Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel

Guardian said:

We intend to select the awardee, in part, by evaluating "key personnel" as a factor.

Why?  It seems this approach isn't working for you.

Guardian said:

On a recently awarded contract, the awardee made good on their commitment by ensuring the member of key personnel they proposed, and whose resume the Government evaluated, showed up to work on day one .  However, after approximately thirty days, that same contractor employee left.

Did you record this fact in the past performance evaluation in CPARS?  You can do an interim report at any time.  How about today?

Guardian said:

We have included language in other contracts, which states that the contractor, if it receives an award, must ensure that all proposed members of key personnel show up to work on day one and remain in their job positions on that contract for at least 90 days.

What enforcement or incentive mechanism is included in those those other contracts?

-------------------

Perhaps you can discern that I am not a big fan of key personnel evaluations?

We developed a clause for key trade subcontractors that were specifically proposed and for specific key personnel who were proposed, recognizing that some key personnel might not be available if award is delayed or for an entire contract period. If an offeror proposes the “A Team”, we expect the A Team, not the “B team” or B substitutes. 

It essentially says that the contractor shall use those proposed key subcontractors, if any and proposed key personnel. The solicitation specifies which key trade subs and which personnel positions are “key” . For subcontractors we look at recent relevant experience and past performance.

If a person is no longer available, the contractor must propose a suitable substitute to the KO. The minimum standard for qualification will be based upon those of the originally proposed and evaluated person and consistent with the original evaluation criteria. I don’t have the clause handy right now.

We would really frown upon substituting key subs. Strong indicator of bid shopping after award. Plus, the strengths of the proposed key subs usually influence the prime contractor selection,  since they often perform the major portion of the work . That’s not Germaine to this thread. But both key subs and key personnel are covered by the clause.

@Guardian

I think that the problem you are having is due to the information you are requesting. If you want to predict the quality of key personnel that would perform a prospective contract, you would be better off requesting information about key personnel that an offeror has actually assigned to similar contracts.

You are inviting the gamesmanship that you are experiencing.

@GuardianRequire the contractor to enter into a subcontract with the employee under which the employee promises to stay on the job until the contract is physically completed.

Thanks everyone.  This helps a lot.

Don Mansfield said:

If you want to predict the quality of key personnel that would perform a prospective contract, you would be better off requesting information about key personnel that an offeror has actually assigned to similar contracts.

I’m also not a fan of key personnel.  But if you want to do it, Don’s suggestion is good.  Also if key personnel is so important to your project, make an offerors delivery and retention of key personnel part of past performance evaluation.  And don’t just put it on a survey few respond to.  Call up references the offeror provided plus dig up other references.  Call on the phone and ask pointed questions.

Read the OP! Guardian's issue is not whether or how to evaluate proposed key personnel. The issue is how to ensure that key personnel stay on board for the duration.

The answer is to require offerors to enter into fixed term employment contracts with key personnel under which the key person promises to stay with the contractor throughout the period of performance. Such a contract is not an absolute guarantee, but it is more of one than a stupid "letter of commitment." Such employment contracts would be subcontracts of the prime contract.

A former employer required me to enter into such a contract on an annual basis. They are not uncommon.

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/quick-guides/fixed-term-employment-contracts

Letters of commitment are products of government idiocracy.

How about a term in the contract that the contracting officer will reduce the contract price by $xx for each key personnel change occurring in the first year of performance and $yy for each key personnel change occurring in subsequent years?

$xx could be two percent of the contract price (if FFP) or ten percent of the fixed fee (if CPFF).
$yy could be one percent of the contract price (if FFP) or five percent of the fixed fee (if CPFF).

I haven't fully thought this through, but maybe it will be helpful to the original poster if he or she is intent on keeping those people.

ji20874 said:

How about a term in the contract that the contracting officer will reduce the contract price by $xx for each key personnel change occurring in the first year of performance and $yy for each key personnel change occurring in subsequent years?

No, no, no! What would that be? Some kind of liquidated damages? A penalty? What if performance is unaffected by a departure?

Vern Edwards said:

Require the contractor to enter into a subcontract with the employee under which the employee promises to stay on the job until the contract is physically completed.

This would depend if the PM is truly intending to lock the KP in till contract completion, or if he/she is just dancing around personal services limitations.  Those PMs that only want to hold the reins loosely over hiring and firing often use a small $25-$50k “fee reduction” in a special clause to hold over contractors’ heads.  Sad but true.  The reduction can be applied in the next TO’s negotiations (assuming Indefinite Delivery contracting).

I think the promissory nature Vern is providing with this recommendation is a CO’s first and best solution to provide PMs when drafting the RFP, assuming a healthy competition where KP is of high importance.  COs must also be aware they may uncover the PM’s true intentions I describe above.

