying a Patagonia coat when it winds up being switched out before the end of the season with a similar looking coat from Costco that proves to be just as warm, functional and stylish?  Why do I persist?  I am trying to find that sweet spot between doing what, as a business advisor, I believe is optimal and being a good steward of the agency's customer service initiative.  A competent attorney provides his best advice to clients.  However, if those same clients opt to take the stand against the advice of counsel in spite of their own interests, then there is little that person can do.

 

1. Do you think the customer has thought about evaluation factors and concluded that key personnel is a good evaluation factor, or are they just copying and pasting from old source selection plans?

2. If there were some extra red tape to include a "key personnel" evaluation factor, do you think your customer would still want to use it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Guardian said:

The point being made is not lost on me. 

Thank you for the response.  Don has posed some great questions.   For me your response makes me wonder if the requirement is one that has continued over a long period time whereby the contractors themselves have settled into a routine where they too know there is no detriment to contract performance in their eyes and it seems in the government's eyes as well whereby nothing negative has been passed on to them by such things as reduced payment, adverse performance evaluation, etc.

It would seem Vern's idea posted early on with regard to required subcontract agreements could be the fix if the questions Don has offered still result that key personnel is a required evaluation factor.  I guess one could switch it up and just require that the work or certain elements of the contract work must be performed by individuals with certain credentials and ask how offerors intend to insure they will keep individuals in such positions and evaluate the contractors plan to do so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Guardian said:

My concerns then become 1) did this particular contractor receive an award over competing contractors based on proposed key personnel that wound up not sticking around for any meaningful length of time, and 2) did we base our trade-off decision on this contractor proposing more impressive KP than their competitors, therefore awarding at a higher dollar amount for something never realized?

Now, you are raising a new question.  And it is a valid question, perhaps worthy of a thread of its own?

Yes, generally speaking, when the Government accepts an offeror's higher-priced offer because of something in its technical proposal, it seems that the resulting contract should incorporate whatever it was the offeror promised.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2022 at 4:52 PM, Guardian said:

I am administering and monitoring this contract carefully.  My concerns then become 1) did this particular contractor receive an award over competing contractors based on proposed key personnel that wound up not sticking around for any meaningful length of time, and 2) did we base our trade-off decision on this contractor proposing more impressive KP than their competitors, therefore awarding at a higher dollar amount for something never realized?

 

17 hours ago, ji20874 said:

Now, you are raising a new question.  And it is a valid question, perhaps worthy of a thread of its own?

@GuardianWhy are you concerned? You probably cannot determine to what extent the award decision was based on differences between contractors on key personnel. I doubt that your agency's source selection documentation would support an analysis to find out, especially if you did not use a well-structured numerical scoring system, such as Simple Additive Weighting. Your agency probably used adjectives, maybe colors, and non-numerical statements of "relative importance," "strengths," "weaknesses," and such. I doubt that your source selection authority could explain their decision other than on the basis of broad generalities. The marginal effect of individual evaluation factors on your agency's decision is likely indeterminable. Why be concerned?

Here is a link to a 5-page paper that appeared in the International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology in December 2010 entitled, "Simple Additive Weighting Approach to Personnel Selection Problem."

http://ijimt.org/papers/89-M474.pdf

Here is the abstract:

Quote

Selection of qualified personnel is a key success factor for an organization. The complexity and importance of the problem call for analytical methods rather than intuitive decisions. In literature, there are various methods regarding personnel selection. This paper considers a real application of personnel selection with using the opinion of expert by one of the decision making model, it is called SAW method. This paper has applied seven criteria that they are qualitative and positive for selecting the best one amongst five personnel and also ranking them. Finally the introduced method is used in a case study.

Index Terms— Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Personnel Selection, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW).

Did your agency use anything akin to that when making its source selection decision? If not, then quit being concerned. There are times when ignorance is balm to a worried mind.

I wonder if anybody in your office has heard of the International Journal of Innovation, Management, and Technology. This is its description:

Quote

The main emphasis of the International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management is on the promotion and discussion of excellent research on technological innovation. As a platform for reporting, sharing, as well as exchanging ideas, IJITM encourages novel research findings, industry best practices, and reports on recent trends. In particular, the journal focuses on managerial issues and challenges (and ways to address them) motivated through the increasing pace of technological advancement globally. This international and interdisciplinary research dimension is emphasized in order to promote greater exchange between researchers of different disciplines as well as cultural and national backgrounds.

