I've been thinking a lot about this topic, and trying to put my brain power behind how to fix it. Whatever we are doing, isn't working. But here are a couple of things I think:

1. The best way to learn is the traditional way. In person, required reading, consequences for not grasping the subject matter.

2. On the Job training is central to the proper application of the rules and concepts that are taught in the traditional manner. It has to be prioritized inside each contracting shop.

Is it just that simple?

8 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

The best way to learn is the traditional way. In person, required reading, consequences for not grasping the subject matter.

I agree with this part: "In person, required reading..."

Add: and discussion among other readers of the same material.

Delete the part about "consequences for not grasping the subject matter". That's too high school.

8 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

The best way to learn is the traditional way

I think there is a missing link. The tradition of experiential learning where CO's/1102's actually got up from behind the desk and visited job sites of all kinds to see and understand their contracts and the relationships they did or did not form.

I know people want "maximum flexibilities" in all things work, but I am 100% on board with required in-person training. Gone are the days where after class we would get together and discuss homework. This usually led to further discussions and was fascinating to learn how offices work differently, even though we all have the same guiding laws and principles (for the most part). It forged relationships across Agencies and departments. Think of how many people still talk about a Vern Edwards led FAR Bootcamp course and how it set them up for success because of the way he challenged his students to grasp the basics. Now it's just crickets or the same two people answering everything because they just want the instructor to move the class forward since nobody else is talking. That's not meant to be a shot at DAU professors, but instead at where we are as a learning community.

We don't have leaders though who are willing to force a return to in-person training because of the costs. Instead we would rather waste money on new desks and chairs for the second time in five years.

In person training is already required depending where you're at. 10 weeks of classes in some cases.

In person training can't make up for poor processes (regulatory or artificial/institutional.) and you can only blame the individual rather than the system for so long ,especially when the quality of personnel will only likely decrease as the trend of anti-curiosity continues.

Sending instructors to the students, in locations where most of attending students would not require travel expenses, would be a superior option to distance training, in my opinion.

True, when students are homogeneous, there wouldn’t be the same amount of interaction and cross-talk between students from different organizations or localities.

However, the in-class interactions and synergies are much more effective for both instructors and those students who are serious about the training topics than isolated, on-line learning, with all of the distractions and reduced student accountability.

There should still be some opportunities made available for some students from out of town or different local organizations in Urban areas to fill the classes.

But travel costs could be greatly reduced and still provide the advantages of in-person, face to face training.

Of course, I’m a dinosaur who doesn’t believe that teleworking or “telelearning” improves organizational efficiency or promotes high performance.

---

After I retired, I was a rehired annuitant for a decade, mostly working from home, on a highly important National and International Army program I had been on when I retired. I didn’t have a mandated, regular work schedule. I was only paid for the actual hours worked.

I had to submit time sheets bi-weekly. Being conscientious, I kept detailed daily notes of those hours worked and what I worked on for my timesheets. I didn’t charge for breaks, distractions, other activities, etc. But I made myself available with in my waking hours to Corps of Engineers offices/persons across many time zones. Those are advantages of not having a prescribed telework schedule for an honest, experienced employee.

However, I could easily have falsified my timesheets, if I had been on a mandated work schedule. There are many distractions to a work life from home.

I also missed the synergies of in-person, face-to-face human contact.

9 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

In person training can't make up for poor processes (regulatory or artificial/institutional.) and you can only blame the individual rather than the system for so long ,especially when the quality of personnel will only likely decrease as the trend of anti-curiosity continues.

Emphasis added.

See: Madhu, et al., "Work Curiosity As An Indicator of Employee Innovation", Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (2018)

https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1810A45.pdf

Quote: "Success starts in the mind."

The archaic business processes that focus on procurement-related reviews and approvals tend to beat the curiosity out of even the most curious younger employees. I have found that when a curious employee points out an issue, the higher-ups either ignore it, or laugh it off. It could be a glaring problem, but rarely are these problems addressed. The curious employee then packs it up after 4 years and moved to the private sector, never to be a fed again.

On 11/13/2025 at 9:06 AM, Motorcity said:

The archaic business processes that focus on procurement-related reviews and approvals tend to beat the curiosity out of even the most curious younger employees. I have found that when a curious employee points out an issue, the higher-ups either ignore it, or laugh it off. It could be a glaring problem, but rarely are these problems addressed. The curious employee then packs it up after 4 years and moved to the private sector, never to be a fed again.

