GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: New alliance hopes to spur new talent in procurement field

• 92241
  

  Okay, so we go out and market procurement and you get all these really nieve new graduates to enter - then what? Many agencies don't offer training to acquisition personnel simply because "if we train you, you might leave". Therein starts a vicious cycle of "leaving [a agency] because you won't train me", feeling fustrated because you can't really learn your job and learning how thankless this job really is. Start by retraining your management to encourage and foster and environment of continual growth and getting back to basics - "Investing in your human capital".

  Treena Greene Posted November 18, 2009 10:19 AM
• 91764
  

  Engineer, DOD is the ONLY federal agency that actually does the job its assigned. They volunteered to serve their country in all manner and shapes that our Cs would run to the 'union' about. We pay CS on average $120K a year, with ZERO accountability and provide them with a job for life. The only ones who I have ever seen sitting on their duffs, playing video games and social networking and seldom putting in 30 hours are the despicable workers who you are talking about. time for you to learn from your betters since you lack respect because they out do you in every facet of life

  dan m ketter Posted November 10, 2009 3:53 PM
• 91461
  

  Ketter: The problem with vets preference is that there's no incentive for these individuals to get off their lazy butts and do something other than take up valuable space. Vets should be allowed a one-time-good-deal to use these points to get their foot in the CS door. Then they should have to compete on a level playing field with everyone else. To keep playing the joker to beat out non-vets with otherwise qualifying credentials only drags the quality of civil service down to their level of mediocrity. Little wonder why DOD suffers from creative thinking. Intern programs are the way to go and if vets want to play, then let them first use their GI Bill to gain legitimate entrance into the preferred gene pool.

  engineer Posted November 6, 2009 5:50 PM
• 91363
  

  Maybe the alliance should read our laws regarding vets preference. Maybe its time to enforce the law!!

  dan m ketter Posted November 5, 2009 8:04 PM
• 91308
  

  The rarely referenced but fully self-inflicted sickness with acquisition personnel and staffing within DOD is that nearly ALL of the positions in the mid and upper grades are 100% inbred.

  Even when DOD hiring 'managers' stage faux external recruits they actually hire only and merely current or prior DOD acquisition staff nearly every single time, be they DOD GS staff or recently retired DOD active duty acquisition support personnel who want self-financial gain driven so-called 'conversions' into DOD GS staff post retirement, so-called 'conversions' that are typically into the same DOD offices and same desks and very same literal chairs that they occupied while on active duty, or DOD contract personnel.

  DOD's decades long practice of maintaining near 100% rates of rampant inbreeding has created a groupthink bound workforce that is permeated with mediocrity, a go-along-to-get-along organizational culture, and ultimately to ineptitude and incompetence.

  You may ask: How are these preposterous levels of inbreeding obtained? It's easy. Even though DOD hiring 'managers' may opt to recruit out side of DOD (and ask for non-DOD applicants to apply), they nevertheless simplemindedly use and abuse mere DOD and sub-DOD level application review criteria that 'weeds out' all non current or prior DOD staffers. And viola - the purported 'best and the brightest' for these taxpayer funded positions are almost ALWAYS only and merely current or prior DOD staffers.

  But you may also ask: What about the portability of skill sets and/or the complexity and rich diversity of professional experience and/or the superior formal educational levels held by the non DOD applicants? Well, the unpalatable but truthful answer is that the vast majority of DOD's one agency careerist hiring 'managers' in this field simply don't care about genuinely searching for and hiring the best and the brightest.

  And worse, when the DOD hiring 'manager' is an individual in uniform, he is very motivated to continue this disgusting self-financial gain driven practice. Why you may ask? The answer is simple. Because in X months he too wants to benefit from a similar sham recruitment that will be concocted for HIS personal benefit upon HIS retirement from active duty.

  If the goal is to instill much needed change, then take a close look at this low hanging worm-infested rotten apple.

  Michael J. Smith, MPA Posted November 5, 2009 11:17 AM
• 91302
  

  I'm reminded of a saying, "Practice doesn't make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect." Why do I think of that? It is not enough that we recognize we need more bodies in chairs to fulfill all the goals and responsibilities of the acquistion workforce. We need quality, highly trained and motivated bodies.

