GovernmentExecutive.com

The Army is planning to reorganize its procurement leadership structure and increase its contracting workforce by 1,400 over the next two to three years, Army officials said Thursday.

The pledge came a little more than a month after an independent commission to review Army expeditionary contracting determined that the service was facing systemic institutional challenges in conducting expeditionary contracting, and that reform was urgently needed.

Claude Bolton, the Army's top procurement official, who recently announced that he will resign as of Jan. 2, told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee Thursday that the Army is "accelerating plans to set up the military structure recommended by the commission." It has approved a contracting command, to be headed by a two-star general, as well as a one-star-level expeditionary contracting command. Bolton said the service is in the process of identifying people to fill the new positions.

The commission had recommended the creation of a single Army contracting command that would be responsible for making acquisition and contract management a "high-quality core competence." The panel said creating senior positions would give those interested in acquisition careers the potential for promotion.

Bolton said the Army will expand its acquisition workforce by adding about 1,000 civilians and 400 military personnel, as the commission also recommended, but the increase will not happen overnight.

Bolton and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, told the committee that it would likely take two to three years to fill the new positions and anywhere from five to 10 years before the expanded workforce is fully trained and certified. Contracting vacancies are a governmentwide problem, and competition for qualified employees is fierce.

The commission, headed by Jacques Gansler, former undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, found that while the Army's acquisition workload increased sevenfold in recent years, the contracting workforce had been stagnant or declining. While the Defense Department is struggling with procurement workforce issues across all services, the problem is particularly pronounced in the Army.

According to the report and Gansler's testimony before the subcommittee, the Air Force has stepped into the lead acquisition role in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, despite being responsible for a relatively small share of procurement spending.

"One of the reasons the Air Force model is more successful in the case of contracting is that they start their people as second lieutenants in the contracting field," Gansler said. "The number of years of experience matters."

The commission recommended that the Army follow a similar model, but not at the expense of time spent in combat roles. "We do recommend they begin as second lieutenants, but that they spend two or three years in combat positions so they understand the real Army -- what the objectives are -- and muddy their shoes," Gansler said.

While much of the needed reform must come within the Army, Gansler said some legislative action also is required. He urged Congress to appropriate the resources necessary for the Army to increase its contracting workforce.

COMMENTS

• As a former enlisted Air Force contract specialist I could never understand why the Army did not allow enlisted folks to perform contract specialist duties and yet expect the officers who retire to apply for positions that are not competitive with the rest of the procurement community. As a civilian Federal employee I find it equally interesting that the Army still can't understand why they aren't able to retain folks. The amount of workload assigned to one specialist is crushing, given the fact that new employees are not given adequate time to review the workload they are assigned is a sign of things to come. How can you adequately manage a workload that you haven't had the time to review? I have had friends in Army offices who only stayed long enough to find a job outside of Army Contracting. Low grades, increased workload and constant scrutiny, along with limited promotion potential are what drive people away from Army procurement jobs. Nikki Posted February 15, 2008 11:51 AM
• The Army will have to change a lot before they allow this change. They seem so intent on the "muddying the boots" philosophy that the training, education and experience required to remain current in many acquisition career fields are not met w/ open arms in today's U.S. Army. As an Air Force person I hope the Army truly embraces this change and begin investing in organic contracting support; civilian, enlisted and officer. cee Posted December 13, 2007 12:20 PM
• To bad the Army has no control over the Army Corps of Engineers. Years of negative GAO reports on Civil Works Programs have failed produce real reform. In an agency fraught with late, mismanaged and over budget projects, real reform is needed. Corps Contracting Divisions are intentionally understaffed and undertrained to keep Corps contracts from being properly administered. This effort is effective to keep project dollars cascading downward to the cleverly built 800 series engineer empire. An organization truly built on the foundation of waste and abuse. I have personally witnessed DoD audits and investigations where waste and abuse was discovered and documented, yet no reform ever came. Even documented abuses in Katrina and the war on terrorism have failed to produce change. It’s business as usual. Even congressmen after being made aware have turned a blind eye. Confirming that the Army Corps of Engineers is a pork barrel for both political parties. The Corps is organized by “districts”, but that really means “political districts”. The Army will have a tough time reforming the Army much less the Corps of Engineers. Contracting Officer Posted December 13, 2007 10:11 AM