Acquisition Workforce
Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the Training of Their Employees Gao ID: GAO-02-737 July 29, 2002GAO's continuing reviews of the acquisition workforce, focusing on the Department of Defense (DOD); the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Energy, and Health and Human Services; the General Services Administration; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, indicate that some of the government's largest procurement operations are not run efficiently. GAO found that requirements are not clearly defined, prices and alternatives are not fully considered, or contracts are not adequately overseen. The ongoing technological revolution requires a workforce with new knowledge, skills, and abilities, and the nature of acquisition is changing from routine simple buys toward more complex acquisitions and new business practices. DOD has adopted multidisciplinary and multifunctional definitions of their acquisition workforce, but the civilian agencies have not. DOD and the civilian agencies reviewed have developed specific training requirements for their acquisition workforce and mechanisms to track the training of acquisition personnel. All of the agencies reviewed said they had sufficient funding to provide current required core training for their acquisition workforce, but some expressed concerns about funding training for future requirements and career development, particularly because of budget cuts made recently at the Defense Acquisition University.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-737, Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the Training of Their Employees
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-737
entitled 'Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define and
Track the Training of Their Employees' which was released on August 28,
2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement
Policy, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
July 2002:
Acquisition Workforce:
Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the Training of Their
Employees:
GAO-02-737:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Has a Broader Definition of Acquisition Workforce:
Every Agency Has Established Training Requirements:
Various Mechanisms Used to Ensure Training Requirements Met:
Agencies Were Able to Fund Current Training Needs but Some Cited
Concerns:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Appendix III: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Acquisition Training Legislation and Administrative
Actions:
Table 2: Personnel Included in Each Defined Acquisition Workforce
Position within the Selected Agencies Reviewed:
Abbreviations:
ACMIS: Acquisition Career Management Information System:
COR: contracting officer representative:
COTR: contracting officer technical representative:
DAU: Defense Acquisition University:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
FAI: Federal Acquisition Institute:
GSA: General Services Administration:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
OFPP: Office of Federal Procurement Policy:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
July 29, 2002:
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Having the right people with the right skills is critical to ensuring
the government receives the best value for the $200 billion it spends
each year for goods and services. But achieving this has been
difficult. Our work continues to show that some of the government‘s
largest procurement operations are not always run efficiently, either
because requirements are not clearly defined, because prices and
alternatives are not fully considered, or because contracts are not
adequately overseen.[Footnote 1] At the same time, the ongoing
technological revolution requires a workforce with new knowledge,
skills, and abilities. Moreover, the nature of acquisition is changing
from routine simple buys toward more complex acquisitions, such as
information technology services, and toward new business practices,
such as performance-based contracting and the use of purchase cards.
To ensure an adequate professional acquisition workforce, the Congress
enacted a series of reforms in the 1990s, which required agencies to
establish policies and procedures for effective management and training
of their acquisition workforce, to include certain positions in the
definition of the acquisition workforce, and to establish
qualification, educational, and training requirements for positions
identified as part of the acquisition workforce. You asked us to assess
agency progress in this regard. Particularly, you asked us to determine
whether agencies have
(1) definitions of their acquisition workforces that include all
significant acquisition-related functions as required by the Congress,
(2) established training requirements for these workforces, (3) a means
for ensuring that those requirements are met, and (4) allocated
sufficient funding to provide required training.
Our review focused on the Department of Defense (DOD); the Departments
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Departments of Veterans Affairs
(VA), Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS); the General
Services Administration (GSA); and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). These agencies represented 87 percent of total
contract dollars obligated in fiscal year 2000 and employed 82 percent
of the government‘s contract specialists and purchasing agents, which
are the primary career fields in the acquisition workforce.
