GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Federal officials strategize on boosting acquisition workforce

• 52444
  

  I agree with you Joyce. I have been on track to becoming a Contract Specialist for the last 3 years. I received a bachelor's degree in business administration with an emphasis in Acquisitions & Contract Management, have over four years of project management/finance experience for a federal govt contractor environment, and am working on completing cert level I. I have a great deal of value to the government, however, I have not qualified yet for a 1102 position. Oh, did I mention that I am a veteran, which seems to mean nothing in my quest to becoming a CS. It is impossible for me to enter as a GS-9,... my family would starve. So I guess I will take my hopes of making an impact in our government elsewhere. As much of a shortage in the workforce the gov't is experience, you would think I would be recognized. Yet, I have been offered a 1102 position as a "contractor" by another contracting company at a salary that will pay my bills.

  Pam Posted June 16, 2008 9:27 PM
• 44049
  

  Incentives, Incentives, Incentives. The personnel schemata used by the Fed are archaic and not competitve with the commercial marketplace. If required civil service existed in this country, the existing structures might work. The failure to recognize the need for adjustment is interesting in light of the fact that the Fed realized commercial contracting in many instances, is better for all, in theory and in hope of proper execution anyhow. The failure to see this in the employment arena is a travesty.

  As a JD/MBA the entry level Fed job I took out of school simply could not provide for me to live in the DC Metro area even while my loans were under forebearance. When an offer came along from a contractor that allowed me to stay in the field, I took it. While I have a duty to my shareholders, I am an American taxpayer first and am concerned where my tax dollars go. As such, in my mind, it makes no difference who pays me just that I am FAIRLY compensated. My goal as an acquisition professional is still the same---get the best value for my client. I only mention this last point to deal with the detractors of the contractor workforce---there are just as many self interested people in the Fed as there are in the private sector. We will never solve these bigger problems unless we get REAL and quit dealing with hackneyed generalizations that are largely without merit.

  G.D. Posted February 21, 2008 3:29 PM
• 44029
  

  Long-time CO, you hit the nail on the head. At last, an accurate depiction of current CO life.

  Another Long-Time CO Posted February 21, 2008 12:08 PM
• 43972
  

  The mere idea is INSANE! The answer is NOT more people, but less! We need less government spending -- and certainly LESS numbers of people generating RFPs. I have seen a tremendous number of RFPs that were blatantly wasteful spending. We have contractors working on the government side generating work for their employers. Truly insane.

  frank Posted February 20, 2008 11:01 PM
• 43948
  

  The article has a few good points, but money talks. The US Government must offer better compensation at the GS-12 and higher grades in order to even attempt to retain its professional acquisition staff. Its at the 4 or 5 year mark that many 1102 series types leave the US Government. Everyone knows this except the individuals quoted in the article. The Government offers great training and early career salary.

  Vinchenzo Posted February 20, 2008 4:40 PM
• 43947
  

  I have no sympathy for the executives crying over their shortage. As a retired military officer and Air Force Contracting Officer, I've tried to return to the Federal workforce to no avail. I have a good job that pays well and the ONLY way I can return is at entry level. So much for hiring proven talent with over 20 years of both government and contractor experience. Your answer is simple - hire from outside instead of protecting from within and fix the pay scales. Until you do, I'll just use my experience to the advantage of the contractor I work for.

  Tom Posted February 20, 2008 4:36 PM
• 43942
  

  Agencies using non-government contract specialists are likely replacing inherently governmental staffs with private sector staffs. If this "swap" continues agency leaders will have soon to face Congress and explain why the private sector is involved in awarding contracts to the private sector.

  Veteran Posted February 20, 2008 3:22 PM
• 43853
  

  The problem lies with Procurement management. The Acq. Reforms of the 90's allowed them to sell out the 1102's to the program offices, contractors and 1101's. It used to be you had management support to send back poorly defined requirements and incomplete planning documents, now you are expected to sign it and keep it moving. Agency executives do not care about or understand it, so they believe whatever they are told by Procurement Heads. So many have been promoted for getting large contracts awarded in record time, they can punish anyone who questions anything. All of the bad procurements cropping up were not awarded without management review & approval. Once audit reports start noting supervisory & management involvement, things will begin to change. Being a well rounded CO makes you chattel. A big push to hire in this environment will kill the 1102 series and make a professional series into clerical support. I know over 20 GS-13/14's who can barely award a competitive task order and most spent only a year as 12's & 13's. If you can't or don't want to leave switch to Proc Analyst, Mgmt or Program Analyst.

