GovernmentExecutive.com

Agencies can meet their regulatory requirements and leverage a stretched acquisition workforce by better managing the technical experts on their contracting teams, the Merit Systems Protection Board said in a recent report.

In the report released last week, MSPB reviewed the management of contracting officer representatives -- the members of contracting teams with expertise on the technical, rather than business, side of an acquisition -- and found significant gaps that hurt contract outcomes. MSPB is a quasi-judicial federal agency charged with upholding the merit principles.

"In recent years, the government has modernized its contracting rules and procedures and improved the management of contracting officers who carry out the business aspects of contracting," wrote MSPB Director Steve Nelson, in a letter presenting the report. "However, almost no work has been done to assess agencies' management of contracting officer representatives who provide the technical expertise necessary to effectively develop and oversee contracts."

Such management is particularly important as federal contract spending has increased over the past several years, the report noted. The government spent $328 billion on contracts in 2004, an 87 percent increase over the $175 billion spent in 1997.

MSPB focused on two types of management: issues pertaining to basic regulatory requirements, and additional good practices in managing contracting technical experts.

To comply with contracting and personnel rules, agencies should ensure that contracting officers, the single individual with ultimate responsibility for the business side of a contract, formally delegate work to contracting officer representatives as required in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the report recommended.

In their survey of technical contracting staff at the 10 agencies that spent 90 percent of the government's fiscal 2000 acquisition dollars, reviewers found a link between formal delegation of responsibility and better contract outcomes.

Reviewers also recommended that technical contract staff receive training on both the business of contracting and their technical specialty on an ongoing basis. The technical experts, who were generally highly trained, highly paid employees, reported that computer-based and self-paced training was least effective, while training that entailed interaction with other experienced personnel was most useful.

Additionally, reviewers found that agencies were not meeting Office of Management and Budget policies geared at strategic workforce management that call for agencies to track the locations and competencies of their contracting officer representatives.

Allan Burman, head of federal procurement policy at OMB under George H.W. Bush, said the study would be valuable to the procurement community. "The more that [contracting officer representatives] are recognized as people with a strategic role, and an important role, the better," he said, noting that some of MSPB's recommendations for increased training and earlier involvement for these professionals were similar to those made in March by a federal acquisition advisory group.

Beyond the basic requirements, reviewers found many areas where good management practices were linked with good contract outcomes. The report urged agencies to consider the following measures, which were found to be linked to better results:

• Establish and use criteria for assigning contracting officer representatives (CORs).
• Involve CORs early in the contracting process.
• Ensure that pre- and post-award contract duties are performed by CORs.
• Work with CORs to balance time requirements with noncontracting responsibilities.
• Rate CORs on their contracting performance.
• Strengthen other elements of the contracting team.

COMMENTS

• To: Engineer You stated: "If the contracting officers knew a little about the technical side it wouldn't seem to be such a big disconnect. It never fails that the business types always try to put everyone else under their control and have them do all the real work! As always in the government, it's a--backwards!" First of all, CO's do know a little about the technical aspects of the goods or services being procured. A CO may be responsible for procurements of widely differing things and cannot reasonably be expected to be experts on everything. As a CO, I am not looking to put anyone under my "control," nor do my technical reps so all the "real work." The technical rep. and the CO are a professional team working together to place and administer highly complex contracts, often of significant dollar value. Both sides are important. The technical rep. ensures that we get what we pay for and that we accurately describe what we are procuring, and the CO makes sure that everybody stays out of jail. Note that the FAR prescribes the limits of technical rep. and CO authority, so it's not an individual, discretionary determination. If technical reps just stay within the scope of their job, there's no problem. Sometimes, technical reps are overreaching and do not understand that what they may want to do simply is not permissible under the contract, and they do not respect the CO's professional judgment or authority. Long-Time Contracting Officer Posted May 18, 2006 12:40 PM
• Engineer, As a contract specialist, I have too much on my plate to be a "technical expert" for every requirement I'm given to fill. The fact is if agencies want contractor support they need to step up to the plate and pull their fair share of the workload. If not, then make do without the contractors. Requiring activities need to take contracting officer's representative (COR) responsibilities seriously. GovExec.com reader Posted May 18, 2006 11:40 AM
• Unfortunately, our contracting officers’ technical reps are given this responsibility as an "extra duty as assigned." It's a full-time job. They are pulled in several directions and the extra duties understandably fall to the wayside. The Services should reinstate professional QAP's. They understand both the contracting and technical aspects and they have the time to do it right. GovExec.com reader Posted May 16, 2006 9:16 AM