Jump to content

Disparities Between Operations Contracting and Acquisition Policy


Recommended Posts

Let me preface this up front by saying that I think both operations contracting (dealing with external customers and program managers) and acquisition policy/procurement analysts have important roles to play and I think one should work in both areas to develop a breadth and depth in their career development. However, I do think that at too many federal agencies, there seems to be a disrespect towards those who are doing operations contracting. Operations contracting tends to have more pressure on them and more risk if the mission is not met (i.e., getting IT program managers vital services).

To me, I think that we in the contracting field need to show stronger support to those on the front lines and whose success or failure impact the mission of our agency and customers. How do we even the playing field again between both sides here again? Is it fair for both areas of contracting to have the same performance measures, pay or incentives? What kind of message does it deliver to younger people starting out in the field here when we disincentivize operational contracting and not support them to the fullest extent possible with better recognition for meeting higher risk awards and contract actions, providing them with acquisition policies/regulations written by those who have actually spent time in the operations contracting arena and who understand if such a policy would actually make sense given customer realities -- and finally, recognizing those in operations contracting for going above and beyond to meet customer needs (i.e., I was at an acquisitions conference that shall remain nameless where an overwhelming majority of awards were given to Small Business Specialists for meeting small business goals -- goals that would not have happened without the active participation and support of operations contracting).

Pardon the opinion, but I feel like my peers in operations contracting are not getting enough support for doing solid, hard work. We only have tended in the past to get focused on when mistakes happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the difference between operations contracting and procurement analysts. Are you talking about contracting officers in both categories? Is there a union to deal with in one or both categories? At places like DCAA the union makes a big difference in what changes can be made. The quality control review put in place in 2011 had to be done by Field Detachment (non-unionized) GS-12 auditors across the agency because the regular unionized GS-12 auditors would have given push-back if any regular unionized auditors had been given special status as quality reviewers. If there is any kind of union involved in one or both of the above categories, the process of leveling the playing field could be very protracted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the same phenomenon at a couple of places I've worked. The contracting policy analysts, in some cases, have no experience in operational or programmatic contracting. I've asked the question on numerous occasions, but how in the world can you develop, write, or enforce contracting policy if you've never "done" contracting? (or the corollary, how can you do policy if you haven't awarded a contract in 10+ years?)

There's policy and there's reality. As an operational CO, I try to make them the same thing, but when policy is being developed outside of the reality, it becomes frustrating.

Policy people have an important role. But to disconnect the policy role from the operational side of things is a mistake, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Shakespeare discussed the field versus staff relationship perfectly in Henry IV, Part One, Act I, Scene 3:

HOTSPUR:

But I remember, when the fight was done,
When I was dry with rage and extreme toil,
Breathless and faint, leaning upon my sword,
Came there a certain lord, neat, and trimly dress'd,
Fresh as a bridegroom; and his chin new reap'd
Show'd like a stubble-land at harvest-home;
He was perfumed like a milliner;
And 'twixt his finger and his thumb he held
A pouncet-box, which ever and anon
He gave his nose and took't away again;
Who therewith angry, when it next came there,
Took it in snuff; and still he smiled and talk'd,
And as the soldiers bore dead bodies by,
He call'd them untaught knaves, unmannerly,
To bring a slovenly unhandsome corse
Betwixt the wind and his nobility.
With many holiday and lady terms
He question'd me; amongst the rest, demanded
My prisoners in your majesty's behalf.
I then, all smarting with my wounds being cold,
To be so pester'd with a popinjay,
Out of my grief and my impatience,
Answer'd neglectingly I know not what,
He should or he should not; for he made me mad
To see him shine so brisk and smell so sweet
And talk so like a waiting-gentlewoman
Of guns and drums and wounds,--God save the mark!--
And telling me the sovereign'st thing on earth
Was parmaceti for an inward bruise;
And that it was great pity, so it was,
This villanous salt-petre should be digg'd
Out of the bowels of the harmless earth,
Which many a good tall fellow had destroy'd
So cowardly; and but for these vile guns,
He would himself have been a soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...