  Long Time CO Posted February 19, 2008 2:59 PM
• 43849
  

  More training, certification and automation tools are all good ideas. But at the crux of the issue, we need more 1102's as well as functional personnel...the folks who write performance work statements, perform proposal evaluations, monitor contractor performance, etc. Adding more acquisition personnel (1102's and beyond) is the first logical step. It's a good thing we have NSPS to facilitate that endeavor. ;-)

  Steve Posted February 19, 2008 1:41 PM
• 43846
  

  No matter the history, the 1102 series is in crisis, not just in the numbers but in skill level. Younger contracting people are hired as GS-9 or above, do not get much "in the trenches training" and are promoted too quickly. Having a college degree does NOT make one qualified to be effective in contracting. On-line training is lacking compared to classroom training. I had experienced instructors who provided real life acquisition examples; explanations of their course of action; and rationale for resolving complicated acquisition issues. As a GS-9 for 8 years, I learned a great deal about the acquisition process before I moved up the line (Now a GS-13). Many of the best Contract Specialists I know are high school graduates who learned contracting on the job-so take a look at recruiting. Besides short time on the job; lack of OJT; and poor training, for most requirements new contracting people are issuing Delivery/Task Orders against GSA schedules or existing ID/IQ or GWACS contracts. I know many GS-12 that have NEVER issued/awarded RFQ, IFB or RFP. How can a Contract Specialist understand the acquisition process when they have never worked or awarded a basic contract or purchase order? The training & promotion of contracting professionals needs to change or there will be no contracting personnel qualified to issue good solicitations or award contracts that are in the best interest of the government. To even mention contract administration is a joke, there is just no time for oversight, when the acquisition workload is so heavy. Emphasis is placed on getting things on contract (especially in the fee-for-service offices), as quickly as possible. Perhaps the government should not recruit the "just out of college" crowd but try recruiting the 30 somethings that have come to realize that it is not all about money. There is still job security in the government. As a government employee, the benefits are better good and when you day is done you go home. I do not know the solution to this crisis, but I do know changes are needed in recruitment, 1102 training (both OJT and classroom) and the appreciation for those who are nearing retirement and have struggled through these years of too few qualified contracting people to meet the government's needs. There is no instant solution to this crisis but it is great to see the problem is recieving more and more attention.

  Merry Bayer Posted February 19, 2008 1:02 PM
• 43818
  

  Changing the education requirement is not the answer. If you provide the proper compensation, you will get the proper people. Many other positions (patent examiners, IT professionals, law enforcement ...on and on) are on a higher pay scale or are given better benefits. Why not 1102s? I also believe contractors performing 1102 work should be held to the same standards as the Gov. 1102s. The logic for stronger standards in the 1102 career field applies whether you are GS or contractor.

  VET Posted February 19, 2008 10:35 AM
• 43788
  

  When reading this article and the comments, I notice that the article uses, "acquisition workforce" but most of the comments seem to be about contracting personnel (1102s). I don't think that the 1102s are necessarily the problem with acquisition (though I agree that the Government could use more 1102s) - procurement is only a small part of a total "Acquisition." Acquisition planning is not carried out and acquisition packages arrive at the procurement office incomplete, late, and without ever consulting a Contracting Officer who supposedly is the Government's business adviser. (Why else would 1102s be required to have 24 semester hours of Business training in college?) Why? While we all know that acquisition planning is boring and not a "glory" task and therefore not carried out, I suspect that the exteme workload of Program Managers and COTRs has something to do with it as well. Contracting personnel are now getting "Level" certification through FAI or DAU. How much emphasis (outside of DoD) is there for Program personnel to get their certifications? Any improvement in acquisitions will come from an overall approach. Focusing on contracting will only bring limited results as contracting has already gone through changes. We now need to tackle the bigger problem - overall program management (including procurement).

  Lane Narrows Posted February 19, 2008 7:07 AM
• 43734
  

  I served as a Contracting Officer while in the US Navy and I was just selected as a GS-12 for an Government agency. Heres the dilema, I have also been offered a job as a Contracting Specialist for a private Government Contracting firm that is willing to compensate me over 20,000 more than the GS-12 would pay me. How can the government agencies compete with this? In my opinion government agengies should really look at the application process and the requirements for the 1102 series. I think the need for subsituting expereince for that college degree is a definitely something that should be considered. You can have over 20 years of experience in the area of Procurement and Contracts but no degree and not be qualified for most 1102 positions but, on the other hand you could have a 4 year degree in Business Admin and not have any idea what the "FAR" stands for and qualify.

