GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Report: Contracting workforce needs more training

• 36149
  

  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 That means for me to get to level 3 I have to repeat courses from level 2 because my prerequisites are out of date.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
• 36083
  

  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
• 36071
  

  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
• 35941
  

  I am a contracting officer, but I also received my program manager level 1 certification. The PM training I received can and is directly applied to my job everyday. For most purchases, 1102s assume the PM role through directing and guiding an acquisition. Generally, not until the larger purchases are actual PMs assigned. When the previous poster mentions business manager isn't this term a synonymous to PM? Why would they then say PM training does not apply to 1102 duties? Unless of course, the statement was based solely on most 1102 actual job description. We all know that the reality of it is that we all are responsible for more than what we have been prescribed, trained, and paid to do, but somehow these additional roles take precedence over our primary function. As usual, politics trump policy and no amount of training will overcome that fact.

  Jamaal Posted October 26, 2007 4:00 AM
• 35910
  

  With the exception of three of the identified training areas (performance metrics, negotiation skills, and resolution of contract disputes), these functions and processes usually transcend, or are entirely outside, the 1102 purview. Additional training may provide background understanding, but may not be directly applicable in the day-to-day, at least in today's allocation of responsibility and authority. I would advocate a more substantial upgrading of the charter of the contracting officer and contracting specialist - to that of overall business manager, exhibiting acumen and exercising judgment. This obviously has to be instilled in a cadre and radiated outward, but would serve much better in many ways than the present model of trained, certified, stamped-out and substitutable team functionary. The latter is too much like a regulatory technician, devoid of the art that constitutes much of business relationships. Some of this can be trained in the workforce, but much must be hired in - from a large class of diversified, mid-level professionals from the private sector, sufficiently incentivized to enter government service with the entrepreneurial objective, and legislated charter, to rebaseline the currently flagging system in a global fashion. This would include a cross-functional span of authority to do so and challenge rights on the anachronistic hodgepodge of the FAR.

  Contract Specialist Posted October 25, 2007 11:55 AM
• 35909
  

  Emphasis needs to be place on incentives to retain the "older" more technical work force in acquisition, and not just contracting staff. No matter how bright and willing, individuals new to acquisition are, it is more difficult than it looks, and it looks hard enough. It takes time and experience, good research and mental retention skills, to get the myriad details honed for both snap inquiry/decision needs AND succesfuly sustain accuracy and direction during long acquisiton processes. If some effort is not made to retain the people of experience, that are carrying offices, training mangers/co-workers and putting out the firestorm of protest or contracting ineptitude, there is no way to ensure the governments ability to carry on buisness without a life time supply of investigations, resource loss, general abuses etc.

  Retention Posted October 25, 2007 11:38 AM
• 35887
  

  Heard it all before and no improvement. If you think its bad now, wait until NSPS hits all of DoD.

  VET Posted October 25, 2007 8:34 AM
• 35861
  

  Concur with the more training for everybody in the acquaition field a major revision of the FAR is also required this document has outgrown its usefulness

  mike swick Posted October 24, 2007 7:55 PM
• 35855
  

  As a Contracting Officer, I applaud the call for more training. However, in my agency, we've had huge reductions in available training funds for years now. I guess Bush can spend $500 BILLION on this waste that is the Iraq quagmire. But there's never enough money for essential things like training. Until someone "reviews" a $20M contract and finds an inconsistency. Then the garbage really hits the fan.

  Maybe someone in high places should think about what causes "problems" in these contracts that result in front page news and push some money in the direction of training.

  Francine Goldberg Posted October 24, 2007 6:18 PM
• 35840
  

  The need for negotiation training in the field of procurement and acquisition is prevalent. Mediation Works Incorporated (MWI) provides negotiation and dispute resolution skills workshops and coaching services tailored specifically to the acquisition workforce. These workshops are fully customizable in content and length, and can be delivered on-site, nation-wide. MWI's programs are built off of the ideas generated at the Harvard Negotiation Project and captured in the bestseller, Getting To Yes.

  Stephen Frenkel Posted October 24, 2007 2:21 PM
• 35834
  

  More training for 1102s would be an excellent start. The next step should be additional training for Program Managers and Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) in the 03 field. Those are the people who are suppose to be watching the programs and ensuring contractors are performing at contracted levels. They are also the folks who are suppose to be developing the requirements the contracting folks are suppose to be buying. Improving one area without addressing the others won't provide much overall improvement. The improvement will come when we raise the level of the entire acquisition workforce, not just the Contract Specialists and Contracting Officers.

  Lane Narrows Posted October 24, 2007 1:06 PM
• 35792
  

  As a retired Chief engineer of a military installation and a " customer " of the aquisition community I am disappointed that the survey did not ask the aquisition community's customers for feedback. The contacting community tends to forget who the cumstomer is.

  Dennis Tudor Posted October 24, 2007 8:24 AM