Recruiting new people to the 1102 workforce

[formerfed]

Recruiting and training younger people is a big problem across the government.  State Department came up with a new idea although it’s not limited to 1102s but is more General to their mission.  It’s a virtual intern program for college students

https://careers.state.gov/interns-fellows/virtual-student-federal-service/

This reminds me of the huge success we had at one agency I worked at.  We had an agreement with a university at both the undergraduate and graduate level for interns.  The students would work onsite for us while getting paid and earning college credits at the same time.  Upon completion they were eligible for direct hire.

Another good program was at another agency where we did consulting work.  They had an intern program where we supplied one consultant to a small group (3-4) interns as mentors.  We would be there working with interns providing guidance and assistance and immediately answer questions.  This allowed them to easily learn without the need to bother the senior government employees in their office which usually didn’t have the time.

Just some ideas where it seems not much is being done other to help recruit, grow, and retain good people.

[joel hoffman]

The Army Corps of Engineers has had successful college intern programs for decades for architects and Engineers. 

[Voyager]

@formerfed @joel hoffmanWhat’s the number 1 thing an office hiring a cohort of new trainees all at once needs to do to be successful?

[C Culham]

6 hours ago, Voyager said:

@formerfed @joel hoffmanWhat’s the number 1 thing an office hiring a cohort of new trainees all at once needs to do to be successful?

The No. 1 thing is evidence of a supportive Department/Agency that demonstrates from the top down that acquisition management based on the guiding principles of codified regulations, the FAR, are necessary to mission accomplishment.  Accomplishment is not singular to any of the "team"* and support means equal support to all.

Reference - FAR 1.102

* It is clear from my long time experience that high level management is lost on this ideal.  The example that filters down to all Departments is the Presidents inability to to emphasize this ideal by giving no teeth nor actual support to the OMB office of OFPP.  I grow tired of an agency stating that they must comply with this CFR or that CFR but they are lost that that the FAR is a CFR as well.

[Jamaal Valentine]

On 8/1/2023 at 1:41 PM, Voyager said:

@formerfed @joel hoffmanWhat’s the number 1 thing an office hiring a cohort of new trainees all at once needs to do to be successful?

Have an effective training program (including competent trainers).

In my opinion, there should be a standard curriculum based on experiential learning. In addition to practicums, the curriculum should provide specialized learning of the common law, statutory and regulatory aspects that impact the agency’s acquisitions. Much of the so-called gray areas can be colored with application of case readings and exercises. The objective is to equip the trainees with a useful understanding of the principles and concepts underlying Government acquisitions.

Generally, the training program should teach trainees how to think rather than what to think. We need professionals who can think critically. The ability to efficiently and effectively research, interpret, and apply the rules of Government acquisition is paramount. And since clear writing is a sign of clear thinking, the program should include instruction on effective writing. This segment should focus on the agency’s specific expectations and rules.

[formerfed]

21 hours ago, Voyager said:

@formerfed @joel hoffmanWhat’s the number 1 thing an office hiring a cohort of new trainees all at once needs to do to be successful?

First it’s vitally important to start with the right people.  Recruitment is essential.  If you start with the wrong individuals, even at the trainee level, you face an uphill battle.  You want critical thinkers and those that can cooperate and collaborate.

I agree with Jamaal Valentine’s comment about training.

Quote

Generally, the training program should teach trainees how to think rather than what to think. We need professionals who can think critically. The ability to efficiently and effectively research, interpret, and apply the rules of Government acquisition is paramount. And since clear writing is a sign of clear thinking the program should include instruction on writing. This segment should focus on the agency’s specific expectations and rules.

Too many mentors assigned to trainees are the ones you don’t want in that role.  Often they are the ones that can’t perform other essential roles with time on their hands.  Often these same individuals teach others “risk adverse” actions to avoid doing things they don’t know how to do or are the most comfortable with.  Or even saying “no” to program office suggestions so they don’t have to do anything.

Another thing is finding people inquisitive and interested in the mission and the technical nature of programs.  They don’t need to be technical experts but should grow to have a basic understanding of the technical issues.

[Voyager]

19 hours ago, formerfed said:

Often these same individuals teach others “risk adverse” actions to avoid doing things they don’t know how to do or are the most comfortable with.

Sounds like you need a warranted person as mentor that can take the hit for the newbies when they make mistakes.  That way they feel "safe"* when doing their job.  That way they eventually become part of the FAR acquisition team.

* a very Gen Z thing - redefining safety to encompass an emotional state.  Like it or not, we are stuck with it.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Voyager
Removed a non sequitur

[formerfed]

@Voyager  I didn’t mean it that way.  Lots of times mentors are the older people with lots of years experience but all that experience may not be good for teaching interns.  I’m reflecting on those that don’t want to try new things, are comfortable with the status quo, and are ones quick in saying “I don’t want to go to jail.”  They are the ones who resist new initiatives and document every single phone conversation and save emails to “protect themselves.”

[Voyager]

17 hours ago, formerfed said:

I didn’t mean it that way.

I know you didn’t - I read your OP.  I made an argument against it.  I just didn’t have any evidence except logic, so I resorted to non sequiturs.  Sorry about that.  I deleted one.

17 hours ago, formerfed said:

I’m reflecting on those that don’t want to try new things, are comfortable with the status quo, and are ones quick in saying “I don’t want to go to jail.”  They are the ones who resist new initiatives and document every single phone conversation and save emails to “protect themselves.”

Sounds like we can both agree the mentor needs charisma.