  Oscar Posted February 15, 2008 9:59 PM
• 43712
  

  Don Michaels posted comments the following comment " Several years ago when Jacques Gansler was the USD/AT&L, he espoused a philosophy of substantially cutting the DOD acquisition workforce and relying very heavily on defense contractors for total systems/contract performance and sustainment with minimal Gov't oversight and supervision." Don is exactly right. Not only did Gansler set the course we are now experiencing, so did Perry, Deutch and Kaminski who most people don't remember. What most people don't know is that they came from private industry, stay a short time and than went back to reap the rewards of their efforts. The reduced DCMA and said that the contractors will be honest in self oversight, and raised the $ value so high for which a contracting office could request a DCAA Audit of contractor costs. They then downsized the Acquisition workforce. And finally they promoted commercial acquisitions where cost data does not have to be provided. The funny thing is that Mr. Gansler recently headed a team that provided a large report to the Government of what needs to be done to fix the Acquisition Career field. Break it, Fix It and come out the winner.

  L Posted February 15, 2008 2:38 PM
• 43709
  

  Today there are only 2 listings in the DC area for 1102 jobs that start above an 11. I have applied for over 30 posted positions in 6 months and all were either cancelled or the OPM system couldn't accept my application. The OPM website does not work for submitting applications. Try it. As long it is easier to hire a consultant than it is to bring on and keep qualified direct hires we will take the easiest path.

  Rich Posted February 15, 2008 2:33 PM
• 43699
  

  I really think that Congress and others are missing a hugh segment of employees who are already in each Federal Agency who could easily qualify to do the work, but are over looked. Many agencies have folks in their own offices such as Purchasing Agents, Procurement Technicians who could easily step into the role of Contracting Officers if they were given the opportunity to have money and educational opportunities thrown at them like they do "interns", "jr. contracting officers" and folks from the outside. We need to be "growing out own" before we look outside the agencies for others with no procurement back ground at all. The procurement folks who are already in these Govt. Agencies tend to be more loyal and willing to stay with their respective agencies, than young kids right out of college who have no experience, just school smarts. Bottom line, promote from within those folks who are already there and just waiting for some support, and a few training dollars to be invested in them.

  Cyndy Armour Posted February 15, 2008 12:20 PM
• 43694
  

  Elizabeth,

  What a great world you live in! The reality about the federal contracting field is that there could still be many highly qualified acquisition personnel, but like myself we got older and the new, younger crowd moved into senior levels and wanted a new and younger workforce. By offering us early buyouts, ignoring the priority placement system for returning overseas federal employees in their 50's and above, blocking promotions for experienced white males and females for minority with less, or no, contracting experience and having many of the former internship programs fade away, the shortage developed. I am not against any minority, woman or religion, I have been an EEO representative for many years while in the contracting field. I encourage new people to come into the field. I have trained and mentored over two hundred military and civilians entering the field or wanting to know more about the purchasing and contracting field. I have helped with numerous criminal investigations relating to fraud, waste and abuse of the contracting system. The largest fraud, waste and abuse I have seen has been in the federal government in the past 8 to 9 years. I have seen hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by "managers" that had no clue about correct acquisition procedures and administration. I have seen unqualified contracting officers award illegal "contracts", authorize payments that were not justified, refuse to recognize ratifictions and try to correct them from happening in the future. I have seen more than several contracting officers relieved of their contracting warrants move on to a promotion or a teaching billet at the DAU. Do not think I am bitter, I have always loved the Purchasing and Contracting field and was one of the first people that supported and participated in certifying contracting professionals. Federal agencies need professionals in the contracting field, but we need the personnel with good management and people skills as well. Yes, I have seen all this happen. It is the real life of federal contracting here in DC and out in the various agency field offices around the world.

