Jump to content

Contracting Workforce Experience, GS-1101s and 1102s


Vern Edwards

Recommended Posts

Reported by Bloomberg Government on Oct. 14, 2021:

Quote

 

Updates with partial-year fiscal 2021 statistics from Office of Personnel Management; previous revision updated total number of federal contracting office workforce)

Agency contract workforces are becoming greener [less experienced] as the average procurement acquisition lead time, or PALT, has increased.

For contractors already frustrated by delays arising from congressional budget logjams and bid protests, an agency’s inexperience managing increasingly large and technically complex contract awards adds one more factor to bottom-line planning.

An analysis of federal employment data by Bloomberg Government shows that from fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2020, the number of contract officials with 20 or more years of experience fell 18% while those with with zero-to-four years experience grew 54%. The number of fledgling contract officers, those with one year or less of on-the-job experience, jumped 69%. The relatively stable range of those with five to 19 years climbed 8.4%, but not enough to counter over time the loss of the most-veteran employees.

Less tenure in specific agency contracting jobs doesn’t cause slower procurement decisions, but less exposure to complex planning, administration, technical, pricing, and evaluation processes may add costs and extend the procurement timeline.

There’s a one-in-four chance, on average, that a company’s bid proposals will be administered by contract officials with the fewest years of experience: There are 69,558 GS 1101 (General Business and Industry) and 1102 (Contracting) employees making up the government’s contracting workforce, and by fiscal 2020, nearly 26% of them had four years of experience on the job or less.

Through June 2021, OPM reports a slight drop in 1101 and 1102 employment to 69,008.

Declining length of service among contract officers coincides with rising PALT at many of the largest agencies, but not uniformly.

Department of Defense employment of contract officials with zero-to-four years of experience grew 54%, nearly even with the 55% rise in PALT. DOD accounted for 64% of that length-of-service cohort in fiscal 2020. At NASA, employment rates for the least-experienced group grew 60% while PALT surged 204%. But the least-tenured group of contract officials at the Department of Health and Human Services declined 10% as PALT jumped 128%.

Delays in staffing and the availability of training may also, along with contract officials’ inexperience, contribute to growing PALT, particularly as contract spending growth outpaces hiring.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. That is literally 180 degrees from the doom-and-gloom of the 1990's whereby they were worried 1102s would literally die out because there were so many old fogies in those job series.

I left the federal workforce in 1999 and returned last year.  As an added bonus, they have made me start from zero and work my way through the entire curriculum required for Level III.  Some observations:

  1. Training isn't near what it used to be.  Multiple weeks of in-class training from an experienced AFIT practitioner  is now a 10-day slideshow on a crappy web platform provided by a contractor who isn't even familiar with the material, with content that was scraped from DAU which teaches civilians the DFARS down to the PGI  level.  Seriously.
  2. Leadership is made up of those who really don't understand contracting.  I have spent more time explaining my agency's own rules to my leadership than they have provided anything resembling guidance.  Most of them stopped learning or even being somewhat curious years ago.  
  3. The good, smart, ambitious 12's & 13's are not rewarded or appreciated, and in fact are seen as a threat;
  4. 'CBD' doesn't mean what it used to. 😁
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing, Vern. 

The story is similar in industry, at least from what I've seen. One of first things my program lead said to me when I joined the company 2 years ago is that ~50% of our workforce is going to retire in the next 3-5 years. And the number of folks I've seen leave since has only reinforced that notion.

Perhaps because of this, there's a huge focus on mentoring at my place. As for me, who happens to fall into that 0-4 years of Government Contracting experience bucket, I've embraced that focus. I'm getting so many great insights from my seasoned colleagues. That experience shouldn't go to waste once they leave. In fact, the more I learn, the more I enjoy this field.

Granted, does the increasing number of new folks slow things down? Of course, and it always will. But if you make good hiring decisions, and nurture that talent, processes will begin to accelerate eventually. At least I hope so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mike Twardoski said:

One of first things my program lead said to me when I joined the company 2 years ago is that ~50% of our workforce is going to retire in the next 3-5 years. And the number of folks I've seen leave since has only reinforced that notion.

The "human capital" issue has been in play for more than a decade. Which is to say, more than 10 years ago, leaders were told to expect a dramatic uptick in workforce attrition, driven primarily through retirements of aged workers. I was quoted in an Aviation Week article on this topic (again, more than a decade ago).

Any leader who hasn't been preparing for this for a long time isn't much of a leader, in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

Any leader who hasn't been preparing for this for a long time isn't much of a leader, in my view.

I think you have pointed in the direction of our big problems, maybe our biggest: Too many short-term presidential appointee "leaders". Lots of "initiatives," not enough long-term follow-through. A hoorah kickoff, followed by flatulence. The longest lasting effect? Organizational incompetence.