What about DFARS 2052.215-70 Key Personnel Clause? https://www.acquisition.gov/nrcar/part-2052-solicitation-provisions-and-contract-clauses#Section_2052_215_70_T48_60638251115

I think it also depends upon what is the most important consideration. Is it specific personnel or the caliber of provided personnel? I’ve seen where the A Team was proposed to help win the job and then quickly substituted by employees of much lesser qualifications and experience. It is what we call the bait and switch to the B Team.

Even the Bechtel’s, Fluor’s, and Keiwit’s of the engineering and construction world have A and B teams, which can correlate with the degree of successful performance on a project. 

I was less concerned with retaining specific personnel than with having no input over who replaces them. We had no desire to stifle career moves and promotions - only to avoid lesser qualifications of replacements, especially if there was a cost cutting motive involved.

Rather than requiring specific people, why not establish minimum requirements to fill the position?  When you evaluate key personnel, what is it that you are looking for?  If the important thing is that the key personnel have at least a 4 year college degree, 10 years of experience in a field, and 3 years experience with certain equipment, then make those the minimum contract requirements.  Then, even if the identified person leaves, the replacement will have the qualifications you want.

If you want to make some sort of trade off in the evaluation and pay more for a more qualified candidate state that you will incorporate the qualifications of the identified key personnel into the awarded contract which must be met by any replacement.

This, in combination with the DFARS clause listed by Neil (or similar language if not DOD) would seem to cover the matter.

Neil Roberts said:

What about DFARS 2052.215-70 Key Personnel Clause? https://www.acquisition.gov/nrcar/part-2052-solicitation-provisions-and-contract-clauses#Section_2052_215_70_T48_60638251115

Very interesting.

Neil Roberts said:

What about DFARS 2052.215-70 Key Personnel C

The link and citation are for a Nuclear Regulatory Commission clause.

Vern Edwards said:

No, no, no! What would that be? Some kind of liquidated damages? A penalty? What if performance is unaffected by a departure?

I'm with you, Vern -- I don't like the idea, either.  I don't like the way pre-award key personnel evaluations are commonly done, and I prefer for post-award administration to focus on performance and outcomes and delivery and so forth.

joel hoffman said:

Very interesting.

No, it's not.

Aside from the notification requirement in paragraph (b), the key provision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission clause is this:

Quote

(d) If the contracting officer determines that suitable and timely replacement of key personnel who have been reassigned, terminated, or have otherwise become unavailable for the contract work is not reasonably forthcoming, or that the resultant reduction of productive effort would be so substantial as to impair the successful completion of the contract or the service order, the contract may be terminated by the contracting officer for default or for the convenience of the Government, as appropriate. If the contracting officer finds the contractor at fault for the condition, the contract price or fixed fee may be equitably adjusted downward to compensate the Government for any resultant delay, loss, or damage.

Now, what right does that give the government that it does not already have under the inspection of services clause, the T for C clause, and the T for D clause? Aside from the notification requirement, the clause is just typical government clutter. And if the government team is worth their salt, they won't need the notification requirement.

From the question I assume that the RFP lists the positions that are considered key, and the offeror names the people for those positions. What if the RFP requires offerors to list any key positions and personnel, who would then be subject to notice and approval by the customer of any changes?

So do you list several people and take on the burden of notice and approval for any changes, or do you list few or none and risk an evaluation that you consider no position to be key?

Fara Fasat said:

So do you list several people and take on the burden of notice and approval for any changes, or do you list few or none and risk an evaluation that you consider no position to be key?

You do what marketing tells you to do.

ji20874 said:

How about a term in the contract that the contracting officer will reduce the contract price by $xx for each key personnel change occurring in the first year of performance and $yy for each key personnel change occurring in subsequent years?

I had an opportunity to go back and look at the circumstances surrounding the last three members of key personnel we lost on contracts; 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.  If the contractor "made their job less stressful," whatever that might mean, could that have kept the employee in their position?  I for one don't want to go down that rabbit hole.  People resign from their jobs for various reasons, many of which are vindicable.  People also leave their jobs for reasons much worse than resignation.  As a CO, I would be reluctant, if not averse, to building in any incentives or disincentives that might penalize the contractor for circumstances out of their control. 

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.

On 2/2/2022 at 1:36 PM, Don Mansfield said:

I think that the problem you are having is due to the information you are requesting. If you want to predict the quality of key personnel that would perform a prospective contract, you would be better off requesting information about key personnel that an offeror has actually assigned to similar contracts.

By this approach, wouldn't we effectively be going down the road toward evaluation of past performance?  Maybe we prefer not to evaluate past performance, as we are not required to.  Instead, we seek to streamline our evaluation methodology and source selection procedures in a manner most likely to provide best value to the Government.  How might this approach affect an offeror who does not have a record of relevant past performance, including use of key personnel on similar contracts?  If we were strictly evaluating past performance, we would apply a neutral rating.

Fara Fasat said:

From the question I assume that the RFP lists the positions that are considered key, and the offeror names the people for those positions. What if the RFP requires offerors to list any key positions and personnel, who would then be subject to notice and approval by the customer of any changes?

