The overall idea behind being "forced" to hire subs is that it helps promote smaller, local businesses. In the past this worked out very well, because the subs brought in some very knowledgeable people. I believe the old number was 25% of the people, and you could pull from anywhere. If you had a 20 person team, you could have 15 LM, 2 from Company X, and 3 from Company Y.
On DCPS, the problem is that LM is forced to hire 45% (FORTY-FIVE) of the subs through one specific subcontractor. That company had a previous contract with SSA, and SSA liked them. Since the sub essentially lost their work with SSA to LM, and they know LM was contractually obligated to hire through them, they stuffed us with a ton of below average folks.
On the face of it, I agree with the idea of a large contractor having to sub out some of the work to the smaller players; it's just that LM overplayed their hand trying to get this contract, and got screwed for it. But that's another story on how LM management is trying to make revenue numbers for bonuses...
I have actually worked on the DCPS product as a former LM employee, so here's what I saw: there are two sides to the problem. The biggest problem is the number of stakeholders. Currently, each state has their own system to process disability cases, and each system has its own way of doing things. SSA & Lockheed are trying to consolidate these 50+ systems into one national system. Every state this product is rolled out in creates some new challenge to make it work the way the state's SSA office expects. Hopefully this new exec will have the power to make some decisions and say "no" once in awhile.
Lockheed has their own set of problems, mostly hinging on the contract they've signed with SSA. They are forced to hire a certain number of subs per their contract - hiring a percentage of subs is not unusual, but the level in this contract is very high. As such, the subs know they can force feed trash into LM. The resumes coming from the subs were complete bullshit. Things like "10 years of experience administering X", but then in the interview, you find out they know next to nothing. Especially bad with databases when you even try to ask them how to write a join. One meeting we had while I was still there was a "skills assessment" - from 1 to 10, how well do you know X? There was no negative to this meeting, we just wanted to know who knew what. The number of "10s" in that meeting was beyond belief.
So sure, Lockheed may not have a lot of experience here, but that problem is exacerbated by the stakeholders and the contractors they are forced to hire.
On DCPS, the problem is that LM is forced to hire 45% (FORTY-FIVE) of the subs through one specific subcontractor. That company had a previous contract with SSA, and SSA liked them. Since the sub essentially lost their work with SSA to LM, and they know LM was contractually obligated to hire through them, they stuffed us with a ton of below average folks.
On the face of it, I agree with the idea of a large contractor having to sub out some of the work to the smaller players; it's just that LM overplayed their hand trying to get this contract, and got screwed for it. But that's another story on how LM management is trying to make revenue numbers for bonuses...