If the rest of the intelligence community treats their IT people same as Schindler in his tweets, it's no wonder they can't get quality staff.
The correct solution would have been using more military people at NSA and accepting a much longer in-house training pipeline. The benefit is I'd trust an 8-12 year military IT veteran who served in general military IT then got put at NSA a lot more than someone hired as a contractor; much harder for the enemy to infiltrate someone, and someone who has been in for 8-12 years probably has a pattern of behavior, family, ties, etc. to make it less likely he'd accidentally or intentionally fuck you.
Schindler seems to be particularly upset (which is probably understandable) and maybe not representative of how people treat contractors normally :)
The problem is that it's expensive and much more difficult to administer, but hopefully NSA and DoD in general will realize why mere difficulty of administration should not hold them back now.
Honestly the NSA is lucky that the first (known?) insider leak of this type came from a do-gooder instead of something more sinister.
I will say that civil servants tend to despise the contractors. I can't say I blame them either, it's literally a case of "dey turk our jeerrbs!". But fixing the rise of contractors would require both a decoupling of the military-industrial complex and possibly an overhaul of the civil service benefits/retirement scheme (as the whole point to hiring a contractor is that their staff are cheaper overall).
You could keep a civil servant for $80k/yr and give him a $60k/yr pension for (say, $120k/yr for his working life) for an entire career of 30 years for that. Spend the first 5-10 on training (much of which is OJT, so he's still doing useful work), and you're still 10-15 years ahead, even today.