GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Acquisition managers: We're overwhelmed with oversight

• 20100
  

  I was thinking of taking an entry level contracting specialist job, but after reading all this I have cold feet. Not enough pay to put my neck on the chopping block.

  Ex-1102 Candidate

  GovExec.com reader Posted December 11, 2006 3:23 PM
• 19513
  

  There is significant room for argument on both sides of this issue. As a former IG who concentrated in acquisition issues, I will concede that the level of acquisition expertise in some audit staffs is lacking. However, the pressure for oversight does not come from the inspectors general, but rather from Congress and the American taxpayer. Innovative contracting arguments notwithstanding, acquisition personnel (to include program managers as well as contracting officials) must bear in mind that they are stewards of the public trust and must obligate public funds judiciously. The management responses to audit reports that I have received indicate that many have not accepted that mantle of responsibility. Comments such as "converting [a base operations services] from cost-reimbursement to fixed-price would not save any money because the contractor already awards sub-contracts on a competitive fixed price basis" or "conducting a cost benefit analysis [to restructure a $1.5 billion services contract from cost-plus to fixed-price] would provide no benefit to the government" indicate that, while acquisition personnel may be frustrated by the demand for oversight, they are not yet steering a straight enough course to warrant a reduction in monitoring.

  M. C. Agresti Posted November 6, 2006 8:26 AM
• 19496
  

  Gee whiz, I bet a lot of my bargaining unit employees wish we could tell their bosses to back off too! Face it: acquisition employees have brought the level of scrutiny upon themselves. I personally believe it should be even tighter. I have been told about a lot of suspicious contracting activities, none of which are reviewed since senior leadership would cover it up and retaliate against the whistleblower. As the Defense Department has downsized to the point of detriment, they should be under the microscope when it comes to acquisition, since the current organizations have lost significant expertise. If you don't want to be held accountable to taxpayers, acquisition is not your field.

  Don Eiermann Posted November 3, 2006 1:00 PM
• 19494
  

  The statement that auditors often do not have contract experience is a broad statement not supported by facts. I have more than 17 years of experience in contract auditing and my colleagues at the EPA OIG performing contract audits have approximately the same or more. I know people at other IG offices auditing contracts that also have many, many years of experience auditing contracts. Maybe someone should survey the years of experience of the auditors performing procurement audits. I think they would verify that this statement has little merit.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 3, 2006 10:47 AM
• 19493
  

  Unfortunately, one Darleen Druyun, and other headline grabbers undermine the entire acquisition community's credibility. While it is true the majority of procurements are done so with fairness and integrity, there continue to be individuals in acquisition leadership positions who do not have the requisite skills, knowledge or experience to lead major acquisition efforts, getting themselves and their organizations placed under the congressional spotlight.

  True, auditors see everything in black and white. It is their job to second-guess. However, typically what I find when conducting internal procurement audits and participating in external agency procurement reviews, is a fundamental lack by procurement personnel to adequately document their decisions and the rationale leading to those decisions, thus, leading to questioning by auditors who do not understand acquisition rules, procedures and processes.

  Leadership must have integrity and the requisite acquisition skills and knowledge; auditors must develop skills that go beyond the black and white of auditing; and acquisition personnel must ensure the decision process, support and documentation for their procurement actions can withstand external scrutiny. Unfortunately, $400 hammers, cancelled weapon systems, revolving doors, continued cost overruns, and the Darleen Druyun's keep the acquisition community constantly on its heels. Someone must police the hundreds of billions of taxpayer's dollars being spent. Over the years, the acquisition community has not shown the ability to do so.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 3, 2006 9:25 AM
• 19488
  

  Believe me, it's not just the procurement officials. It's us front line contracting people. We are being pulled apart by the constant changes in set-aside rules, FAR changes, new software, and overload of work, let alone Congress thinking we are up to something. The work itself is exacting and needing a fine eye for detail and tracking, and to have these other stressors adding to it can really crush a person's morale.

  My response to rule-makers and decision-makers (including the acquisition managers): Leave us alone for at least one year so we can catch a breath!

  Contract Specialist Posted November 3, 2006 8:39 AM
• 19487
  

  In my opinion, the results of the survey don't necessarily reflect the opinions and attitudes of the federal acquisition workforce as a whole. It appears that the survey interviewees were almost exclusively inside the Beltway and somewhat removed from the crushing effects of manpower reductions, excessive oversight and an increase in laws and regulations.

  From the trenches, much of the oversight and statutory/regulatory changes have a noble intent, but the authors are either too inexperienced or unaware that they are often poorly written and difficult, if not impossible to implement. Also, few, if any, are ever repealed/removed. There are never fewer, only more.

  Steve Ward Posted November 3, 2006 8:35 AM
• 19480
  

  I am reminded of another time when people were under so much scrutiny. The amount of oversight is most definitely taking its toll. The empowerment movement? Right. All that is happening is that we are becoming automatons to the puppet masters. Life is way to stressful in the federal workplace. How much was that overhead cost in Iraq? What does CFC say about the administrative cost for charities? You would never contribute to a charity that had a 55 percent administrative cost. I certainly hope I'm not the only one that sees these things, and I sure wish there was someway to make it right. But alas, I am just a ...

  Civil Slave Posted November 2, 2006 6:15 PM