Performance-based contracts for services focus on the performance outcomes and the contractor’s ability to meet or exceed standards; however, regardless of unique methods that may be used, it is staffing levels which often become an area of focus. It is easier for the Government’s Program Manager to count the number of bodies performing an effort than it is to observe unique methods or techniques. Since the Program Manager is involved in the source selection process, they are intimately familiar with the unique staffing approaches proposed and the thought process that went into selecting the resultant awardee.
Therefore, when the contractor performs with less staff, different qualifications, or a combination of both, it is understandable that the program manager feels as though they were duped. As a result, whether the Program Manager is right or wrong, this often leads to a very contentious relationship between the contractor and the Program Manager for the remainder of the contract.
When the Program Manager comes to the Contracting Officer to complain about the situation, the first thing that should be done is to look to the contract. Is there a minimum manning level in the contract or was the contractor’s technical proposal incorporated into the contract at award? If the answer is ‘no’, then the next thing to determine is if the contractor is performing satisfactorily the performance work statement (PWS) requirements. In the event they are performing at an acceptable level, then there is nothing the contracting officer can do to require the contractor to increase staffing. The program manager needs to understand that the essence of performance-based contracting is that the contractor can bend and flex staffing levels as needed and not focus on the number of bodies showing up each day, but the quality of work being performed.
To avoid this situation, it is important for the Contracting Officer to address potential staffing levels during the acquisition planning stage. If the program office desires to hold the resultant awardee to the staffing levels proposed or a group of key personnel, then the solicitation needs to notify offerors that the resultant contract will include the technical proposal as a specification. Normally, this approach is used when the acquisition uses best value tradeoff procedures to make an award selection since the technical proposal likely carried some weight in the outcome of the award decision. This approach puts the pressure on the contractor to provide staffing as proposed and in the event a position is vacated, they need to work to fill it in a timely manner while still meeting all PWS requirements. However, keep in mind that this approach will limit the ability of the offerors to propose lower prices via a strategy that minimizes manning via a workforce cross-trained to perform various sections of the PWS.
For the contractors reading this, I recommend against the bate-n-switch tactic, even if the resultant contract does not have the clause in it to require specific staffing levels. While it may get your foot in the door with a government contract, many times it leads to a difficult five years of performance, reduced CPARS rating, and ultimately the loss of the follow-on effort. That is not to say you should not maximize the use of cross-training to lower the proposed pricing, but when this approach is used, I recommend including a paragraph in the technical proposal explaining this technique to reduce manning. Following this approach, if there is any disagreement after award, you will now have grounds to stand for utilizing less staff and it eliminates the appearance of gaming the acquisition.