Results in Brief:
DOD and the military services have adopted multidisciplinary,
multifunctional definitions of their acquisition workforce.[Footnote
2] The civilian agencies have not. DOD and the military services‘
definitions include contracting officers,[Footnote 3] contracting
officer representatives, and contracting officer technical
representatives[Footnote 4] along with other disciplines that play a
significant role in acquisitions, such as program managers, industrial
specialists, and financial administrators. Civilian agencies generally
include only contract and procurement specialists, contracting
officers, and contracting officer representatives in their acquisition
workforce definitions. Acquisition officials in two of the five
civilian agencies we reviewed explained that use of a broader
definition would be difficult given that they do not have the authority
to establish and monitor training for other functional areas. However,
other agencies with similar concerns have taken steps to address this
issue. Also, in some cases, agencies established training for certain
acquisition-related positions even though they were not formally
included in their acquisition workforce definitions.
DOD and the civilian agencies have developed specific training
requirements for their acquisition workforce. They have also developed
a variety of mechanisms to track the training of acquisition personnel.
Three of the civilian agencies are awaiting implementation of a more
sophisticated Web-based governmentwide management information system
to help them track training, but the deployment of this system has been
delayed considerably. Lastly, all agencies we reviewed said they had
sufficient funding to provide current required core training for their
acquisition workforce; however, some expressed concerns about funding
training for future requirements and career development, particularly
because of budget cuts made recently at the Defense Acquisition
University (DAU).[Footnote 5]
We are making recommendations to the Administrator of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) concerning identification of all
acquisition-related positions and development of a management
information system. In written comments on a draft of this report, the
Administrator of OFPP generally concurred with our recommendations. We
also received written comments from DOE, NASA, and VA and comments by
e-mail from DOD, HHS, and GSA. All agencies generally agreed with our
findings.
Background:
The Congress and others have been addressing the question of how to
strengthen the acquisition workforce since 1974 when the OFPP was
created to establish governmentwide procurement policies for executive
agencies. One of the primary responsibilities of this office and its
Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI)[Footnote 6] is to strengthen
acquisition workforce training. The concern about the quality of the
acquisition workforce deepened in the 1990s, as it became clear that
the government was experiencing significant contracting failures partly
because it lacked skilled personnel to manage and oversee contracts.
There was also concern that program managers and other personnel
integral to the success of the acquisition process were only marginally
involved with the contracts. Two of the most significant steps taken in
this regard were the passage of the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act in 1990 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996. The Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, among other things, provided
specific guidance on DOD‘s acquisition workforce definition. The
Clinger-Cohen Act required civilian agencies to establish acquisition
workforce definitions. Those definitions were to include contract and
procurement specialist positions[Footnote 7] and other positions ’in
which significant acquisition-related functions are performed.“ The
Clinger-Cohen Act also required civilian agencies to collect
standardized information on their acquisition workforce and establish
education, training, and experience requirements that are ’comparable
to those established for the same or equivalent positions“ in DOD and
the military services. Table 1 provides more details on this act and
other legislation and federal agency initiatives.
Table 1: Key Acquisition Training Legislation and Administrative
Actions:
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act, P.L. 93-400,
codified in 41 U.S.C. §401 et seq.; This act created OFPP within the
Office of Management and Budget to provide governmentwide leadership
for agencies other than DOD in procurement matters. The act was amended
to establish FAI, which under the direction of OFPP, was to, among
other things, (1) promote the development of the acquisition workforce,
(2) analyze acquisition career fields to identify competencies for
acquisition positions, and (3) develop training courses.
The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, P.L. 101-510,
codified in 10 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.; This act recognized acquisition as
a multidisciplinary career field for DOD comprised of 11 functional
areas - program management; systems planning, research, development,
engineering, and testing; procurement, including contracting;
industrial property management; logistics; quality control and
assurance; manufacturing and production; business, cost estimating,
financial management, and auditing; education, training, and career
development; construction; and joint development and production with
other government agencies and foreign countries. The act also directed
the Secretary of Defense to establish minimum education, training, and
experience requirements, and a defense acquisition university
structure.
OFPP Policy Letter 92-3; In implementing the acquisition workforce
provisions of the OFPP Act, this guidance established a standard set of
contracting competencies and identified specific training requirements
for personnel in the contracting and purchasing occupational series and
contracting officers.