That or are demoralized when the “senior” person can’t explain or answer the question and just defaults to “that’s how we do it”

The problem today is that the professional 1102 is caught between an organizational culture that does not value his/her skillsets. On the one hand we get told to take risks, lean forward, use sound judgement and business acumen, but on the other we are reduced to clerks who are told to rinse and repeat. Go to GSA and buy off the schedule because thats what GSA is for. We’re in a world where we are in CRs for atleast the first 1/3 of the FY if we are lucky then it’s a mad scramble to get everything awarded and the measure is not did we meet the requirement and achieve a successful outcome, no the measure of success is did we meet PALT and by the time we figure out if the delivery was made or the service was executed to expectations we are already so focused on the next urgent action we have no time to figure out what worked well and what didn’t and do more of the good and less of the bad.

On 11/10/2025 at 4:33 AM, joel hoffman said:

However, the in-class interactions and synergies are much more effective for both instructors and those students who are serious about the training topics than isolated, on-line learning, with all of the distractions and reduced student accountability.

Emphasis added.

I have been teaching for more than 50 years. Since before I entered Federal service. In my experience what matters most is the students themselves. Are they committed to learning? Do they have the necessary learning skills? Are they willing, even eager, to struggle?

Also in my experience, most do not have those traits. And while most want to know, too many don't like to learn. Learning is hard work. On occasion, it can even involve suffering, which I know because I'm not very smart.  When I got out of the Army and went to a junior college I was shocked to realize that while I understood the mechanics of reading, I lacked the skills. Thank God for a couple of sympathetic professors who helped me, who showed me how.

It has made me very sad late in life, because there are few things more rewarding than teaching those who want to do the hard work of learning.

"Most want to know, but too many don't like to learn."

I'm going to be thinking about that for awhile. How many of us are unwilling to adjust our priors in the face of new evidence? I certainly try to do that but I have an ego and pride too. It's not always easy to learn, but you have to commit to it, I think.

What is the incentive to fix contracting education? Political, operational, personal, etc.

In order to fix something, the decision maker has to decide it’s broken. Who is the decision maker? Each individual can decide for themselves, but fixing federal contracting education as a whole is much bigger.

Not only that, the decision maker has to feel that the pain associated with the broken state is greater than the pain of fixing it. There are a few individuals who have done so. Each level’s decision maker (individual, team, office, agency, etc.) must decide that the current state exceeds their pain threshold.

Now, what organizations can anyone point to that highlight excellence in contracting education (or training)? There are several colleges and universities that have programs (University of Maryland, Webster, George Washington)? What’s the verdict on those? What’s the scorecard on War Acquisition University, Naval Postgraduate School?

2 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Now, what organizations can anyone point to that highlight excellence in contracting education (or training)?

The U.S. Space Force, Space Systems Command, El Segundo, California.

I second Vern's response and add

Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The U.S. Space Force, Space Systems Command, El Segundo, California.

8 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific

Can you summarize what these organizations do differently or better than others with respect to acquisition training?

At SSC, they conducted special in-house classes for groups of incoming personnel, and gave each person copies of Formation of Government Contracts and Administration of Government Contracts.

I will be leading a 10-week an advance study seminar for select personnel beginning in January. (It was postponed due to the government shutdown, but is now being rescheduled.) Attendees will be assigned about 500 pages of reading, will participate in discussions of the readings, and must prepare background papers.

The command structure in that organization has long been committed to professional education and training.

On 11/21/2025 at 12:23 PM, Vern Edwards said:

At SSC, they conducted special in-house classes for groups of incoming personnel, and gave each person copies of Formation of Government Contracts and Administration of Government Contracts.

I will be leading a 10-week an advance study seminar for select personnel beginning in January. (It was postponed due to the government shutdown, but is now being rescheduled.) Attendees will be assigned about 500 pages of reading, will participate in discussions of the readings, and must prepare background papers.

The command structure in that organization has long been committed to professional education and training.,

Hurray! Those classic Contracting bibles are still being distributed and used for training!

Personally received my first set back in 1980 or ‘81. I read them, studied them, used them and received training on them. Personally purchased the updated versions throughout the years, shared them with our contract admin employees and the principles in them. Wonderful resources for daily use!