Feds accused of 'poaching' contractor employees

Government contractors are fertile ground for agencies looking to hire experienced IT professionals

Government contractors have become fertile ground for federal agencies looking to hire experienced information technology professionals. To some, such recruiting is simply a way of finding badly needed talent; to others, it’s government poaching and needs to be controlled.


Related stories:

Agencies get creative to recruit acquisition workforce
OPM wants to hear from you


“It’s becoming a common practice because nobody can sue the government,” said an industry expert who asked not to be identified. “It’s happening especially in IT.”

“In the 20 years that I have been around this business, both in government and industry, I have never heard so much concern about it as I hear today,” said Stan Soloway, president and chief executive of the Professional Services Council.

“It’s not just the recruiting and poaching of employees,” Soloway said. “It’s the targeting of individual employees in what would appear to be violations of the Merit System’s hiring and other procedures.”  He said he is bothered by “the often heavy-handed tactics that are being used.”

Soloway said he knows of at least one major military command, which he declined to name, that “has a list of 750 contractor employees that they are one-by-one recruiting specifically.”

That is raising hackles with the people being recruited, “some of whom do not want to go into government,” he said. He cited one case of a federal agency hiring a contract employee by starting him at the high GS-15 pay grade.

"It raises some ethical questions for us where you have a direct business relationship, where you’re actually soliciting employees of your supplier," Soloway said. "In the commercial world it is very common to have no-solicitation clauses" in contracts.

“Companies are feeling like they’ve become a recruiting training ground for the government’s personnel system,” he said.

Moreover, the affected companies receive no compensation for the loss of their employees, he added.

Anne Reed, president and CEO of government contractor Acquisition Solutions Inc., said there have always been efforts to recruit contractor workers, but “what we’ve seen more recently is more aggressiveness” toward the practice.

“On a one-by-one basis that’s sort of the ordinary course of business,” she said. “But when it starts to get on a larger scale, then it becomes more of a challenge to manage. We’ve been fortunate that we haven’t been affected by that larger scale.”

But Reed said several of her employees have been offered government jobs at much higher positions of authority and pay grades than they have at Acquisition Solutions, and that if they remained her employees, she would not be able to bill the government for their work at those high rates.

Reed and Soloway agree that the Obama administration’s determination to bring more contracting work into the federal agencies is one factor stoking the aggressive recruiting campaign.

Reed said one of her government clients admitted getting pressure to bring work in-house even though the project was to last only 18 months. “This is exactly the kind of work that you do want to hire contractors for,” she said, adding that the agency project manager was resisting the call to insource the work.

“This is someone who is exercising good judgment in my estimation, who’s being thoughtful about it,” she said. “And that’s what I would hope, is that more often than not, people will be thoughtful about it.”

But then Reed added, “From the stories I am hearing, it’s pretty much the Wild West.”

In some cases agencies are giving prospective hires false information to suggest that their contract might be canceled, leaving them without a job, she said. “There’s an intimidation kind of thing that kicks in that I find a little distasteful. Some of our employees have been annoyed by it, quite frankly.”

The industry expert said the current recession has altered young technology professionals’ traditional view of the government as inefficient and not a good place to work. Federal agencies can offer better pay, excellent benefits including health insurance and, above all, job security, he said.

“At the same time it’s a revolving door,” he added, “because they can hire those people, but if the people don’t see the changes that were promised they [can] go back to government contracting. And they will be accepted back.”

Soloway said the situation has not reached epidemic proportions, but the contracting industry is concerned. “The numbers are not huge yet, but the early signs are very discouraging,” he said, because “It’s happening faster and more aggressively than we’ve ever seen.”

PSC and other interested organizations, including Congress, are considering ways to rein in the hiring excesses, Soloway said. “We’ve proposed there ought to be a mutual nonsolicitation agreement between industry and the government.”

Reed said other solutions might include a government agreement to pay a finder’s fee for each worker recruited from a contractor, as is commonly done in some other industries.

She said it is in government's and industry’s interest to resolve the problem as transparently as possible. “Where I see the greatest problems are when everything seems to be done in a sub rosa kind of way.”

About the Author

David Hubler is the former print managing editor for GCN and senior editor for Washington Technology. He is freelance writer living in Annandale, Va.

Reader Comments

Wed, Sep 16, 2009 Jaime Gracia Washington, DC

I have been approached by government many times, but choose to stay in industry. I may pursue a federal position in the future, but that is my right. I can come and go as I choose; based on a flexible job market for the right set of skills. Industry and Government will continue to compete for the same labor, although it needs to be done ethically and without misrepresentation. The human capital strategies at DoD recently call for a large number of new hires in the acquisition workforce, so industry knows exactly where they will come from. Although the pressure to in-source will continue to intensify, it needs to be done in a strategic manner, just like out-sourcing to industry. A sounds business case with realistic budgetary figures that meets requirements, completes the mission, and is in the best interest of the taxpayer.

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 Beoweolf

I don't call it "poaching" as much as "goes around, comes around". For the last few years IT techs, even consultants ... have been low balled when it came to wages, often taking jobs beneath their skill set, at sub-standard wages. Now, if given the opportunity to work directly with departments that formerly contracted their skills - its only fair that they should at least consider the position, the offer. You can't buy a satisfied employee. Its been proven more often than not, most IT people a not in it - strictly for the money.

Wed, Sep 9, 2009 fritz

When I was in the USAF I wanted to crosstrain into the Precision Measurements and Equipment Labs field and was told my aircraft mechanic rate was more important to the USAF and I was turned down. I got out of the USAF and kept an eye on the PMEL rate and through the years the USAF has wasted untold millions of taxpayers money hiring contractors that didn't do the job. Only recently the USAF finally decided to use regular USAF employees instead of contractors in the PMEL field. Maybe now they will admit that they made a mistake over the last 40 years but I wouldn't count on any apology from the USAF

Mon, Aug 31, 2009

David Hubler and the industry people he quotes are just sore because the current administration has decided to act upon the truth all of us have known for years, i.e., out sourcing is a bad deal for taxpayers and for contract employees. I don't believe for a minute the talk about a concerted effort to hire 750 contract workers. That's a made up story to trump up a problem that doesn't exist. It always costs the taxpayers more to replace a government worker with a contract worker. Yamaneko above is absolutely correct, but his proportions are understated. The only reason we have the legions of contract workers is that money for government positions was taken away and only contract money was made available. Only when highly esoteric talent is needed on a very short term basis is there a justification for contract workers. In that case, task-oriented fixed-price contracts should be used so that outrageous prices for technical workers can't be charged. What the outsource-at-any-cost posture produces is a threadbare federal workforce that has to struggle to keep up with the technical demands of overseeing highly technical contracts. The government needs technically skilled employees merely to successfully oversee the work being done by so many specialized hired guns. The pendulum is merely swinging back to a position of sanity. Reducing the reliance on contract workers is good for the federal workforce, good for the contract workers, good for the taxpayers, and therefore good for America. Please stop your whining and talking up a problem that doesn't exist.

Mon, Aug 31, 2009 DJ Washington D.C.

As there are two sides to every coin, shouldn't we also consider as government contractors that a large number of our employees have some government service in their background, which is usually what qualifies them to work back on government site as a government contractor? Should we pay finder's fees to the government when we hire someone who was previously a GS? In the staffing agency world, it is common to convert your vendor supplied contractors after 6 months with no fee. In my experience, we have enjoyed far longer than an average of 6 months for each employee the government converts.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above