This double-blind peer-reviewed journal encompasses all facets of the process of technological innovation from idea generation, conceptualization of new products and processes, R&D activities, and commercial application. Research on all firm sizes, from entrepreneurial ventures, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as large organizations, is welcome.

Given the current emphasis on innovation in procurement, I wonder if your agency has heard of the Journal or of other journals like it. I wonder if your agency has a library that subscribes to such journals. I'd like to think so, but I doubt it. Probably because nobody would read it.  I wonder if anybody in your office has heard of Simple Additive Weighting and could explain it. Have you? Can you?

And THAT is what should concern you, not the petty non-problem about which you have prompted us to dwell over the past couple of days—a "problem" that dates at least as far back as the 1960s, and for which you were given a solution last Wednesday.

But since you are concerned, let me ask you a question: What are YOU going to do about it?

Our government puts a lot of time and effort into near-do-well analysis, simple-minded decision-making, and half-baked solutions. To the typical contracting officer "innovation" is little more than finding a way around some regulation.

Get used to it, or do something to make things better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2022 at 1:01 PM, Vern Edwards said:

And THAT is what should concern you, not the petty non-problem about which you have prompted us to dwell over the past couple of days—a "problem" that dates at least as far back as the 1960s, and for which you were given a solution last Wednesday.

My response last week was:

"That said, the only way around is to require the employer to enter into a subcontract with the named member of key personnel.  I have already drafted such language for our solicitation and received concurrence from the business unit since my OP."

I was merely fielding the follow-up questions from contributors being thrown at me left and right 🙂.  In other words, I was engaging in the Socratic method. 

I looked into the International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management as published by World Scientific.  I am preparing a subscription request to my agency librarian.  It is not inexpensive; but neither is ignorance nor ineffectiveness.  As to what am I going to do about it,  I am reading three books right now during lunch, in the evenings, and on weekends.  If I lock myself away much more, my family might disown me.  I completely agree with you that DAU and FAI leave much to be desired.  Therefore, my plan is to do what you are always suggesting and I have always done, which is self educate.  I will say that the apathy and lack of extracurricular activity that I perceive in this field are somewhat embarrassing to someone who derives quite of bit of his identity from it.  That said, I am staying the course and working to make small changes that might eventually lead to big ones.  And yes, I could not agree more, most Government folks throw around the term "innovation" loosely, with no real concept or purpose.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

I looked into the International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management as published by World Scientific.  I am preparing a subscription request to my agency librarian.  It is not inexpensive; but neither is ignorance nor ineffectiveness. 

Most such publications are expensive. But many of the articles in such publications are available for free from other sources or from college and university libraries. It takes some research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

@Vern Edwards I just read the Simple Additive Weighting paper and I have to admit that some of the math was over my head. It was never a strong suit of mine. One thing that did resonate with me, even though the authors probably didn't intend for this to be a take away, was that they defined the criteria they were looking for in the person (Table III, page 513). This alone is more thinking than many or most people do when hiring Federal staff and certainly far beyond the thinking most people put into "Key Personnel." Insofar that we do think about key personnel, it usually comes down to credentials: experience and education typically. 

So if a CO is going to include key personnel as an evaluation factor, it makes sense to think about what are the characteristics of the key personnel that will assist to produce quality performance. I have to admit, where I've used key personnel, I've never thought about it, nor have I asked any of my program officials to think about it. And if the CO and program can't come up with characteristics of the key personnel they are looking for, maybe don't use key personnel. 

Lastly, the authors note in the conclusion, "Besides, some criteria could have a qualitative structure or have an uncertain structure which cannot be measured precisely." And I think this is evident in their own example, e.g. "team player" and "strategic thinker."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KeithB18 said:

 I just read the Simple Additive Weighting paper and I have to admit that some of the math was over my head.

Yeah, I know what you mean. A  lot of that is due to the backgrounds of the authors. That kind of sophisticated math is not necessary in most source selections. It's just mental exercise for the authors, who are theorists. There are books that explain simple additive weighting (SAW) in much simpler terms, using relatively simple arithmetic. I'll post title here later.

1 hour ago, KeithB18 said:

So if a CO is going to include key personnel as an evaluation factor, it makes sense to think about what are the characteristics of the key personnel that will assist to produce quality performance.

It depends almost entirely on the requirement. There are obvious criteria: education, training, experience, and reputation (in some fields, like the sciences, where publications might be important). One thing I'd look for is how long the person has worked for the prospective contractor. New hires might not fit in as well as hoped and may not function as well as an old-timer who knows the people, the culture, and the ropes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...