Should the government return to making a distinction between GS-1102 contracting officers and GS-1105 purchasing agents?

Purchasing agents would handle small-dollar transactional buys𑁋such as purchases of simple product buyes, simple services, and small-scale construction

Contracting officers would handle large-dollar long-term relational buys𑁋such as product and software development and production and other complex services, and large-scale construction.

Wouldn't that simplify and reduce the costs of training and make purchasing agent jobs open to those without 4-year college degrees?

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Should the government return to making a distinction between GS-1102 contracting officers and GS-1105 purchasing agents?

Purchasing agents would handle small-dollar transactional buys𑁋such as purchases of simple product buyes, simple services, and small-scale construction

Contracting officers would handle large-dollar long-term relational buys𑁋such as product and software development and production and other complex services, and large-scale construction.

Wouldn't that simplify and reduce the costs of training and make purchasing agent jobs open to those without 4-year college degrees?

Sure why not as it seems such a structure worked in the past just fine. I am not sure it would reduce costs as would it not be an addition to the exisiting workforce unless the suggestion is some 1102 positions would be eliminated with such a change. Yes the college degree requirement is not applicable to the 1105 series.

A 360 move that would open the doors to the question of is there adequate funding to do so (again with the thought that it would an addition to the exisiting workforce) and is such a structure good for this new world. I think it could be with thoughtful thinking.

PS - Did a quick check. Today USAJobs has 12 purchasing agent 1105 positions listed and 69 contracting 1102 positions listed.

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Should the government return to making a distinction between GS-1102 contracting officers and GS-1105 purchasing agents?

Purchasing agents would handle small-dollar transactional buys𑁋such as purchases of simple product buyes, simple services, and small-scale construction

Contracting officers would handle large-dollar long-term relational buys𑁋such as product and software development and production and other complex services, and large-scale construction.

Wouldn't that simplify and reduce the costs of training and make purchasing agent jobs open to those without 4-year college degrees?

Yes. You made this argument convincingly in the past by comparing the size of the workload for each to the size of the workforce for each. There are too many 1102s doing purchasing agent work.

As long as the government budgets, manages, and controls positions by Full Time Equivalent (FTE) numbers, a large incentive to use 1105s goes away. Most agencies down to subordinate offices have a set number of FTEs authorized. Assuming funding is not an issue, a GS-5 1105 counts the same as a GS-13 Contract Specialist.

Another issue is some simplified acquisitions can be as complex as a common contract acquisition. So you might want an experienced and knowledgable person working on it.

Also, who performs placing orders under contracts such as GSA Schedules, GWACs, and agency IDIQs?

On 2/24/2026 at 12:52 PM, formerfed said:

As long as the government budgets, manages, and controls positions by Full Time Equivalent (FTE) numbers, a large incentive to use 1105s goes away. Most agencies down to subordinate offices have a set number of FTEs authorized. Assuming funding is not an issue, a GS-5 1105 counts the same as a GS-13 Contract Specialist.

I've seen this have some really perverse effects. One organization I worked for--doing 90% commercial services buys--had GS-15s as 25% of its workforce. Just because you can hire at a more senior grade, doesn't mean you should. That said, no government manager has ever gotten credit for bringing the wage bill down, so there's little incentive to try to do so.