  Jack Courtney Posted February 15, 2008 11:24 AM
• 43692
  

  I don't know what Denett is referring to... I have been an 1102 for 4 years now and I do not know anyone at the entry or mid career level that has been offered a retention bonus, student loan forgiveness, or student loan repayment. In fact I can't even get management to let me telecommute one day per week. If anything, I see "young" 1102s leaving the USG after 3 or 4 years (usually at the GS-9 or 11 level) and going to work for companies like CACI or XL at about 70 to 90k per year. These companies then hire them back to the Government. If that is what Denett wants then Bravo. Job well done. But the stuff he stated in the article....I just don't see it. I currently have an offer from XL for 85K. (at EPA) I don't want to leave the USG or DoD but that's 20K more than I am making now. Considering all this, his comments seem a little...disingenuous or ignorant. (No disprespect intended)

  1102DoD Posted February 15, 2008 11:20 AM
• 43671
  

  Breakdown barriers to civilian personnel hiring procedures and open up a streamlined approach to retain the services of retiring military contracting officers. This is a pool of trained and certified acquisition professionals capable of serving in a civilian capacity another 15 to 25 years.

  S. King Posted February 15, 2008 9:37 AM
• 43669
  

  From paperclips to satellites, electricity to cammpground attendants at national parks. If the government uses it, hands it out as a piece of paper or provides a service that is performed by a contractor, the acquisition workforce buys it. If the Government is really serious about keeping their current workforce long enough to attract and train talented new acquisition personnel they need to make the career field a professional field, just like they do for the engineers - including all the incentives. Within the Department of Defense a new contracting intern is required to have a bachelors degree that either includes or is supplemented with 24 Semester hours of business courses. If we want to attract the best and brightest from the Universities across the US we must be able to compete with private industry and the professional designation is at least a start in the right direction.

  Leslie Lovata Posted February 15, 2008 9:33 AM
• 43661
  

  The most difficult part of the certification/training process is getting the individual agencies to follow and comply with the training requirements. I also believe that contractors working as contract specialist (and there are many of them) should be held to the same training and certification standards as Federal employees. We know that the younger generation is motivated by money so, we have to ask why someone graduating from college would choose to work in the government when they can become a contractor, still work for a Federal agency and receive higher pay?

  Treena Greene Posted February 15, 2008 8:59 AM
• 43652
  

  Several years ago when Jacques Gansler was the USD/AT&L, he espoused a philosophy of substantially cutting the DOD acquisition workforce and relying very heavily on defense contractors for total systems/contract performance and sustainment with minimal Gov't oversight and supervision. We are now paying the price for that approach. It will take years to rebuild an acquisition workforce with the required depth and breadth of expertise to effectively manage large acquisition and sustainment programs.

  Don Michels Posted February 15, 2008 8:33 AM
• 43648
  

  The above article seems mostly accurate and right, however a large issue that is continually ignored is the lack of timely, complete and accurate requirements from Agencies. Also, the COTR training is needed, but we also need MORE COTRs for better oversight. Finally, stop pushing out contracting software products that aren't vetted. We spend more time creating work-around solutions to software glitches that on the contracting forms themselves.

  contracting specialist Posted February 15, 2008 8:21 AM
• 43645
  

  Does anyone remember the song "too much too little too late"? Consider how long the programs discussed in this article will take to actually get a trained up 1102 working... competencies are great, but we are drowning here. Not in 2015, NOW. Cut the workforce drastically in the 90s. Add 200-700% increase in workload in the 2000s with almost no new staffing. And now you are worried about retirements in 2015? I hate to say it, but you ALREADY have a crisis on hand. And OF COURSE we are going to retire, you will have worked us to death.

  Jennifer Posted February 15, 2008 8:04 AM
• 43641
  

  Sounds good doesn't it. The reality is that as an experienced 1102, Level III certified, a person can walk out the door and earn $30 to $50K more per year with roughly the same benefits, no decision making or supervisory responsibilities as a contractor. As contractors are actively competing for experienced 1102 personnel, it is a sellers marketplace. The acquisition specialist can ask and get more which the government then pays. One would assume that the solution would pay equity and rapid retention benefits/promotions. And that IS true anywhere other than the government. the private sector is happy, more money, the personnel leaving in droves are happy: less responsibility and more money with basically the same benefits. Public service is important as is taking care of your own career and retirement.

  Nancy Remley Posted February 15, 2008 7:34 AM
• 43638
  

  At this time, I consider all these discussions nothing but lip service. I have been with a contract organization for 18 years but not in an 1102 contracts position. I have applied for both internships (even though I am already a GS-11), 9/11's and straight up 11's and I keep being told I do not qualify. If they really want to boost up the acquisition personnel, they need to do something about how they review resumes and people. I have not given up and I will keep trying but it is frustrating to read articles like this knowing that I want to be an 1102, received a bachelor's degree just so I could qualify for an 1102 and then keep getting rejected.

  Joyce Posted February 15, 2008 6:23 AM