Jump to content

The Great Debate: Agency Perspectives on Procurement


Recommended Posts

Guest Vern Edwards

Listening to this discussion (not "debate"), I realize that I spent my career in what I'll call programmatic and project contracting. I was engaged in making one-time, unique buys for big things. I never bought a lot of nuts and bolts stuff--commodities, spares, or IT. I consider the talk of "category management," "strategic sourcing," and the various contracting "vehicles" to be about what I have always called purchasing, rather than contracting. When one speaker said that making the deal is the easy part, I thought: Man, I always that was the challenging part. That was the fun part.

The people on that panel talked like purchasing executives at Ford Motor Co. or Coca-Cola. They talked about buying commodities like handguns. I bought that kind of stuff (typewriters) for only a very short time at the beginning of my training. Then I was contracting in spacecraft and launch vehicle program offices for research and development.

What I'm saying is that "contracting" is really two fields--contracting and purchasing. And there are really two workforces--programmatic and project contracting, on the one hand, and purchasing, on the other. But we've created a single set of rules for two very different categories of acquisition, and we're training everybody in the same things and in the same way.

Personally, I am not interested in purchasing. I would never have been happy buying off-the-shelf IT hardware and software, spare parts, or cther commodities. But it's a good field, and it appears to dominate the concerns of the high-level managers. That means that there are career opportunities for people who take the larger, longer, strategic view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the GSA representative said they classified 22 different acquisition professions.

The Navy and DHS reps made me look into their opportunities. I found DHS' three year rotation program interesting. I just wonder if it is structured teaching and learning.

https://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-careers/acquisition-professional-career-program

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PepeTheFrog
46 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

purchasing, rather than contracting

How about a firm dichotomy between contracting officers and "others." This follows what Vern Edwards calls "programmatic or project contracting" vs. purchasing.

The "others" can be purchasers, clerks, administrators, procurement techs-- PepeTheFrog doesn't care about the name. Some of the very best "others" earn limited warrants only for commercial supplies. This distinction is comparable to attorneys and paralegals. Instead of "1102" and "contract specialist" positions, which vary substantially, positions are either contracting officer or "other." No chance for advancement to contracting officer while in an "other" position. You can gain valuable experience and skills to eventually become a contracting officer, much like a paralegal. But you must make a clear transition: qualify for and be hired into a different, designated contracting officer position.

Like paralegals, many career "others" will not want to transition to contracting officer. Like trusted and experienced paralegals, some "others" will be entrusted with higher degrees of responsibility, like relatively larger purchases of commercial supplies, or the supervision of...other..."others."

No "other" will supervise a contracting officer. Every "other" can trace their supervisory line to a contracting officer.

The solicitation, negotiation, award, and modification of strategic sourcing vehicles, multiple-award contracts, non-commercial items, commercial services, R&D, major systems, etc. are designated for contracting officers. The "other" positions help out, much like paralegals. But the contracting officers run the show and are solely responsible.

Contracting officers have more stringent qualification requirements and higher average salaries.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

When listening to that type of discussion among persons at that level, the most important thing to listen for is what they talk about, not what they say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people on the stage use terms with no definition, and the definition that they actually use is wrong.  Category Management, Strategic Sourcing, Agile...everything they say included buzzwords that they talk around rather than offering anything clear.  The one clear definition came from the moderator who stated that "the definition of innovation is introducing something new, and not much more than that" (1:00:00 mark).  Actually..that defines novelty, not innovation.  Innovation is the introduction of something new that replaces and repeals something that is pre-existed (creative destruction of markets).  People across government (and Silicon Valley) continually confuse novelty with innovation.  Novelty also means a cheap or inexpensive toy, which could also describe policy development in government.  He went on to say that "innovation is people.  Its ideas."  Watered down tripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PEPE,  The "others" are 1105s and 1106s which we used to have but those with, or working on degrees, got converted to 1102 and the others eventually left.  Problem was that HR would not rate a 1105 or 6 over GS9 and most were GS7.  It is very rare to find anyone competent to work for long at that pay in Washington.  So they were converted to 1102s, promoted up to GS13 and the Peter Principal is in effect for many of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other point.  The head of DCMA talked around this (1:07:00 mark), but what if federal contracting and contracting policy had a foundation of first principle reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle) instead of political (or interest group) expediency?  This ties in with Vern's syllogisms, but takes it one step further.  Elon Musk actually applies this in his product design and development:  http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-first-principles-2015-1

Requirements for technology, and that panel, would be smart to apply this.  It allows requirements to become more concrete, otherwise it is reasoning by analogy and we have seen where that has gone wrong in technology.  Cloud computing is like [pick your analogy].  Most of the concepts discussed were analogies to activities taken on part of the private sector (whose conditions are not applicable to public administration) or from design thinking (software development applied to contracting - e.g Agile).

