Return to Article: Acquisition reform recommendations run the gamut
-
83644
When looking at large commercial contracting operations, or even at GSA, each depend on well formed requirements and reliable market research that leads to defensible service level agreements, especially in the IT space. I teach a class at DAU, and the universal view is that the requirements and market research processes are woefully inadequate. Too often, users specify the solution without a problem statement. This causes huge work load increased on the acquisition work force. Second, solution architectures are not grounded in reality and lead to ambiguous outcomes, and worse, never ending Engineering Change Proposals.
The IT-Acquisition Advisory Council (IT-AAC), has identified 8 root causes that if fixed, would address many of these so called "acquisition work force issues". If we don't address the root causes, then we are just putting band aids on the symptoms.
Improved acquisition outcomes (delivery of capabilities on time and on budget), has to be the focus, and fixing the process has to be the first step. As Einstein would say "continuing the same process over and over again and expecting different results" is the definition of insanity.
-
80927
As I have commented in the past on similar articles, filling acquisition positions with all the degree and other requirements is focusing on the wrong problem. The government needs construction inspectors, engineers, and other technical personnel. It might need some contract specialists, but concentrating on college grads and not on Contract Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) or Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) is solving the wrong problem.
-
80561
I wonder why no-one is talking about finding ways to enhance productivity and efficiency within the acquisitions processes? Based on some of the surveys of issues acquisitions staff face, one of them is poor systems support. For doing simple market research (FAR PART 10) one has to navigate more than 6 systems (FedBizOpps, FPDS-NG, CCR, GSAAdvantage, EPLS, ORCA).
-
80526
There is a simple way to make a very fast fix. Take all the Contract Professionals who are doing policy work or writing regulations and convert them into operating Contracting Specialists. You would have an immediate, wel-trained, qualified resource to begin work today. Since they wrote the regulations and policies they know them best. They would be senior persons with a great deal of training. They are ready to perform on day one.
As for the lack of policy people and regulation writers, there is not any Contracting Professional that I know that would say we do not have enough Acquisition policy or regulation. Some of the recent policy and regulation has so many layers of review and delay that create inefficiency in acquisitions rather than eliminate inefficiency.
Stop listening to people who have never worked awarding contracts or lawyers who are only concerned about creating opportunities for litigation so they can make more money. Do something simple that will start saving the taxpayer money immediately. Why not use resources that are available today rather than wait several years to develop people who will be almost ready to help. How about making a decision that saves money rather than spends money in hope of saving money.
-
80521
William Gormley may be well situated in the acquisition community and able to see the 'big picture' but he and others like him are missing the boat. The acquisition workforce doesn't write contract requirements, functional non-acquisition folks do. Acquisition specialists review those requirements but rarely change them. The work to be completed is just that, the 'work to be completed'. It is not 'ill-defined contract requirements' that cause contracts to fail. Failures occur due to poor oversight and administration. The folks that need training are the Quality Assurance Evaluators who are on the ground everyday observing contractor performance. There are plenty of courses available on how to write a contract, a few 'mandatory' classes for Contract Officer Representatives, lots of training on procurement strategies, property administration and contract law but there are absolutely none for the guy/gal doing the checking and writing up the Contract Deficiency Reports (CDR).
AND - If these guys really want to reform 'procurement' they need to start by 'defining' what constitutes contract failure in the first place and determine how it is to be measured. Think about this. The prime directive for a food services contractor is to provide nutritional, well balanced meals on a regularly scheduled basis. During a recent food service inspection it was determined that the contractor failed to dispose of a dented can of vegetables and there was a spatula that was heat warped and not easily cleanable. This is a direct violation of health and sanitation rules outlined in the PWS as mandatory compliance. Is this a critical failure? What if a Quality Assurance Evaluator observes the two violations and brings it to the contractor's attention and it is corrected on the spot? If one customer complains about the menu does that constitute failure? If not one complaint, how many would it take? Likewise, how many Quality Deficiency Action Plans/Contract Deficiency Reports have to be issued before the contractor is determined to be non-compliant with the terms of the contract and/or action taken to withhold funding or terminate the contract? Hopefully you see my point.
You can throw all the money you want into procurement reform but until issues like these are worked out, every contract has a potential for failure. We're doing it to ourselves.
-
80518
Nothing speaks louder than the mighty dollar. Pay us what we are worth, 1102 should have a special salary rate, for recruiting and retention. Higher education requirements mean higher salary. We 1102s are working among budget analysts, supply and logistics managers that make as much as we do, but no degree required!
-
80516
The federal government cannot keep skilled and trained Contracting Officers and Contract Specialist because far too often the "good ones" are overworked, underpaid, have low morale, know that there is limited promotion potential in their field, and not given adaquate time to obtain/maintain their training proficiencies. It takes some time to become a good acquisition professional or contract monitor (PM, TM, COR, COTR) but too often individuals appointed in these positions are not trained or fully understand their role within the acquisition workforce. DAU offers excellent training (online and classroom; and need to offer more online level I and II courses) but nothing takes the place of on-the-job training and mentoring; this will not happen when work conditions keep causing experienced contracting professionals to abandon ship or run for the exits. I've seen far too many people who don't understand government contracting, but think they do, and approach it as if they were doing business for themselves; without any regard (or it could be knowledge or concern) about the rules, laws, restrictions, or potential consequences of their actions. If the government wants to attract and retain good acquisition professionals and contract monitors then the government needs to do a better job in selection, training, starting salaries (grades), and promotion opportunities for Contracting Officers and Specialists. Also, properly trained and "qualified" CORs, COTRs, Task Monitors, Contract Monitors, etc. should have a professional series number or an additional skill identifier (ASI), instead of just being additional duty assignments.