Organizational incompetence in government is the real plague of our time. It's already made us sick. Let's hope it doesn't kill us off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, here_2_help said:

Any leader who hasn't been preparing for this for a long time isn't much of a leader, in my view.

 

3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I think you have pointed in the direction of our big problems, maybe our biggest: Too many short-term presidential appointee "leaders". Lots of "initiatives," not enough long-term follow-through. A hoorah kickoff, followed by flatulence. The longest lasting effect? Organizational incompetence.

The government generally does a good job preparing long term, strategic plans.  But adherence to those plans rarely occur.  For one thing, the emphasis on the annual appropriation cycle and money agencies actually get to really deliver results mostly ignores the plans.  Then there are the initiatives Vern mentioned that are are true.  Initiatives also ignore strategic plans.

Speaking strictly about the contracting function, most HCAs and procurement executives plan for expected turnover and recruitment.  But they compete with all the other organizational functions in the agency for Human Resources.  More times than not, the contracting function loses. 

I don’t know of a single agency that is dealing effectively with this issue.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, formerfed said:

The government generally does a good job preparing long term, strategic plans.

I would say that the government does a good job of preparing plan documents. Whether the plans are any good I cannot say. But since you say they don't do a good job adhering to their plans, how would we know?

What I do know, and can document, is that with every new administration and new appointee we get a rash of "initiatives," and priorities, especially in DOD. They don't seem to last much beyond the office-holder's tenure. Sometimes they don't even last until the office holder leaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think gov HR "experts" should focus on why it is so difficult to recruit younger folks to the government. A follow-up question should focus on why the government cannot seem to retain younger folks if/when they are hired. Now that we have a new norm regarding remote work, has an opportunity been presented to hiring officials to better recruit the best and brightest under 30? I have seen far too many bright younger fed employees stay onboard for maybe 3 or 4 years, only to jump ship to the private sector for more flexibility and better pay. Those people are probably never coming back to the government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2021 at 7:20 AM, Motorcity said:

I think gov HR "experts" should focus on why it is so difficult to recruit younger folks to the government. A follow-up question should focus on why the government cannot seem to retain younger folks if/when they are hired. 

A lot of government managers say the need for lengthy background checks hurts hiring young candidates.  These type workers are in demand by both government and the private sector.  So when a government manager selects a candidate after interviewing, the ensuing background check takes so long the candidate accepts another offer.

I’ve also heard several young people say they liked starting out in the government and loved learning the work and training.  But after they become somewhat knowledgable and wanted to do challenging work, they’re were given mundane assignments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 10/16/2021 at 6:20 AM, Motorcity said:

A follow-up question should focus on why the government cannot seem to retain younger folks if/when they are hired. Now that we have a new norm regarding remote work, has an opportunity been presented to hiring officials to better recruit the best and brightest under 30? I have seen far too many bright younger fed employees stay onboard for maybe 3 or 4 years, only to jump ship to the private sector for more flexibility and better pay. Those people are probably never coming back to the government. 

The “new” retirement system of 1984 was designed, in part,  to accommodate moving in and out of the civil service. That aspect of it is apparently effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 7:04 AM, formerfed said:

I’ve also heard several young people say they liked starting out in the government and loved learning the work and training.  But after they become somewhat knowledgable and wanted to do challenging work, they were given mundane assignments. 

Most contracting work is mundane and repetitive. That's just a fact of life.

If you want interesting, challenging work, go to a place where the contract actions are sole source and large dollar value and where you'll work with program managers, scientists, engineers, and contractors who respect people who are interested in what they do, can figure things out, and can get things done quickly and with a minimum of hassle.

Show program managers, scientists, and engineers that you understand their work, can write their sole source justifications or statements of work or fix their drafts, negotiate complex deals without excessive delay, and have the respect of the various legal and administrative review staffs, and they'll love you and treat you well.

That's just my opinion, which is based on personal experience and preference. I wouldn't want to spend a career lifetime buying nuts and bolts or processing FSS orders for mundane service requirements. I would want to be a team problem-solver in a complex system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Most contracting work is mundane and repetitive. That's just a fact of life.

Most of my professional work life has been mundane and repetitive, punctuated with terrifying business challenges that make my head hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, here_2_help said:

Most of my professional work life has been mundane and repetitive, punctuated with terrifying business challenges that make my head hurt.

In order to avoid mundane and repetitive work, I changed jobs every two years. Like clockwork. That might be easier to do today than it was in my youth, thanks to changes in the workplace and worklife. I spoke with a Boeing engineer recently who changed his place of residence from the Atlantic Southeast to the Pacific Northwest, but kept his job in the same program. His boss said that he didn't care where he lived, since they were all tied together by IT.

It's the terrifying business challenges that make worklife worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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