A messy thought, but one I wanted to get out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What I'm saying is that "contracting" is really two fields--contracting and purchasing. And there are really two workforces--programmatic and project contracting, on the one hand, and purchasing, on the other. But we've created a single set of rules for two very different categories of acquisition, and we're training everybody in the same things and in the same way.

Many contractors divide the profession into three fields -- prime contract management, subcontract management, and purchasing. Most contractor employees specialize into one of those three categories. My old boss, Bill, used to tell us he didn't want specialization. He wanted professionals who could negotiate a prime contract, manage a subcontract, or order parts out of a catalog. He wanted to move his staff where necessary to follow the workload. I haven't seen his approach used in very many places.

 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

― Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PepeTheFrog
15 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

Specialization is for insects.

Specialization is for animals with complex social orders. Modern civilization is based in part on specialization and the division of labor.

Yet overspecialization due to the scale of modern civilization can be demoralizing. It can make people feel like insects or robots. PepeTheFrog thinks for more and more people, technological and social "advances" have outpaced the psychological and physical evolution needed to cope with them (live an orderly and functional life).

Heinlein's version of the competent man is an unrealistically lofty goal for human beings. Today, you can find people who can perform to Heinlein's ideal level, but they're a tiny fraction of the global population. In some groups, they're an even smaller fraction or do not exist. Maybe he was envisioning a future strain of human being. Isn't Heinlein a popular figure in what was later called trans-humanism?

2 hours ago, Boof said:

PEPE,  The "others" are 1105s and 1106s which we used to have but those with, or working on degrees, got converted to 1102 and the others eventually left.  Problem was that HR would not rate a 1105 or 6 over GS9 and most were GS7.  It is very rare to find anyone competent to work for long at that pay in Washington.  So they were converted to 1102s, promoted up to GS13 and the Peter Principal is in effect for many of them. 

PepeTheFrog remembers, Boof. But PepeTheFrog has seen contracting offices in expensive cities, including D.C., with "procurement techs" or the like working for $30-45K. They were mostly recent graduates. Most were contractors, some were Federal slots. They did a good job and moved on to other positions after a year or two. Replacement was never a problem for the contractor positions. Some of them stuck around even longer, and did a great job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Specialization is for animals with complex social orders. Modern civilization is based in part on specialization and the division of labor.

Yet overspecialization due to the scale of modern civilization can be demoralizing. It can make people feel like insects or robots. PepeTheFrog thinks for more and more people, technological and social "advances" have outpaced the psychological and physical evolution needed to cope with them (live an orderly and functional life).

Heinlein's version of the competent man is an unrealistically lofty goal for human beings. Today, you can find people who can perform to Heinlein's ideal level, but they're a tiny fraction of the global population. In some groups, they're an even smaller fraction or do not exist. Maybe he was envisioning a future strain of human being. Isn't Heinlein a popular figure in what was later called trans-humanism?

Pepe, Heinlein was a product of his times, and those times were (at a minimum) three full generations ago. I grant you that. My quote was more to get folks thinking (as you did!) rather than to imply I agree with Heinlein or that I was espousing his fairly unique views of competency.

That said, I like the idea of an acquisition "professional" who can deploy where needed, as needed. And I also like specialized training focused on the skills and knowledge necessary for today's position, as well as to help prepare for tomorrow's position. I'm not even going to claim those two "likes" are consistent. *Shrug* I contain multitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that every time the topic of "category management" comes up, inevitably the discussion pivots to "strategic sourcing."  Even in the Air Force, as far as I am aware, our conversation regarding category management merely tracks/assesses categories with high spend and then asks the question "can/should we strategically source products/services for this category?"  If yes, we do and create some sort of mandatory use contracting vehicle, if not, we move on to the next category and repeat the assessment process.

The problem I have with the previous approach is that "category management" is not simply a question or strategic sourcing or not, but rather what are the best practices for acquiring the products/services within a category (which may very well be aggregation through strategic sourcing) and then disseminating those approaches to the contracting professionals and their customers.