-
80510
We need to stop competing with ourselves for the workforce. Let's designate certain agencies as the primary agency to procure certain types of things. For example - DoD obviously does all weapon systems procurement. EPA becomes the focus for environmental and GREEN procurements, HHS focuses on medical, etc. If a procurement has an expected value of some set threshold, it gets done by that agency or there's some approval/consulting process. The agency becomes the keeper of best practices as it relates to that type of procurement and winds up developing specialized expertise in that area, to include the bumps and hiccups found in those types of procurements. In case of a GREEN procurement, for example, EPA serves as the expert and would do procurements for other on an assisted acquisition basis or serve as a consultant to the procuring agency's acquisition team. The agency designated as the expert become the only agency authorized by OMB to issue new GWACs for that area. Multiple award contracts (like schedules program) and agency-use only ID/IQs or BPAs are still permitted. For areas like IT Services, you may designate two or three agencies as the experts if no agreement can be reached. Then if an acquisition professional wants to specialize in an area, they can pursue jobs within the "expert agency". The consulting role gives exposure to other agencies and promotes sharing of best practices.
-
80502
Previous comments are 'right-on'! Will the real acquisition managers please stand-up! Why aren't they being represented in this reform movement? Don't they really know the truth about what is taking place in their agencies'/commands'/activities', etc.? Of great concern is what the 'existing' acquisition corps is doing in the field; they really need refresher training!!!!
-
80495
Hopefully all these Congressional meetings will have some positive effect other than stirring the pot and bringing to light what has already been known and written about for years. I agree that many challenges in federal acquisition, especially in the workforce, can't be solved overnight or even in the near-term. After all, it has taken since the early-1990's to get us to where we are today. This time, maybe, just maybe something will be done (I know I'm being an optimist here).
-
80481
Bruce Sullivan's comments along with that of 1102 careerist's are right on the mark. The fact is OPM has failed miserably at their mission for years, and so have all previous administrations (Democratic and Republican). This problem has been around since the 70's and only gotten worse. When I was a lieutenant in the Navy thinking about joing the federal service I chuckled at the thought a J.D. or PHD was required to be an 1102 at the GS-9 level. It's absurd. The time is now to truly reinvent they way Government hires and recruits new blood. Real contracting officers that can speak and present themselves well in front of large college audiences should be encouraged by their agencies and this administration to go out and tell what is good about government and how making federal contracting their career can pave the way to a bright future. There are many different types of 1102 positions and those in the field need to be cross polinated well. Far too many 1102 who spend time in just one agency like FAA know only the FAA way of doing things.
-
80468
I hope no-one is expecting to fix the problems in 3-4 years by hiring 20,000 new acquisition personnel. Competition with Industry will keep the experienced individual in Industry so the government will have to rely on bringing journey-level and interns into the force. This means it will take another 2-6 years before these individual are ready to be productive and make management decisions. It is right that the government focus on acquisition but should not make the individuals narrowly-trained contracting specialists. Training programs should be focused on management and analytical skills as well as the legal and regulatory processes.
While waiting for these new individuals, the government should reassess the business practices and processes they are currently using with the intention to remove the non-value added aspects. In fact, the government should use the new hires by challenging them to find better ways to conduct business rather then to tell them to do it the way it has always been done. There is no faster way to lose a dynamic and promising individual than by telling him to "look in the files to see how it was done last time" or when questioned why we do it that way to say "because it has always been done that way." The right training by the right people is the key
-
80451
Drabkin's hitting the nail on the head. I talk with many college graduates around this time of year about their prospects. When mentioning a Fed job they ususally quote the requirement of having a J.D for a GS9 position or PhD (or higher) in a business related field to be eligible for the GS11 positions. They expect that if they had the JD or PhD, the salary competition would place them more in the GS13 to GS15 range. Which they would never be considered because they do not have the requisite OJT and technical skill sets.
Changing the educational requirements at the lower grades may encourage more grads to consider this job field. Further, awareness would help tremendously. There are very few education institutions that teach Federal Procurement as a potential career goal, but they do a damn good job teaching them how to be bankers, accountants, lawyers, technical specialists and such.
-
80414
Why not invite some senior contracting officers who are actually working in the contracting arena instead of talking heads and Law Firm partners. Also, since when did a college degree become a "strict" education requirement. Please, a less educated workforce is not the answer. However, I would not mind seeing the education requirement go away IF it is replaced with a Federal Contracts Exam. In addition, the 1102 series should be divided into multiple career fields. Right now 1102 includes Contract Specialist, Procuring Contracting Officer, Termination Contracting Officers, Admin Contracting Officer, Contracts Administrator, Cost and Price analyst, Procurement Analyst, and Closeout Specialist and I am sure there are others. A better defined career field would also help. Lastly, no matter how good the Contracting staff is... a competent and talented acquisition manager is critical to acquisition success.
-
80412
It's great to hear that DoD is hiring new contracting personnel - however, if they really want to retain expert Contracting Officers, they should offer some type of proficiency pay for Contracting Officers with unlimited warrants.
-
80389
The focus on acquisition reform should be on the front end with skills and capabilities to complete the acquisition mission at the forefront of a strategic workforce development strategy. Regulations, protests, and other focus areas of contract administration are meaningless if the current trend of a poorly trained, overwhelmed, underdeveloped workforce is not addressed to meet the needs of the acquisition mission. Federal leadership must ramp up their efforts to execute on workforce goals if any acquisition reform is going to see results.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.