Paper proposes single acquisition job series

[formerfed]

A former Senior Procurement Executive wrote a paper entitled "A Call to Restructure the Acquisition Workforce" that proposes a single acquisition series consisting of contract specialists/COs, program managers and "super COTRs." I doubt many of the people posting here will agree with the concept but it is an interesting idea. I'm sure the majority will agree though with his statement that the emphasis is just on making contract award.

http://www.thefairinstitute.org/downloads/...inal-070709.pdf

[Guest Vern Edwards]

The "thought leader" (sounds vaguely Orwellian) took six pages to say:

? There are three acquisition functions: preaward (specification of requirements), award (contracting), and post-award (contract administration or management).

? The first and last functions have been neglected.

? The neglect is due in part to the fact that the three functions are stovepiped in separate job series, and only the contracting job series is clearly defined.

? The way to fix the neglect is to combine the functions in a single job series that includes all three functions.

He concludes:

This structure would facilitate movement among the different acquisition functions and/or specialties. Acquisition would become a varied career with many different opportunities making it easier to retain people for a longer time. The concept of "big 'A' acquisition" would be built into the very structure of the career field. It could be enhanced by mandatory rotational assignments, cross training, required mentoring and leadership training, and other tools that would become part of the certification program.

First, note that the "thought leader" wants to combine the three functions into a single job series, but maintain their separate identity such that there would be a separatge career path for each function and mandatory rotational assignments would be necessary. That strikes me as a peculiar kind of "single" series.

Second, the "thought leader" writes of "acquisition" as if all acquisitions are alike. They are not, except in the most abstract, general sense. Most "acquisition" people do simple buys that do not require much in the way of specification or post-award management. Of those doing more complex buys, some are working on small software engineering projects and some are working on the development of aircraft, spacecraft, launch vehicles, armored vehicles, or ships. Some are working on large civil works or hazardous or nuclear waste cleanup projects. They have little in common. Yet the author is proposing a singular solution.

The "thought leader" has one interesting notion--the creation of a requirements management specialist job series. That strikes me as a pompous name for specification writer or, if you prefer, requirements developer. (Why do so many job titles have to include the word "management" or "manager"?) The problem, however, is that government requirements are so various that it seems unlikely that you could train a generalist in that regard.

All in all, I am not persuaded that creating a single acquisition job series with three separate career paths, cross training, and mandatory rotational assignments will accomplish much.

[dwgerard]

Just scanning the "thought leader's" paper made me wonder if this guy has ever actually been in a contracting work area or out of the beltway in DC. My office does everything, cradle to grave, and there already is a "single career path and job series" here, not three as he claims. The work does not focus purely on award, although that is a big part of the process naturally. I spend far more time on pre-award and post-award functions per action than I do awarding the contractual action when it is required. Of course buying small dollar widgets need little pre or post award concerns other than proper competition and delivery, but I also purchase services ranging from $100K on up to more than $40M, so I get to exercise my pre and post award brain cells frequently as well.

Another thought that came to mind is how contracting went from 1102-1105-1106 career fields to a single 1102 career field sometime before I transitioned into contracting. Before Mr. Thought Leader makes a judgement of whether or not we should be a "single career field", has he actually done any study of the previous transition, or is he ignoring the past changes? Seems to me a decent researcher would see that there is some evidence that pertains to the changes Mr. Thought Leader is proposing, and would address that information prior to making a recommendation.

Maybe Mr. Thought Leader needs to log some travel time before putting fingers to keyboard.

[Stanretired]

"Just scanning the "thought leader's" paper made me wonder if this guy has ever actually been in a contracting work area or out of the beltway in DC."

You may disagree with his opinion but, based on interacting with the author when I was on the Procurement Executive Council, he does have extensive experience in acquistion. To imply otherwise is a cheap shot

[KeSer]

He does make a good argument that CONTRACTING people should rotate to the PM Shop/COR side. You learn a lot by viewing the same thing from a different angle.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

I don't think the author made a clear distinction between program manager and COR.

I want to say that my sarcasm about "thought leader" was not directed at the author, whom I know nothing about. It was meant to be a sign of my annoyance at the pretentiousness of such terminology. I would not write for an organization that was going to call me a thought leader. The Fair Institute, which I also know nothing about, ought to drop that bit of silliness. It's phony. Rand, which led more thought than any other organization of the second half of the 20th Century, never called its staff thought leaders.

[dwgerard]

"Just scanning the "thought leader's" paper made me wonder if this guy has ever actually been in a contracting work area or out of the beltway in DC."

You may disagree with his opinion but, based on interacting with the author when I was on the Procurement Executive Council, he does have extensive experience in acquistion. To imply otherwise is a cheap shot

Perhaps I was too harsh on Mr. Litman, but the title of "Senior Procurement Executive" in my current organization means a person without a degree, certification in contracting or anything else that leads me to believe they have any experience in contracting.

With that said, Mr. Litman does raise some interesting points. I am about to begin my dissertation with a contracting workforce topic should it be approved, so perhaps some of this may be of use in my research. I intend to address the idea of the "super COTR" once I have completed my dissertation, along with study into increasing the scope of DAWIA type certification programs for financial personnel associated with contracting.

I also agree that in the civilian organization I am currently working in, Mr. Litman's description of the Manager's role is right on the money. That is not so in the DoD organizations I have worked in. I wonder if the research team at FAIR compared civilian agency contracting organizations with DoD contracting organizations when they discussed that topic.