Of course it does.  It includes a key personnel clause as is required in all solicitation and contracts that call for use of key personnel.  Who would be subject to notice? Umm, the CO.

Fara Fasat said:

So do you list several people and take on the burden of notice and approval for any changes, or do you list few or none and risk an evaluation that you consider no position to be key?

The burden of notice is on the contractor, who is required to inform the CO if it cannot retain a member of key personnel.  Do I take on the "[burden of approval] for any changes [within the contract]"?  Yes, it is what I signed up for when I agreed to my certificate of appointment.

Guardian said:

I had an opportunity to go back and look at the circumstances surrounding the last three members of key personnel we lost on contracts; 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.  If the contractor "made their job less stressful," whatever that might mean, could that have kept the employee in their position?  I for one don't want to go down that rabbit hole.  People resign from their jobs for various reasons, many of which are vindicable.  People also leave their jobs for reasons much worse than resignation.  As a CO, I would be reluctant, if not averse, to building in any incentives or disincentives that might penalize the contractor for circumstances out of their control. 

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.

By this approach, wouldn't we effectively be going down the road toward evaluation of past performance?  Maybe we prefer not to evaluate past performance, as we are not required to.  Instead, we seek to streamline our evaluation methodology and source selection procedures in a manner most likely to provide best value to the Government.  How might this approach affect an offeror who does not have a record of relevant past performance, including use of key personnel on similar contracts?  If we were strictly evaluating past performance, we would apply a neutral rating.

Of course it does.  It includes a key personnel clause as is required in all solicitation and contracts that call for use of key personnel.  Who would be subject to notice? Umm, the CO.

The burden of notice is on the contractor, who is required to inform the CO if it cannot retain a member of key personnel.  Do I take on the "[burden of approval] for any changes [within the contract]"?  Yes, it is what I signed up for when I agreed to my certificate of appointment.

Appears like you really just need to be able to have input into the qualifications of replacements. People are going to move on.  Voila, the approach that we take seems viable and relatively simple, assuming that you are evaluating specific key personnel during the selection process.

Guardian said:

By this approach, wouldn't we effectively be going down the road toward evaluation of past performance?

No. You would be asking for the same type of information you probably ask for now when evaluating personnel qualifications (i.e., resumes). But your data set for predicting the qualifications of personnel who would work on your contract would likely be more relevant because it would be from actual key personnel (the type who replace proposed key personnel shortly after the contractor begins performance).

Guardian said:

How might this approach affect an offeror who does not have a record of relevant past performance, including use of key personnel on similar contracts?

The same way it would affect an offeror who proposed to use a key person who did not have the requisite qualifications in your source selections.

Guardian said:

I had an opportunity to go back and look at the circumstances surrounding the last three members of key personnel we lost on contracts; 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.  If the contractor "made their job less stressful," whatever that might mean, could that have kept the employee in their position?  I for one don't want to go down that rabbit hole.  People resign from their jobs for various reasons, many of which are vindicable.  People also leave their jobs for reasons much worse than resignation.  As a CO, I would be reluctant, if not averse, to building in any incentives or disincentives that might penalize the contractor for circumstances out of their control.

@GuardianHas it occurred to you that maybe they (or some of them) left their jobs because the government was a pain in the *** to work for/with? I know of some instances in which that has been the case. 🤔

Vern Edwards said:

Has it occurred to you that maybe they (or some of them) left their jobs because the government was a pain in the *** to work for/with? I know of some instances in which that has been the case.

See, for instance, Libertatia Associates, Inc. v. U.S., 46 Fed. Cl. 702, 707-08 (2000):

Quote

Plaintiff argues that the government's actions were motivated by the COR's personal animosity and personal greed. Pl.'s Br. at 3. To support its argument, plaintiff offered at trial evidence of the government's ill will and a specific intent to injure plaintiff.

The testimony showed the COR to be a contracting official without a proper understanding of his role. The COR admitted that he told many employees of TLA that they should think of him as “Jesus Christ” and the CO as “God.”10 Tr. at 376 (testimony of COR); Tr. at 1041 (testimony of Mr. Folmar that the COR “considered hisself as Jesus”). In addition to casting himself as Christ, the COR explained to TLA's employees that the other inspectors were like “disciples.” Tr. at 376 (testimony of COR).

The court found credible the testimony offered by plaintiff regarding the COR's use of intimidation and coercion in the course of administering government contracts on the Army base. Mr. James Votaw, a contractor not affiliated with TLA who performed maintenance on the Army base, testified, “At Fort Rucker, Mr. Barnard intimidated almost all the local employees.” Tr. at 737, 747. Mr. Votaw also testified that he felt threatened when the COR told him not to help plaintiff perform during the forbearance period because that would cause Mr. Votaw to fall out of favor with the COR and the CO. Tr. at 736–37. See also Tr. at 1079 (testimony of Mr. Steven Theobald).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

@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."

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.

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.