GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Recruiting remains a key concern for acquisition chiefs

• 34369
  

  From a contractor and academia perspective, personally I believe going back to "basics" or to "traditional acquisition" is a good approach, but not the panacea to the current situation. In my personal opinion, based on my 23 years of experience, Government decision-makers need to ensure agency leaders are taking full advantage of the benefits of acquisition reform with better enforcement of the current regulations (e.g., Commercial Item Acquisition and Performance-Based Contracting). Also, agency leaders need to truly empower their COs with the discretion to execute contracts with appropriate controls that adequately compensate contractors, while trusting contractor's technological ability as subject matter experts. Let's remember that acquisition reform was enacted to streamline cumbersome acquisition processes and nothing will be gained by forcing the pendulum back to a pre-FASA/FARA era.

  Javier E. Porras Posted October 3, 2007 5:37 PM
• 34366
  

  I have been interested in working for two government agencies that I know need help. However, when I see salaries of $48k, $52k, $72k for senior positions in DC, I basically laugh and change the page. The private sector has long known the value of the contracts staff, and the inherent basis of operations they represent. The private sector pays for training, encourages advancement, provides support staff, and expands their contracts staff based on volume or intensity. The government seems to view the contracts staff as 'administrative help,' and at the bottom of the food chain. I have come up through ranks to my current position, but have experienced the loss of many of my government contracting equals because they can no longer take the stress of the load, and the disparity of pay. My personal suggestion for years has been that the government recognize the contracts office as the very foundation of every project. If your foundation is damaged and too narrow, the building atop will not stay there for long. If your requirements are written poorly, the projects will not be manageable, and cost overruns ensue. And so on. All the engineering in the world will not save a project if the contracts cannot be handled correctly. Why is this facet never budgeted in the projects? No matter how conscientious a human is in management of their work loads, if given too much, they will fail. Contracts as a profession is extremely detail oriented, contract law based, relationships must be carefully crafted, and administrative work is overwhelming. To that, it is never a finite science. Each project is different, requiring different judgment skills combined with an understanding of vast amount of FARs or DFARS. You have to pay for that wisdom and experience. The government has historically paid their contracts staff significantly less than the private sector. Until they change that, they will continue to fail. I find that extremely disheartening, as there are many honorable projects that are suffering as a result of this staffing defect.

  Private Sector Contracts Director Posted October 3, 2007 4:25 PM
• 34357
  

  I thought the above article was interesting. From my perspective as a recent graduate of the University of Miami (Dean's List, etc.) it appears that the hiring staff from the federal agencies may need to reach out further to the recent graduates. I would welcome the opportunity to work in New York City as a Contract Specialist (Series 1102, Grade GS-7). I can be reached at vfccel@aol.com or 732-278-0843.

  Cervellieri Posted October 3, 2007 2:20 PM
• 34352
  

  As a young contracting officer, I'm excited about the advancement opportunities the coming wave or retirees will bring. At the same time, I worry about the loss of experienced acquisition professionals. With regard to the number of vacancies and hiring quality applicants, it is possible to find good people for what the government pays. But, finding people to work in Washington D.C. on a GS salary must be extremely complicated. I believe agencies should look at moving some of those jobs out of the Beltway and into places that are more affordable to live. I would enjoy the challenge and experience of working in Washington D.C. if I could afford to live there.

  Frank Lee Posted October 3, 2007 2:02 PM
• 34253
  

  Such words of wisdom. I wish I had been privileged to have mentored by one so wise.

  But wait---I believe I was! You almost make coming out of retirement sound like a great idea. Of course it would depend on whether or not there would be any value added to either me or the government.