One problem that I still have is that Mr. Litman does not seem to understand that pushing everyone involved into the Contracting career field is just not reasonable without a complete paradigm shift in the whole concept of acquisition. Just from a power viewpoint, I cannot see it happening any more than I see all of the military branches integrated into one service with one chain of command. It is easy to discuss it, but implementation is a whole "nuther ball game.

Before we look at integrating all PM's, COTRS, etc. into one big A career field, we should be doing research into the last integration effort, when 1105 and 1106 series jobs were folded into the 1102 career field. It would be wise to know how that worked before we endeavor to make even bigger changes to the acquisition career field.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

If you want to write about something, write about the utter worthlessness of DAWIA certification, which is based not on demonstrated knowledge and competence, but on formal education, time on the job, and class attendance. Anyone can be a Level III if they attend enough classes and live long enough. They needn't have even an ounce of common sense or a clue about what they're doing.

What we need is a certification based on demonstrated knowledge and competence, regardless of the number of years of experience.

We'd have to grandfather in a lot of people.

[dwgerard]

If you want to write about something, write about the utter worthlessness of DAWIA certification, which is based not on demonstrated knowledge and competence, but on formal education, time on the job, and class attendance. Anyone can be a Level III if they attend enough classes and live long enough. They needn't have even an ounce of common sense or a clue about what they're doing.

What we need is a certification based on demonstrated knowledge and competence, regardless of the number of years of experience.

We'd have to grandfather in a lot of people.

Vern,

Once I complete my dissertation, which I will begin in November, I would consider it an honor to work with you on such a paper, or even to just listen to what you have to say on the subject.

I agree that rote accomplishing the classes required by DAWIA is not a true measure of how qualified a person is. My problem with the finance career field as it relates to contracting is that those personnel often have zero education in simple accounting and/or finance. They also have zero understanding of contracting as well, so I believe that some familiarization of those subject though coursework such as DAU provides would vastly improve the finance career field.

As far as the rest of us, I thoroughly enjoyed the Master's Institute in Government Contracting course taught in part by Dr. Ralph Nash last December. To me, I believe that to be truly "certified" I must reach THAT level, learn from the best, and continually strive to improve my craft.

DAWIA is simply a crude government imitation of that process. But as bad as it is, at least it is something along those lines. In some of the organizations I have dealt with in the government, the leaders in those organizations would be happy if their personnel did not receive ANY training! For the individuals in those organizations, mandatory DAWIA training is about as good as they can hope for, at least until they transfer out and report to a better command.

[Vbus]

There is an interesting related thread in the wifcon archives:

http://www.wifcon.com/discus/messages/8519/9045.html

[formerfed]

As far as the rest of us, I thoroughly enjoyed the Master's Institute in Government Contracting course taught in part by Dr. Ralph Nash last December. To me, I believe that to be truly "certified" I must reach THAT level, learn from the best, and continually strive to improve my craft.

What we need is a certification based on demonstrated knowledge and competence, regardless of the number of years of experience.

The problem is many people can sit through training even as excellent as Ralph Nash's and not be able to apply it in a real situation. Our profession will continue to be "stuck" until people at the level of CO's and managers are required to demonstrate competence.

Another problem is the belief that taking courses makes people better performers. I used to laugh at resumes I received and the number of people that literally listed pages of training they completed - that's supposed to impress an employer? The sad part is people think that their training is more important that listing their accomplishments.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

In re: training--

In my experience, most people sense when they don't know as much as they should, but they don't know how to acquire the knowledge on their own, so they want to take classes.

However, again, in my experience, most people don't know how to attend classes effectively. They show up without paper and pencil for notetaking. They don't know how to take lecture or reading notes. (Highlighting text or PowerPoint bullets is not the same as note-taking.) They don't know how to use their notes to study. They seem to think that by sitting and listening (more or less) they will learn something. They think that getting a degree shows that they know how to learn. Also, being told how to do something and actually being able to do it are two very different things.

Finally, most contracting classes simply are not worth the tuition. The course content is lousy, the text materials are poor, and the instructor doesn't know how to get the information across.

[dwgerard]

Formerfed,

The problem with demonstrating competence is that many supervisors, managers and executive leaders have a different definition of what that means than you, Vern and I do. Many of those so called leaders think that slavishly kowtowing to customers or statistics is what makes for competence, instead of good contracting practices.

An example: Contracting Officer who signs contracts with a period of performance lasting 2 years with 1 year funds. Result: Promotion to Assistant Director and GS-15.

Another example: Contracting Officer repeatedly signs contracts with no competition without any J&A's, D&F's or even the mention of fair and reasonable. That KO also repeatedly signs modifications AFTER the period of performance had expired, adding options to contracts that did not contain FAR 52.217-9 either upon award or even after the modification incorporating the opton was signed. Result: Promotion to Assistant Director and admission to the organization SES academy.

These are actual cases I have personally seen in my current organization. How is anything like real competence going to survive in that sort of environment?

My problem is that I refuse to compromise my professional ethics and follow those examples. This has made me a "problem child", because I refuse to let the Program Office determine who will be awarded a contract, require that they provide the correct documents, approvals and funding, and break the law just to satisfy a "customer" who could care less what the FAR says.

And yes, I have already received my marching order, I am leaving this organization and its unprofessional culture.