Maybe I'm mischaracterizing what the Air Force/rest of the Government is doing today (I've been in systems for almost two years now so that may very well be the case), but from the conversation I saw in the panel discussion here, I think the trend is still merely looking at categories for strategic sourcing opportunities and not much else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Matthew,

I noticed some glossed-over disagreement between some panel members- specifically the DHS representative (who I seem to be picking on) seems pretty down on mandatory contracts.  Says they don't work.  I think there was a move from GSA to mandatory specifications in IT for computers.  That may be what was eating at the DHS person.  I'm not a Fed anymore so I'm fuzzy on this too, but others around here know for sure.  She didn't bring that up specifically since there was a GSA person a few feet away and the conversation was polite.

I think it's the mandatory *specification* in the mandatory contract that causes the trouble.  Wrangling everyone into fewer specifications seems like the hard part, right?  Nobody bristles at not being able to use their favorite inspection and acceptance language.  Strategic Sourcing is a requirements definition headache above all else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find discussions like this to be frustrating.  They got a bunch of smart and powerful people into one room, and, because of a lack of focus, the conversation meandered about without anything revealing coming out.  Given the time restraint, the moderator should've forced a focus on or two subjects.  Pick at areas where disagreement was hinted at, and pick it apart.  That would've been illuminating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apsofacto,

It's not just the mandatory use or not (that's a different discussion which I'm happy to have - I'd sum my general position up as if you build a good strategic sourcing vehicle, the users should come) - the concern I was trying to get across in my previous post is that when the Government looks at category management we only ask ourselves "can we strategically source this?" (mandatory or non-mandatory) and, if not, the conversation ends there.  There are other ways to manage categories of spend in addition to strategic sourcing, but the Government does not seem to be doing anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PepeTheFrog
8 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

I find it interesting that every time the topic of "category management" comes up, inevitably the discussion pivots to "strategic sourcing."

Matthew Fleharty, PepeTheFrog suspects there is a reason. They want more consolidation (not the FAR or CFR definitions, but whatever you want to call combining smaller, individual contracts into larger, multiple-award contract vehicles with fewer prime contractors). Consolidation is a politically incorrect word, so they say strategic sourcing. But many people are wise to that game, so they came up with a new code word. Now, they call strategic sourcing, or consolidation, or aggregation, or whatever, "category management." They don't want to spook the horses.

30 minutes ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

but the Government does not seem to be doing anything else.

You got it. PepeTheFrog pays far more attention to what the Government does than what the Government says.

12 hours ago, here_2_help said:

*Shrug* I contain multitudes.

"My name is Legion: for we are many."

Your Whitman quotation made PepeTheFrog think of that eerie line, but it is in no way directed at you, which would be quite an insult!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PepeTheFrog

Great timing-- re the workforce reforms discussion: Over the weekend, PepeTheFrog saw that Vern Edwards' article "Out of Balance—Careers in the Federal Contracting Workforce: Urgent Reform Required" was published in the August edition of National Contract Management Association's Contract Management magazine.

http://www.ncmahq.org/stay-informed/contract-management-magazine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Great timing-- re the workforce reforms discussion: Over the weekend, PepeTheFrog saw that Vern Edwards' article "Out of Balance—Careers in the Federal Contracting Workforce: Urgent Reform Required" was published in the August edition of National Contract Management Association's Contract Management magazine.

http://www.ncmahq.org/stay-informed/contract-management-magazine

I read the same - Vern would you be open to sharing the article on the forums with all on a separate thread to start/have a discussion regarding your remarks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure a new thread is needed, and thanks for bring this up Pepe.  This point of view is what had been sorely needed in "The Great Debate".  However, can the bureaucracy actually adjust?  

C.  Northcote Parkinson developed Parkinson's Law when he retired from military service and made the observation that the Navy had more admirals than ships.  He also noted that as the empire was shrinking, foreign posts were increasing.  He then developed a Public Administration Theory that stated bureaucracies expand over the course of time, and this is the result of two behavioral factors:  (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Officials make work for each other."  I think it can be argued that the 1102 job series and functionality has been a by product of both factors over the course of time.  We can see this internally within our branches, and we have seen this across government "lets hire people and then we will figure out what we want to do."  Sound familiar? 