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, P.L. 104-106, codified in 41 U.S.C. §433
et seq.; This act requires civilian agencies, in consultation with
OFPP, to establish education, training, and experience requirements for
civilian agencies‘ acquisition workforce and to ensure uniform
implementation of policies and procedures among components to the
maximum extent practicable. The act also requires OFPP to establish
minimum qualification requirements and to ensure that agencies collect
and maintain standardized information on the acquisition workforce.
OFPP Policy Letter 97-01; In implementing provisions of the Clinger-
Cohen Act, this guidance requires agencies to (1) identify and publish
model career paths and (2) establish education, core training, and
experience requirements for enumerated acquisition personnel. The
letter defined the ’acquisition workforce“ to include contracting and
purchasing, contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs; it also stated that
the Administrator of OFPP would ’consult with the agencies in the
identification of other acquisition related positions.“ Furthermore
this policy letter delegated to FAI the responsibility for developing,
with the agencies and the Office of Personnel Management, a
governmentwide management information system that would allow agencies
to collect and maintain acquisition workforce information including the
employees‘ completion of all core training courses.
Source: GAO‘s analysis.
[End of table]
OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 directs executive agencies to establish core
training for entry and advancement in the acquisition workforce.
Agencies normally establish specific core training required to meet the
standards for certification in each career field in their acquisition
workforce (e.g., contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs). For
contracting officers, agencies usually establish several warrant
levels,[Footnote 8] with specified contracting authority for each
level.[Footnote 9] Agencies issue permanent warrants only to
contracting officers who have completed the core training required for
each warrant level and who have the necessary work experience and
formal education. Because contracting officers‘ warrant levels
generally correspond to their grade levels, employees‘ career
development and advancement is dependent on attending and passing
required core training courses. The OFPP policy letter also established
continuing education requirements for contract specialists and
contracting officers.
DOD Has a Broader Definition of Acquisition Workforce:
DOD includes a wide variety of disciplines--ranging from contracting,
to technical, to financial, to program staff--in its acquisition
workforce definition, but civilian agencies have employed narrower
definitions that are largely limited to staff involved in awarding and
administering contracts. Having a broader definition is important
because it is one method to facilitate agencies‘ efforts to ensure that
training reaches all staff integral to the success of a contract. While
most civilian agencies acknowledge that the acquisition process
requires the efforts of multiple functions and disciplines beyond those
in traditional contracting offices, few have broadened their
definitions of the acquisition workforce to include them. Officials at
two agencies we reviewed said that they had not broadened their
definitions because officials responsible for managing the acquisition
workforce did not have management responsibility for or control of the
training of individuals in offices other than their own.
DOD Has a Multifunctional and Multidisciplinary Definition of
Acquisition Workforce:
DOD is required by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act to
include, at a minimum, all acquisition-related positions in 11
specified functional areas in its definition of its acquisition
workforce. It is also required to include acquisition-related positions
in ’management headquarters activities and in management headquarters
support activities.“ Therefore, DOD‘s acquisition workforce includes
contracting, program, technical, budget, financial, logistics,
scientific, and engineering personnel.
DOD uses a methodology, known as the Refined Packard
methodology,[Footnote 10] to identify its acquisition workforce
personnel. Using the Refined Packard methodology, DOD now includes
personnel in its acquisition workforce from three categories: (1)
specific occupations that are presumed to be performing acquisition-
related work no matter what organization the employee is in,[Footnote
11] (2) a combination of an employee‘s occupational series and the
organization in which the employee works, and (3) specific additions
and deletions to the first two categories.[Footnote 12] DOD is
currently coding the positions and employees identified by the Refined
Packard methodology into its official personnel systems. DOD components
and the military services‘ estimate that the number of personnel
included in the acquisition workforce will expand when the coding is
completed in October 2002.
Civilian Agencies‘ Acquisition Workforce Definitions Generally Limited
to Contracting Functions:
All the civilian agencies we reviewed include personnel in the contract
specialist and purchasing agent job series as specified by the Clinger-
Cohen Act. All agencies also include contracting officers and three
include CORs and COTRs as required in OFPP‘s policy enumerating
acquisition-related positions. Every civilian agency includes
additional positions in which contracting functions are performed, such
as property disposal or procurement clerks. However, only VA and DOE
include positions in which acquisition-related functions are performed
(i.e., program managers). Table 2 shows how the agencies defined their
acquisition workforces.