  Anna Penna Posted October 2, 2007 9:26 PM
• 33890
  

  The Masterminds provides valuable insight into issues that would make Federal government work better. Specific to the Gatekeepers' wide angle view of acquisition issues and drawing from my 38 years as an acquisition professional there are some strategies that could be adopted now to fix the problems of the over extended acquisition workforce. Departments should look to General Services Administrative Modernization Act and work with OMB's Office of Procurement Policy to rehire retires. Doing so would provide valuable mentoring expertise to the new wave of acquisition professionals and would be a cost effective approach to getting the work done. Agency costs to rehire retirees would be less than a "career" employee and as cost effective as augmenting the acquisition workforce with private sector assistance. Who better to sell the advantages of being an acquisition professional in the Federal government than those that have lived the dream! The FAR has not kept pace with the changing view of how government is doing its business. CAO's should be advocates for changing this rule book in several ways. Past performance evaluation as a tool has not proven its worth in procurements like Deepwater and large IT needs. In many cases its use also bogs down the procurement process in the interest of avoiding protests instead of focusing on getting a quality procurement. Its use should be abandoned for complex procurements in favor of more advantageous negotiation techniques. Use of simplified acquisition processes and procedures should be strengthened. Too often today simple needs are procured using formal contract procedures that do not fit the need. This should include reinvigorating use of sealed bidding. These changes would allow capable journey level purchasing agents and contract specialists in the lower grades to get the work done quickly and smartly. CAO's in dual roles? Considering the issues facing Federal acquisition it should be insisted that CAO's should be solely dedicated to being the caretakers of acquisition in the Federal sector. Their emphasis should not only be building the workforce of the future and the return to basics but also be advocates for change to better shape the acquisition workforce and processes of the future.

  Carl R. Culham Posted September 26, 2007 11:23 PM
• 33791
  

  I left a 25 year career in federal service, the last 15 as an 1102 who advanced from a GS-5 to a GS-12 (YC02). It took me over ten years to get that far. Why did I leave? Because I couldn't do the job I was hired to do. I felt like an overpaid clerk typist. The cradle to grave theory for contracting just doesn't cut it anymore. You can't expect people to solicit, award, and administer contracts and do an excellent job. I the paper days, I could solicit and award 10 construction contracts in the last month of the fiscal year. In my last couple of years with a DoD agency, it took over 2 months just to get a package reviewed to solicit and I'm not talking big bucks. I'm talking solicitations valued at less than $500K. The govt needs to get its act together and centralize contracting processes and let contracting people become experts in contract types. You'll have fewer errors and greater job satisfaction. As for NSPS. Oh well...I guess that DoD will find out sooner or later that it's not just about the money, job satisfaction is part of the picture too. At least it is for my generation of soon to be retired boomers. Good luck in finding qualified people who are willing to work.

  Cindy Posted September 25, 2007 1:28 PM
• 33784
  

  Since NSPS is cutting the COLA in half you will see less hiring across the DoD. Some managers will never learn.

  Glenn Wright Posted September 25, 2007 12:28 PM
• 33781
  

  I agree with several of the previous posts. I have been in the acquisition career field for 14 years now (12 military & 2 civil service). One of my biggest complaints in the recruiting process is the degree requirement. I would never consider downplaying the value of education, but to make it a mandatory requirement to qualify for a job that has historically been performed, and performed very well I might add, by non-degree employees for many years is simply ludicrous. Mr. Spampinato, along with many of the other CAOs, claim a shortage of trained acquisition personnel is a large part of the current problem. No kidding??? Why is it then that someone with 15/20/30 years of hands-on contracting experience is suddenly not qualified to hold an 1102 position? You can search job announcements from all the different Federal agencies and find endless differences in the qualification standards. Some want only a 4-year degree. Others want either the degree or 24 business hours. Some provide an exemption from the degree requirement for current 1102s. Others only offer the exemption for "current agency employees". It is so inconsistent, across the board, that most of us don't even know what we are eligible for anymore. Now, add to that, the fact that most agencies have, even if it is a non-written rule, a no-waiver policy for the degree requirement for positions above the GS-12 level, and you can easily see why much of the Federal acquisition work force believes the private sector might offer a much larger opportunity for advancement. In short, shame on Mr. Spampinato and many of his counterparts for taking the typical two-face approach when it comes to the problem as portrayed to the public and what the actual in-house policies are that created the problem in the first place.

  Not only is upper (upper-upper) management blowing smoke with their complaints of a shortage of trained personnel, they started the fire and are continuing to fan the flames.

  Stop the political positioning and fill the career field vacancies. Those of us currently doing the job will be more than happy to help train the newcomers, scholars or not.

