GovernmentExecutive.com

A recent survey of the skills of the federal acquisition workforce shows that while contracting officials generally are operating at expected levels, they could benefit from additional training to bridge competency gaps.

The survey by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Federal Acquisition Institute aimed to help determine where resources should be concentrated to improve or maintain essential skills. OMB touted the report as "the first-ever baseline analysis of the proficiency levels of the civilian agency contracting workforce."

OFPP and FAI conducted the survey between April and May and had 5,400 respondents. The vast majority fit into the desired GS-1102 contracting officer or specialist category.

For the most part, contracting personnel are proficient both in general business and technical contracting, the survey indicated. Respondents did signal, however, that they would benefit from training in several areas, including project management, defining and managing government requirements, performance-based acquisition and use of performance metrics. They also advocated training in negotiation skills, strategic planning and the effective resolution of contract disputes.

OMB is encouraging chief acquisition and human capital officers to review the survey results in preparing their Gap Analysis Report and Improvement Plans, due Dec. 15 to OMB. In these reports, agencies must include steps they can take to address shortfalls in skills.

"This survey is a comprehensive review of our workforce and will guide strategic development and succession planning efforts," said OFPP Administrator Paul Denett, in a statement. "Agencies have a unique opportunity to identify specific organizational competency gaps and are using this information to develop plans to close those gaps."

The demographics of the respondents indicated that existing weaknesses will be exacerbated by a looming retirement wave.

Of the GS-1102 level respondents, 64 percent of the contracting officers were 46 or older, and 52 percent reported plans to retire in the next 10 years. The figures were slightly lower but still significant for contracting specialists, with 49 percent of respondents older than 46 and 37 percent planning to retire in the next decade.

Many of those slated to retire were at higher skill levels. In areas requiring technical competency, 40 percent possessing proficiency levels of intermediate or greater will retire within 10 years. For the general business area, that figure rises to 45 percent.

In a memorandum to chief acquisition officers, Denett asked that, in the upcoming reports, agencies identify strategies and milestones for recruitment and retention at all levels, but specifically the GS-1102 level. "You may want to consider not only the numbers of contracting professionals required but also the competencies needed in your organization and strategies for obtaining these skills," Denett wrote.

Chief acquisition officers have consistently identified the contracting workforce as one of their primary areas of focus. They are attempting to combat existing vacancies and skill gaps and prepare for the expected retirement wave by using tools like direct hire and student loan repayment.

COMMENTS

• As a Contracting Officer's representative, an engineer, and a recipient of hundreds of hours of training, I have the cynical view that this question is a self-answering question. The survey asks "would you like more training" and the respondents say "sure". Duh. In my view, training for the contracting community seems to be a jobs program for the training commands. The requirements for DAWIA have changed at least 3 times since I got my level 2. The older courses are obsoleted rather than built upon. That means for me to get to level 3 I have to repeat courses from level 2 because my prerequisites are out of date. So I have to repeat the same stuff (that I already knew anyway before taking the first courses). Similarly with annual Ethics training - have two separate courses because I live in both the contracting world and the world of engineering. My perspective on the quality and capability of contracting is that the issue is not contracting officers - it is the lack of training for people in the field that deal with contractors on a daily basis. The gov't has created a job series that does contracting and not dealt with the fact that most contracting decisions are made by "project managers" or end users. The contracting people will never be able (and are not trained in the technical issues) to ensure that contractors comply with their contracts. Until the COTR gap is filled with people that can bridge between contracting rules and technical requirements the system will stay broken. No amount of training of contract specialists or contracting officers will fix that. Will Hettchen Posted October 30, 2007 7:58 AM
• The average Contracting Officer must wear too many hats during the course of day-to-day responsibilities. There are far too many poorly trained PM's and even fewer professional COTR's. Most days are spent putting out fires created by these poorly trained individuals. Then add on the fact that many agencies do not place emphasis on developing a realistic training budget for the 1102 career field. Congress made a big stink about 1102 training and instituted DAWIA for DOD, but as soon as everyone forgot about the issues that precipitated the program, money was diverted and training has become a low priority. Most training has been switched to an online format with the responsibility placed squarely on the agency shoulders to do the bulk of the training. If I'm not mistaken, isn't this where we were prior to DAWIA?? This is the typical example what is wrong with Government Leadership, if you have fixed it then leave it fixed. Taking money away from a successful plan is not an improvement. I'm sure somebody is busy patting themselves on the back for saving money, which is an oxymoron since you can't save money in the Government. You can either spend it wisely or move it, but in Government there are no savings since all monies must be spent. RM Posted October 29, 2007 9:15 AM
• Granted, training is required but if improving the quality of our contracting is the long-term objective, school-house training is not the panacea as portrayed here. When I first came into contracting some 20 years ago, my supervisors had the time to be mentors. Today's supervisors, who are referred to as "working supervisors" with no more than 25% of their time alloted to supervision, do not have time to mentor. Consequently, the requisite skill sets, honed in practical application, are not being passed to the younger generation. Steve Posted October 29, 2007 8:07 AM