Table 2: Personnel Included in Each Defined Acquisition Workforce
Position within the Selected Agencies Reviewed:
Agency: DOE; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing
specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes; COR/ COTR: Yes;
Other acquisition related positions: Financial assistant
specialists
Property managers
Program managers [A].
Agency: GSA; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing
specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes; COR/ COTR: Yes;
Other acquisition related positions: Property disposal
Procurement clerks.
Agency: HHS; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing
specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes [B]; COR/ COTR:
No [C]; Other acquisition related positions: Procurement clerks.
Agency: NASA; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing
specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes [B]; COR/ COTR:
No [C]; Other acquisition related positions: Procurement clerks.
Agency: VA; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing specialists
(GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes [D]; COR/ COTR: Yes; Other
acquisition related positions: Program managers
Procurement clerks.
[A] DOE commonly refers to program managers as project managers.
[B] All contracting officers are contract specialists (GS-1102) or
purchasing specialists (GS-1105).
[C] COR and COTRs are not included in the acquisition workforce because
they are not under the direct supervision of officials responsible for
the acquisition workforce.
[D] VA includes purchase cardholders with contract authority above the
micropurchase threshold in its Contracting Officer category.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of agency provided data.
[End of table]
Agencies are aware of the need to expand their definitions to include
all positions in which ’significant acquisition-related functions are
performed,“ as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act. To assist agencies in
this effort, OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 identified acquisition workforce
positions, in addition to contracting and purchasing specialists, to
include contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs. Furthermore, OFPP Policy
Letter 97-01 stated that the Administrator would ’consult with the
agencies in the identification of other acquisition related positions.“
All agencies include positions other than those enumerated in the
Clinger-Cohen Act and OFPP policy, and GSA plans to do so.
Specifically:
* VA includes program managers and procurement clerks in its
definition.
* DOE includes program managers and property managers in its
definition.
* HHS and NASA include procurement clerks in their definitions.
* GSA is identifying and including other acquisition-related positions
in its acquisition workforce and expects to include program managers
and other positions in the future, but GSA has not established a firm
time frame.
NASA asserted that managing a much wider range of acquisition
personnel, including ’other equivalent positions,“ such as CORs and
COTRs, would be much more difficult than current practice because
agency managers responsible for acquisition workforce training did not
have authority over personnel in offices other than theirs to require
they take specific training courses. However, HHS, which has CORs and
COTRs (which it refers to as project officers) not under control of the
acquisition office, established regulations requiring the head of each
contracting activity ensure their CORs and COTRs receive specified
training. In addition, DOE, which has similar oversight concerns, has
established an ’umbrella“ directive governing acquisition career
development. Two offices, the Acquisition Career Development Program
office and the Project Management Career Development Program office,
monitor the training of employees in their respective career fields.
Every Agency Has Established Training Requirements:
Every agency we reviewed has established specific training requirements
for each position identified in their acquisition workforce. The
Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act
established similar career management requirements, including
education, experience, and training requirements employees must meet to
qualify for each acquisition workforce position. These requirements are
further defined, for DOD, by DOD regulations and other guidance, and
for the civilian agencies by OFPP and the agencies‘ own regulations.
Two agencies also established training requirements for acquisition-
related positions not formally included in their acquisition workforce
definitions.
The DAU develops curricula, approved by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics), that include descriptions of the
education, experience, and core training required to meet the standards
for certification in each acquisition career field. In addition, DAU
offers assignment-specific training. Annually, advisors from each DOD
career field determine whether certification standards and assignment-
specific training requirements should be updated and whether training
curricula are current. Any changes must be approved by the Director of
Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development before they are
published in the DAU catalog. The DAU curriculum includes courses
identified by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology &
Logistics) as integral to the education and training of personnel in
identified positions. These courses are intended to provide unique
acquisition knowledge for specific assignments, jobs, or positions;
maintain proficiency; and remain current with legislation, regulation,
and policy. They also cover topics such as program management, systems
acquisition, construction, and advanced contract pricing.