  JWH Posted September 25, 2007 12:24 PM
• 33769
  

  The term, "Intern Program" has gone by the wayside. This, once viable program needs to be utilized again so that lower graded acquisition personnel can be nurtured and trained into a highly competitive job series with private industry. Also, let the supervisors have more flexibility into retaining and promoting within their respective workforces. Too many times, when I was a Section Chief and Contracting Officer, I saw hard working intelligent acquisition within my office that could not be promoted or trained up due to DAWIA restrictions or minimal training requirements. Most of those personnel moved on to private industry jobs.

  Robert Gruber Posted September 25, 2007 10:48 AM
• 33712
  

  The challenge facing the acquisition community is pretty well discussed in this and other articles over the past six months. The main programmatic are for improvement is that Government agencies need to stop blurring the line between small purchase procurement [Contracting Officer - CO, led event] and major acquisitions [Project Manager-PM, led working with a CO in prime support]. The designation of CAO as a second hat to the CPO does not carry out the intent of SARA nor necessarily enhances the execution and management of multi-million dollar multi-year acquisitions. The functions are similar but different. Look at DOD, the government's largest acquisition department and note there is an Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions, Training & Logistics. It is not a Procurement Chief. There is enough work for the Contracting Officer to do in contract admin and support that makes the assignment of a dedicated PM essential in large complex major acquisitions. Moreover, the PM can work with the sponsor office to develop firm requirements and work the life cycle logistics and support issues. OMB300 submission is a good start for project control but it doesn't look deep enough into the analysis to support the program management statements. Add an uncertain multi-year budget process and the recipe for schedule slips and cost overruns caused by the buracracy is set.

  The blurred lines of PM & CO responsibilities as assigned by the various agencies leads to frustration, imbalanced workload, and the potential for not being set up for success. This causes the conditions for exodus of the experienced federal professionals and is exacerbated by the increased federal need for acquisition and contracting professionals, higher pay in the private sector, and the difficulties in recruiting the new workforce.

  PM Posted September 24, 2007 4:17 PM
• 33709
  

  There are many of us with years and years of contracting experience who would consider working for civil service but cannot get past the human resources at the agency. The application process is frustrating for a candidate. I applied and got three notices in the mail the same day: qualified, not qualified, and qualified but not considered.

  The canned process to fill SES positions should also be looked at. Does someone in Government really read the 200 page response to 5 questions?

  Matt Posted September 24, 2007 3:52 PM
• 33706
  

  I'm greatful that someone realizes you can't do more with less; a long time coming, that. The article pointed out that a CAO who had come up through the workforce was an oddity...now how sensible is that? Where is the incentive for an 1102 to stay in a "mind boggling" endeavor where they become proficient after many many years of managing projects and people but can't get into the upper managment ranks in acquisition? Note that it is the upper managment that has made the negative front page news, not the every day folk that may know what they are doing but have to work for and with career broadened managers and other folks with little or no acquisition career depth. Contracting people try to get contracts awarded "yesterday" while suporting unrefined requirements industry or science fiction recommended; training, er excuse me, positively reinforcing/coaxing new and not always willing untried staff and/or mangers that have the same grade or higher that may play golf or fish but have no patience for details or experience; while riding the funding rollercoasters and trying to understand how the latest buzz words add meaning to processes so they can transparently leverage optimized overisight metrics and other utter nonsense out of their lives and proceed to happily ever after by retiring. Pardon the sarcasm. Point being, it's a difficult job with more day to day emphasis on haste and milestones than accuracy and accountability. On top of that is GAO and the world of spin doctoring trying to reinvent processes Congress levered and agencies try to implement through checklist mentality. Without time, a seasoned workforce can't suddenly appear. Monetarily incentivize the older work force to stay with "staying" bonuses and promotions or continue to mandate policing of the uninformed. Thanks.

  Ralph Posted September 24, 2007 3:05 PM
• 33689
  

  I have over 25 years in contracting starting with the AF under DAR. When the series was professionalized, there were supposed to be alternatives to having a 4 year degree. These never materialized, and the reality is that without a degree you cannot get ahead in contracting because there is no alternative route to success. Waivers are few and far between.