[Voyager]

22 hours ago, formerfed said:

First it’s vitally important to start with the right people.  Recruitment is essential.  If you start with the wrong individuals, even at the trainee level, you face an uphill battle.  You want critical thinkers and those that can cooperate and collaborate.

 …

Another thing is finding people inquisitive and interested in the mission and the technical nature of programs.  They don’t need to be technical experts but should grow to have a basic understanding of the technical issues.

I agree, these traits remind me of all the good coworkers I’ve known in my 15 years of federal contracting.

[formerfed]

@Voyager  I know you asked for only one thing an office should do but I’ve got another.  It’s instilling in new hires their ultimate job is ensuring successful mission accomplishment.  We are there to help.  Despite what many old line 1102s promote, getting a contract in place is not the ultimate objective.  Rather contracting is just one of many means to achieve program/mission success.

The best way to see this happen is building trust and respect of 1102s by program offices.  Let them know you are an ally and want to assist in the best possible manner.  If they need contract support, you should be viewed as an enabler and not an obstacle.  I spent the last 20 years working with agencies to improve their contracting processes.  That includes conducting comprehensive assessments across the agency.  Know what most senior agency officials think of contracting? - a necessary evil and don’t see any benefits. 

We have the potential to do much, much better.  The award of a contract is not the ultimate objective.  What should be the goal is bringing on a contractor which provides the optimum solution.  That can be done in light of all the perimeters and statutory limitations we face but a very few of our colleagues know how to do that.  We need to instill in new hires that’s our goal.

The job just doesn’t end with a contract award either.  When you think about it, the evaluation and selection process is not just picking a source.  The real work starts with contract performance.  Think about how many contract performance failures start with a bunch of people patting themselves on the back saying “we just awarded the perfect contract.”  Then performance problems begin and no one is there to help.  Instead we jump in much later to quote FAR clause by verse why the contractor is at fault.

Selection of a contractor involves diligent market research, understanding the marketplace, knowing what are the key differentiators between the also ran and the top performers, and crafting a selection plan that best can meet mission needs.  On the flip side, one of the worse examples out there for slacking off by 1102s is evaluating past performance.  So many people just rely on CPARS reports rather than asking pointed and direct questions of customer agencies.  They avoid real and meaningful dialogue on true results.  Picking a contractor in many cases involves crafting a unique plan only after knowing program needs.

[Voyager]

I think this common blindness to mission success is a side effect of the contracting offices being siloed off from program offices.  Not saying that dynamic should change, because political appointees often lead program offices and we need checks and balances.  Instead, a leader in a contracting office should voluntarily choose to permeate the office with the program office's mission - through day-to-day communication as well as yearly performance appraisals.

[General.Zhukov]

40 minutes ago, Voyager said:

a leader in a contracting office should voluntarily choose to permeate the office with the program office's mission

Agreed.  There is a goldilocks zone for mission-focus vs. technical focus when it comes to recruitment and retention.

Contracting has a lot of expert knowledge and procedures which are most effectively handled with a centralized and separated (from program) technical-focused contracting office.   The downside of centralization is that this type of office the particular mission doesn't matter that much, and in mission-driven federal agencies, that's a big opportunity cost.  I think of NASA.  'Join NASA and help build space telescopes!' is much more compelling than 'join NASA and audit cost-plus contracts!' On the other hand, many federal agencies aren't particularly mission-driven, it's just a job, and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise, so this wouldn't work.   

The opposite - a program-centric or decentralized contracting office, your much closer to the program.  But two downsides.  First, as you state contracting needs to be a check on program, able to act independently and say no - hard to do to your best work friends and employer!  Second, contracting offices really must have some economy of scale and specialization.  

This is an evergreen debate in my particular contracting office.  In terms of recruitment and retention, I think the mission-focused approach is demonstrably more successful, but I have large doubts about whether we could actually do our jobs competently (job one: do not break the law, nor allow others to break the law!) were we less-centralized than we already are.  No obvious answer.  Smarter people than me have thought about this much more carefully than me, so there probably is an answer out there.

 

[formerfed]

5 hours ago, General.Zhukov said:

The opposite - a program-centric or decentralized contracting office, you’re much closer to the program.  But two downsides.  First, as you state contracting needs to be a check on program, able to act independently and say no - hard to do to your best work friends and employer!  Second, contracting offices really must have some economy of scale and specialization.  

Yeah, decentralization where the contracting professionals work for the program office often doesn’t work.  The exceptions involve strong COs.  But what I mean are 1102s that understand programs, mission, and strategic objectives.

I’m thinking of the situation where a program urgently wants technical support.  They need might someone to fix a sophisticated technical issue.  So they ask procurement who says send a procurement requisition, a SOW, a draft acquisition plan, evaluation criteria, documentation on non personal services, an IGCE, and on and on.  Compare this to the CO/CS who says I know of an existing contract that does this.  Or we can use the BPA I suggested a few months ago for this type situation.  I’ll find the contractor and you give me the PR asap.  

[REA'n Maker]

I would be happy if the newbies just showed an interest in procurement.  I was asked to 'mentor' a GS-13 on a A-E competition and I finally gave up even pretending this person had the slightest inclination to take ownership of anything 'we' (i.e., 'me') were doing.

On 8/2/2023 at 11:09 AM, formerfed said:

First it’s vitally important to start with the right people.  Recruitment is essential.  If you start with the wrong individuals, even at the trainee level, you face an uphill battle.  You want critical thinkers and those that can cooperate and collaborate.

I believe "procurement nerd" is the term you are looking for.  🤓

[formerfed]

1 hour ago, REA'n Maker said:

I believe "procurement nerd" is the term you are looking for.  🤓

👍🏻😁