If it were really true that this development group could deliver according to client expectations, they would do what many other groups do: form a consultancy and hire an English-language speaker not as a fake interview candidate but as a liason.

I worked with a firm that did this. Basically, they had one project manager who could speak decent English and about six developers who couldn't. The English-speaking PM was on calls with us, and then he'd farm out the work to the developers.

It was a win-win, because their group was getting work, and we were getting decent results at a discounted rate compared with on-shore resources.

But it's pretty clear that anyone looking for fake interview candidates is not actually planning to do that. They're essentially counting on the fact that it takes many companies a little while to get rid of a bad hire.

I think the main factor that drives the alternative model is that a lot of people with jobs that could theoretically be undertaken by offshore agencies advertise for an onshore individual (sometimes because they have very strong reasons not to want to offshore, but also sometimes because they haven't considered it). So there's a bigger market of better paying gigs out there for a "candidate" than an "offshore agency" (considerably better if they can actually deliver the work). Not that this particular entity seems to have had much ability...

In the grey area, there's still a big difference between a liason taking on a load of freelance contracts for the farm under his real name and intermediating comms without ever mentioning there's actually six other people he's never met doing most of the work and identity theft to take on remote full time roles involving work they probably can't handle.

That's actually one of my jobs, I'm a liaison-PM between a Canadian company and developers situated in Nepal, Egypt, etc.

I'm in Uruguay so my timezone works out for all involved.

I interviewed one guy that seemed to fit this description -- he didn't speak much, and when he did his accent was strong. He had someone with him, that seemed to speak on his behalf.

Spooky.

I've heard of large consulting companies that do a "bait and switch" where the client initially talks to a fantastic technical person prior to signing a contract, then never hears from them again.

Similar to large law firms; a senior partner closes the deal, and then they shuffle you off onto an associate fresh off the bar (who often still bills out at the full senior partner rate!)

Sometimes law firms don't even really disclose who's doing the work, and sometimes in their invoices they'll have a paralegal's initials under the "Atty" column.

This is sometimes true even for very large and reputable law firms.

Hello, it me! Or was anyway.

Every solution architect/ pre sales engineer you talk to before the ink is signed isn't there to do the work, they're there to build trust and confidence that the other folks who can't talk to a client are just as talented.

Also you definitely hear from us again as we bill 4 hours a week or what have you for "Quality Assurance."

That is normal - you have to add to the interview a requirement that you interview and have to approve each person assigned to work for you.

It is amazing how many managers I have worked for who don't do that.

There are some legal sensitivities here: the company is hiring a vendor to provide a service, and risks co-employment issues if they start managing the vendor's staff in any way, including interviewing them.

This is standard operating procedure with large Indian outsourcing-companies.

Get the contract using great people. Before the ink on the contract is dry, send in hopelessly underqualified staff. By the time the client finds out, their "old" internal resources are long gone, bonuses have been paid out to management for reducing cost etc.

I experienced this first-hand with Cognizant.

i work for a consulting company and prefer to cradle-to-grave my projects but it makes it hard to move up the corporate ladder. I'm working on a proposal now for a large project that will span at least 3 years. If I ask to get staffed on it then i know it will get delivered as sold and I may get promoted at the end but definitely won't get promoted during the project. On the other hand, if i'm an author on three or four wins for large projects over a year then i'm much more likely to get promoted regardless of how those turnout at the end of their schedules.