At a prior employer, my procurement organization experienced a dramatic year-over-year increase in the number of staff aug contractors sourced.  In just a couple of years, we went from sourcing around 10 or so staff aug types to almost 200 per year.  Accordingly, we expanded our supplier base of professional services firms and implemented processes and automation to deal with the increased workload.  However, as our requirement for staff aug contractors increased, we began to see a decrease in the "quality" of the contractors and an increase in problems with contracted staff.

In one case, we engaged what appeared to be a very talented contractor with a correspondingly stratospheric hourly rate, but who had an unusual quirk: he didn't drive.  We didn't think too much about his quirk and things seemed to be going smoothly.  Until he showed up on the job intoxicated.  For the second time.  The project manager in charge of the contractor tried to work through the first incident with the contractor, but then wisely decided to raise the second incident to my level.  Needless to say, the contractor was gone that same day.

There were other situations where we discovered "flaws" in contractors after they came onsite, but nothing nearly as dramatic as the incident I described here.  We didn't seem to have this problem with professional services companies where the contracted staff were employees of those companies, but only with staff aug companies (what I coined as "people mills").

The question that arose from this was: who had the responsibility for screening / vetting the contractors?

Unfortunately, the contract templates that we had been using for professional services (and that I had drafted) weren't very specific.  At the time, the contract templates had the following provision:

"If Customer, at any time in its reasonable discretion, determines that any staff assigned by Supplier is unsuitable for the performance of the Services, Customer shall advise Supplier of such determination, and Supplier shall immediately remove such staff, and, at Customer’s request, promptly provide replacement staff reasonably acceptable to Customer."

The above provision also tied into the following representation and warranty from the supplier:

"Supplier’s staff, assigned to perform the Services, have the experience and are qualified to perform the tasks involved with providing the Services in an efficient and timely manner.  The Services shall be performed in a competent and professional workmanlike manner and in accordance with the highest professional standards.  Supplier acknowledges that Customer is relying on Supplier's representation of its experience and expertise, as well as that of its staff, and that any substantial misrepresentation may result in damage to Customer."

Nice, simple, and powerful language, but the flaw in this language is that it only addresses issues "after the fact" or "after the hire."  That's part of the equation, but what about "before the hire?"  I don't really want my employers interviewing contractors.  That's difficult to do with any significant quantity of contractors, interviewing has the potential of creating co-employment issues, and interviewing erodes the legal concept of detrimental reliance (that I try to create in every one of my contracts).

What I decided to do was add specific activities--that the professional services companies were required to undertake--to my contract template that had the effect of screening / vetting staff aug contractors before those contractors could be presented to my internal customers.  Some or more of the following (depending on the specific situation) were required before the presentation of a contractor was permitted.  Following the implementation of the screening activities in the contract template, there was a dramatic decrease in "problem" staff aug hires.

I've listed those screening activities below with a short description.  Some might be over-kill and asking your vendors to do these things doesn't come free.  On the other hand, some are very relevant and worth the cost of screening.   At the very least require that staff aug contractors have a valid driver's license.  That would have certainly precluded the incident I described above.

Employment Verification - Provides verification of contractor's employment history.

Education / Certification Verification - Provides verification of education or certification desired.

Reference Check - Provides verification of contractor's prior engagements and performance.

Competency Testing - Testing of contractor’s competency relating to required technical and business skillsets.

Federal / County Courthouse Search - Search of felony and misdemeanor records at the Primary Court Location (Superior, Circuit, County, and Common Pleas) and at the Federal level.

State Criminal Database - Search of state Department of Corrections databases for individuals who have been released from incarceration.

State Sexual Offender Search - Search for Sexual Offenders who are required to register in the state in which they reside.

Identity Verification and Past Address History  - Information returned includes SSN validation including: Date of Issue, State of Issue, Previous Addresses.

Drug Testing - Panels used for determining the presence and use of most abused illicit and prescription drugs.

Eviction Search - Review of database of evictions, as well as possession and money judgments, for every Metropolitan Statistical Area in the U.S.

Driver's Records - Verification of specified state operator license through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Credit Report - Provides credit history (including bankruptcy) through a national credit bureau.