  And how do we get those bodies? By providing an environment that entices, invites and compels recent graduates (and others) into our profession. We do that by providing them what the private sector does - competitive salary, opportunities for growth and advancement, and education credit/benefits.

  In my organization we constantly watch other organizations promote rapidly, get grade structures, and pay for degrees yet those same benefits are unavailable to us - all under the auspices of mission criticality.

  Procurement organizations talk a good game but rarely seem to deliver and use the same old tired standby excuses of "budget contraints." I don't doubt there are budget concerns but one of two things needs to happen: 1) We have a drastic paradigm shift and demand recognition that our part of the mission is critical 2) We start being honest with new hires about their prospects.

  Simply saying "we need more people" is foolish and detrimental to our profession and shows a lack of insight into the true problems and potential solutions.

  Aaron Posted November 5, 2009 10:37 AM
• 91292
  

  You can bring in new hires....but can you keep them? We want to throw money at problems and make problems go away. We also want to throw bodies at a problem (acquisition) and make problems go away. Contracting as a career is not a sought after, nor popular occupation due to the continual plethora of buracracy, archane rules and back seat driving from auditors, and congress. Contracts are continually brow beat by Program office and industry. No wonder the high turnover.

  D Johnson Posted November 5, 2009 10:03 AM
• 91286
  

  I have to agree with IT Acquisition Advisory Council's comments. Even instructions in the acquisition process are scattered, with OFPP issuing memos that get lost in translation. All acquisition processes should be outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and steps should be concretely simplified. The plethora of regulations and processes has gotten so out of hand that no one can get the job done. Let's simplify, make sense, save time and effort and stop wasting taxpayer dollars. And while they are at it, the Federal Procurement Data System needs to stop blaming data problems on agencies who submit accurate data. Every agency can't be wrong. The FPDS system needs to be repaired. And the Aquisition Career Management System (ACMIS) is pitiful. How can Federal procurement personnel or the American taxpayer have faith in the Government if it can't run major IT systems better than this?

  Catzcradle Posted November 5, 2009 9:50 AM
• 91261
  

  They might also consider giving federal employees interested in procurement the opportunity to enter the field by allowing them to participate in acquisition training and get "up to speed."

  Elizabeth Garcia Posted November 5, 2009 8:02 AM
• 91260
  

  It's amazing how these people came up with this idea, especially since I submitted it through the Army Suggestion Program in March 2008 under the title: a Plan to replenish the decreasing contracting workforce. Suggestion Number: NEMR08008C. We see how well the Army Suggestion Program works!!! Anyway I'm glad they are finally implementing my suggestion. I hope I get some credit for the suggestion I put out there.

  Ron M Posted November 5, 2009 7:58 AM
• 91258
  

  If the Acquisition process today does not produce actionable and measurable requirements and clear outcomes, throwing more bodies at the problem will not help. Fundamentally, the requirements generation process, especially for IT, is flawed and disconnected from architectures, tech assessments, and the acquisition strategy. Users have little faith in the process as it frequently does not deliver critical capabilities on time or on budget.

  Also, the federal leadership has learned you cannot outsource risk, as demonstrated by past efforts to out source IT Acquisition functions to FFRDCs and contractors. Their motivations, like any organic entity, is to grow and sustain, not be efficient or effective.

  These problems have proven to be solvable, but requires strong leadership, continuous user involvement, and a major transformation of today's architecture and acquisition processes that are based on 1970's concepts. This problem has been exacerbated by the patchwork of policies, method and laws that failed to address the root causes, and instead addressed the symptoms.

  Congress and their staff appear more engaged than ever, and with the help of GAO, beginning to recognize these failure patterns in recent funding legislation for DHS and NDAA.

  As there are clear efforts to fix IT Acquisition, the one caution comes from one of the worlds most enlightened scientist; "you can't solve today's problems with the same kind of thinking that got you their in the first place".

  IT Acquisition Advisory Council Posted November 5, 2009 7:52 AM