  Those of us who did not have 10 years in as an 1102 did not become incompetent because we did not have a degree, nor did employees who spent 18 years at a GS-5 become more competent.

  It is time that the government recognized that professionalism, competency, and skill in acquisition has little to do with a 4 year degree and everything to do with the ability to read, interpret, understand and follow regulatory requirements, good judgement, excellent customer service skills, ability to juggle multiple priorities, and availability of expert support. I had thought that with all the hoopla about project management, soemone would have recognized that 1102's have been doing project management since day one. Look ar FAR acq plan requirements it has all the elements of a project management plan. A major acquisition is a project, and the CO who administers it is the project director for that contract. The contract may be a sub-project under an overall larger project, but it is still a project, and I don't know of any multi million dollar project director who is expected to handle the project on their own. Yet that is what most 1102's are expected to do on a daily basis.

  mary jane scouten Posted September 24, 2007 12:08 PM
• 33678
  

  The USAF has a hiring freeze in place; pay raises UPON PROMOTION (!) are capped at 5%; last batch of Copper Caps (total of 12 of them) hired at my base (somewhere in the Midwest) is down to 4 w/ 2 more thinking of leaving. Once they're trained, they leave for money. DoD is just lucky there are so many of us w/ 20 years in that will stick until we have 25 or 30 years in, otherwise, the pain would be even more immediate. NSPS is not the recruiting tool it was billed as. Thanks to that giant sucking sound of American money being drained from DoD coffers in Iraq, the money simply isn't there.

  Contract writing systems are lousy, contracting professionals do everything from clerical to distribution to contract admin, we are undermanned. DCMA can't provide support as we trend back to FAR 15 contracts from the Darleen Druyun-directed days; DFAS NEVER could provide support. In short, is it any wonder people want to leave as soon as they possibly can?

  AF PCO Posted September 24, 2007 10:59 AM
• 33669
  

  Interesting article. Needed to be added to the discussion it that the complexities (regulations/policy) of the 1102 career field are mind boggling. I've supported Chiefs of the Contracting Office (CCOs) that cannot grasp the complexities of the FAR/DFAR/DLAD. Similar to the Information Technology field ... contracting needs to look at ways to specialize its workforce rather than having 1102's be jacks of all aspects of contracting. The field is just too broad and complex. Another approach would be for the regulations could be truly streamlined ... starting with FAR part 25 and its decades old rules relating to an economy that no longer exists.

  Jeff Posted September 24, 2007 10:28 AM
• 33648
  

  I think one of the major hurdles to overcome is get rid of the double education standard. In order to qualify for any Defense related job, you must have a four year degree. Most other agencies require 24 hours of education in business related courses. I know many contract specialist in the later group and I am confident they are as qualified as the degreed folks. In reality a four year degree in basket weaving does not equate to knowledge in the business career field. Get rid of the the degree requirement and make all contract specialist education eligible if they have the 24 hours of business courses. You'll increase your employment pool trmendously.

  Jerry Watts Posted September 24, 2007 8:00 AM
• 33646
  

  I am a new ACQ professional, in fact i've only been with the GOV for one year now. With the DoD switching to NSPS soon i am thinking about leaving, and articles like this keep me optomistic about staying with the government....but certainly not the DoD

  Valek Posted September 24, 2007 7:44 AM
• 33645
  

  What shortage? I have a MA in Acquisitions and Procurement Management from Webster University, but can not make the eligible list for any of the contracting jobs I have applied for with civil service. When my records are reviewed by AFPC, I am told "not qualified", even for the Copper Cap program.

  Kyle Morgan Posted September 24, 2007 7:34 AM
• 33586
  

  DoD recently decided to use NSPS to deny civil servants, including its contracting personnel, even the COLA Congress has authorized for public servants just to keep up with part of the rate of inflation.

  If acquisition chiefs are so concerned about retaining veteran PCOs, then why are they driving them out by cheating them on COLA via NSPS? They are already paid far less than in the private sector.

  It's insane.

  GovtPCO Posted September 21, 2007 5:09 PM