What Vern proposes would try to decrease the amount of subordinate 1102s (while increasing the number of subordinate 1105's and 1106's).  I would also argue that many in the 1102 community may not be totally on board with his proposal, because now they (we) would be ill-suited for 1102 work if the basics were stripped from their (our) responsibilities and thus need to be knocked down a peg based on skill sets alone.  Who on this thread would welcome a demotion because of where we stack as compared to the requisite skills needed to be considered professional (strategizing, program/industry engagement, analyzing, writing, advising, performing, developing, resolving, determining, negotiating, etc...)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think everyone has access to it (which now requires NCMA membership) - hence the request for the author to share so everyone can read it and then intelligently discuss.

For those that have read the article (and the author), I think the portion of the argument that could be improved on with data is when Vern argues that "the government's contracting workforce does not reflect the contracting workload and the government's actual needs."  I would like to see an analysis of the Governments' contract actions through FPDS-NG data identifying those non-complex actions that could be performed by 1105s and 1106s versus the number of actions that might require an 1102.  Such an analysis (if performed correctly) could go a long ways towards strengthening the argument that a certain labor mix is needed within the 110X workforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

I would like to see an analysis of the Governments' contract actions through FPDS-NG data identifying those non-complex actions that could be performed by 1105s and 1106s versus the number of actions that might require an 1102.  Such an analysis (if performed correctly) could go a long ways towards strengthening the argument that a certain labor mix is needed within the 110X workforce.

I would like to see people who want to see things do things.  If you want to see it...do it.  Prove or disprove the premise of the argument.  I am not intentionally being a jerk Matt, but I am guessing you are in a command where you are having people act on your behalf.  You may be right, and if it is something that you are willing to undertake (rather than request) I would welcome it.  Forget about strengthening a case, either make the case or disprove the case. 

I was thinking about this and my car.  When I bring my car to get something fixed someone under the age of 40 will inevitably tell me they have to do a diagnostic to fix the problem ($90 charge).  I refuse and then find the oldest mechanic in the room, ask him what he thinks the problem is, and he tells me without the need for analysis (and usually offers the lowest possible cost to fix the problem).  He goes by what he hears from the engine, what he knows through years of experience, and what he observes from other less senior mechanics.  The younger mechanic will want proof via analytics thinking that they will validate their approach.  The older mechanic only engages in the analytics if it saves time and money, or when he wants to prove to the younger mechanic that he knows exactly what he is talking about.

Congress would certainly agree with you in that to support the claim they will want more robust metrics and analysis.  What Vern had closed with was this "If you are a GS-1102 with a long time to serve until retirement, you cannot be neutral about this. This is your career that I’m talking about."  If you are not neutral, then pick up the torch and carry it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, jonmjohnson said:

I would like to see people who want to see things do things.  If you want to see it...do it.  Prove or disprove the premise of the argument.  I am not intentionally being a jerk Matt, but I am guessing you are in a command where you are having people act on your behalf.  You may be right, and if it is something that you are willing to undertake (rather than request) I would welcome it.  Forget about strengthening a case, either make the case or disprove the case. 

I was thinking about this and my car.  When I bring my car to get something fixed someone under the age of 40 will inevitably tell me they have to do a diagnostic to fix the problem ($90 charge).  I refuse and then find the oldest mechanic in the room, ask him what he thinks the problem is, and he tells me without the need for analysis (and usually offers the lowest possible cost to fix the problem).  He goes by what he hears from the engine, what he knows through years of experience, and what he observes from other less senior mechanics.  The younger mechanic will want proof via analytics thinking that they will validate their approach.  The older mechanic only engages in the analytics if it saves time and money, or when he wants to prove to the younger mechanic that he knows exactly what he is talking about.

Congress would certainly agree with you in that to support the claim they will want more robust metrics and analysis.  What Vern had closed with was this "If you are a GS-1102 with a long time to serve until retirement, you cannot be neutral about this. This is your career that I’m talking about."  If you are not neutral, then pick up the torch and carry it.

 

I did not state that I thought Vern was wrong or that the data would disprove his point, quite the opposite in fact.  I was making the point you referred to in order to crowd source research ideas to further explore the issue because, while I'm not "in a command where have people act[ing] on [my] behalf," I do have contacts and former professors back at the Naval Postgraduate School that get new students every 1.5 years that are looking for research/thesis topics - this would be something that those individuals have the time, energy, and resources to research and write on.

So thanks for commenting on the merits of what further research might or might not be beneficial on this issue and not assuming I'm already some lazy, dejected contracting professional that just wants to complain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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