HHS did, in fact, lose about 40% of its contracting workforce last year. The contracting requirements have not changed. Highlights:

• HHS lost the most 1102s of any department or independent agency.

• GS-7/9/11: 65% loss across HHS.

• The big three spending agencies within HHS (each obligates ~$8 billion per year), Center for Medicare and Medicaid, National Institute of Health, and Center for Disease Control: >50% loss

• For contrast: DoD: -9% (2,500 FTEs) and all civilian agencies: -20% (3,200)

You are in charge, what do you do?

P.S. You have also lost half of your certified CORs.

Use contractor staff to function as contract specialists. Contracting officers make decisions and sign award documents.

I'll take the high ground and say there is not enough data here. Was there a RIF? Were they fired for poor performance? Did they leave for another job? Just because you lost staff does not mean your existing staff cannot handle the increased workload, especially if you are over-staffed. But, if I walk in the door today as a new SPE, I would ask (not necessarily in this order):

1: How has PALT been affected by these changes? Are we still meeting mission?

2: Are we constrained by a mandatory RIF or have personnel just left/retired?

2a. If we are not constrained by a mandatory RIF, what are we doing to retain our staff and recruit talent?

3. Even if we are not failing, what road blocks or hurdles can we remove to ensure authority is delegated to the lowest level possible?

4. What are we doing to ensure new COR's are being trained?

5. What does our current training pipeline look like for both interns and journeymen?

20 hours ago, General.Zhukov said:

You are in charge, what do you do?

The same thing that all tough people do in such circumstances — the best that you can.

Or you can quit.

I’m in charge? My response:

I would call an all hands meeting. My first point is communicating to everyone is we have an important mission to support and we are severely understaffed. We need extraordinary measures. Second all internal review, approvals and policy not critical to responsively meeting objectives we face are waived. Third, contracting officers are empowered to make decisions on their own to the maximum extent. If a contracting officer makes blatant errors, they also will be held accountable. Personnel will be assigned based on their experience, expertise, and track record of delivering results to the most critical programs. Those that come through will be rewarded and in a perfect position to advance. Those that fail won’t stay in their job and I’ll recruit people that can perform.

On 2/3/2026 at 11:59 AM, General.Zhukov said:

You (as the SPE for HHS) are in charge, what do you do?

I as the SPE chose with foresight a career in procurement with the Federal government. I landed with HHS for probably three reasons. To promote, support, improve and everything else the acquisition professional, embrace the mission of the agency, and self satisfaction.

I would evaluate how the changes to HHS meet my own goals. This would include understanding the changes to the agency in the current political climate. If I believed in the mission with the changes I would meet the challenges in most of the ways described in this thread. I would continue to do my dead level best with HHS and the challenges. In not HHS yet while still with HHS I would consider transferring, retiring and in the worst worst of scenarios out right quitting. For the latter two my off ramp would embrace those priorities that lead me being a SPE.

Post Script- I never was a SPE but in my 40 year Federal career I experienced times that challenged the three basic (and quickly and simply put) ideals I mentioned above. They took me to 5 different agencies and ultimately retirement something like 10 years ago. I am still here, I believe in the profession, and I am personally satisfied, the ultimate goal.

1. I would not complain or make speeches.

2. I would review and prioritize all requirements based on inputs from the requiring activities (our clients).

3. I would rank and prioritize them in terms of complexity, difficulty, and need.

4. I would assign each to "surviving" staff on the basis of know-how and capability, with agreement on target completion date(s). I would take on especially difficult assignments myself, when necessary, and provide hands-on aasistance as needed. (What can I do to help you?)

5. I would authorize overtime if and as needed.

6. I would notify requiring activities and my boss of the target completion date(s) of each of their requests.

7. I would visit each assignee's desk first thing on every working morning in order of assignment priority and ask for a status report.

8. I would intervene when an assignment seems to have gotten bogged down.

9. I would advise each client daily on the status of their request(s).

10. I would bring lunches into the office at my own expense, hand out "on-the-spot" awards as often as appropriate and possible, and urge clients to write letters of appreciation to the staff.

Those are all things I actually did as a USAF contracting office director. My bosses were a 3-star, three O-6s, and an SES.

I did not complain or make excuses, but I did tell people when I thought they were being unreasonable.

That general approach worked for me.

If it worked for me it can work for anyone.

Good ideas here.

Given a critical shortage, I wonder about how I would distribute the not-enough COs were I the SPE. (Note if the actual HHS SPE reads this: Hi!) Collect them all up to pool resources? Would that help? That is centralization, and what sort of stuff is best suited for this transactional arms-length method in these circumstances? (GSA seems to think the answer is everything. The end users I talk to every day disagree.) The many esoteric and unique things federal agencies do - you cannot centralize that. But the rest of acquisition - the mundane stuff that is the majority of the work - not sure. The classic which is more important: Responsiveness to end-user vs. economies of scale. How does this balance work when you've lost half your workforce? Are there economies of scale in federal acquisition? It's not obvious to me if COs are more like barbers (no economies of scale) or bankers (huge economies of scale). - is there some benefit to gathering up not-enough COs and putting them in one place? With a critical shortage, it's not obvious to me what's the best response.

I'd find the many unique things that HHS acquisitions do and make sure that at least 3 people - including at least one under the age of 50 - know how to do it. Inevitably, there will be unique things that nobody remaining knows how to do, and I'd want to find those gaps and plug them.

Also, day one I'd shanghai anyone I could into COR duty like an old-time Royal Marine roaming the wharfs of Liverpool.

@General.Zhukov So... Georgy, have you answered your own question? Should the moderator close the thread?

Sure, close it. I wanted to read what you all think, and I have.

@General.Zhukov So, what do you think of what's been said? Any of it seem reasonable?

On 2/4/2026 at 2:15 PM, General.Zhukov said:

Given a critical shortage,

I wonder if HHS is in a position to get approval from OPM due to a "shortage category" for acquisition positions? And related do as the IRS did and create "COR" positions? Internet research will give you lots to research regarding both.

Has HHS maximized non-1102 use of the government purchase card?

Does HHS allow 1102s to use the purchase card up to the SAT, without issuing purchase orders?

Does HHS allow non-1102s to serve as ordering officials for orders against GSA federal supply schedules?

Does HHS allow non-1102s to place orders (calls) against FAR Part 13 BPAs up to the maximum dollar amount for commercial items?