OFPP‘s FAI develops training and career development programs for
civilian agency acquisition workforce personnel. Specifically, FAI
developed the contracting and procurement curriculum for the
acquisition workforce, worked closely with DAU in its course
development, and coordinated with colleges and universities to identify
and develop education programs for the acquisition workforce. In
addition, FAI is developing several Web-based courses for various
acquisition personnel.
All DOD agencies follow the DAU curriculum. Some civilian agencies,
including NASA and DOE, also follow the DAU curriculum for the
contracting and purchasing functions. Other agencies, including GSA and
VA, have developed training programs and courses that follow the
curriculum established by FAI. While HHS has awarded contracts to teach
courses for its own acquisition workforce, the curriculum and course
contents are modeled on those developed by FAI.
The civilian agencies we reviewed all had policies describing the
education and training requirements for each member of their
acquisition workforce. Even when agencies do not include all positions
that play a role in their acquisition process in their acquisition
workforce, they established education and training requirements for
those positions. For instance, NASA and HHS, which do not include COTRs
in their acquisition workforce, established training requirements for
that position.
Various Mechanisms Used to Ensure Training Requirements Met:
To ensure training requirements are being met, DOD and the military
services use a centralized management information system that is
automatically updated with training and personnel data. The civilian
agencies use less sophisticated spreadsheet programs to collect and
maintain information on the education, training, and continuing
education received by their acquisition workforce. At least once a
year, each agency collects data from its regional offices and/or
contracting components and consolidates the data into its tracking
system.
Although we obtained data from DOD and the civilian agencies to
determine the various elements collected, we did not assess the
reliability or adequacy of their systems. Our purpose was to ascertain
that DOD and the civilian agencies maintained data on the training
received by their acquisition workforce and not to validate the
accuracy of that data. While we have reported weaknesses in the data
maintained by VA and GSA,[Footnote 13] those agencies are taking action
to improve the reliability and completeness of their tracking systems.
Civilian agencies said that they did not have centralized management
information systems because they were awaiting development and
implementation of OFPP‘s proposed Web-based Acquisition Career
Management Information System (ACMIS), expected to be available in
September 2002. The civilian agencies, with the exception of VA, viewed
their systems as being interim. As a result of not having a centralized
management information system, these agencies must rely on the data
submitted periodically by training coordinators in their various
locations throughout their agencies. Also, this data is often
maintained on unofficial manual records or on various spreadsheets,
making it difficult for the responsible acquisition officer to verify
its accuracy. Because of ACMIS development delays, VA developed its own
management information system to alleviate these problems, and it is
currently entering historical employee training data into the database.
ACMIS is to be a federal Web-accessible database of records to track
acquisition workforce training and education. It is expected that the
data in ACMIS will be used in making budgeting, staffing, and training
decisions and monitoring the status of staff warrants. The baseline
data for ACMIS will come from the Office of Personnel Management‘s
Centralized Data Personnel File and agency workforce databases. Those
records will then be supplemented with education, training, warrant,
and certification data provided by individuals in the acquisition
workforce. In addition, the system is to provide for computer-to-
computer interfaces for bulk and automated data transfers (i.e.,
updates from agency personnel files or updates of multiple employee
records with a common set of data, such as the completion of a course).
The development of the new system, however, has experienced
considerable delays. Although OFPP tasked FAI to develop the system in
September 1997, it has not yet been implemented. In 2000, we reported
that delays in developing the system were largely attributable to
difficulties in obtaining agreement on the requirements for the system.
Since our report, FAI, under OFPP direction, has published functional
specifications and data requirements for the system. In December 2001,
FAI contracted for development of the system, and FAI officials said
the contractor was on track to meet the September 2002 implementation.
Agencies Were Able to Fund Current Training Needs but Some Cited
Concerns:
While DOD and the agencies we reviewed had varying degrees of funding
available, all reported that they managed to meet their acquisition
workforces‘ current required training needs. However, we did not review
or validate acquisition workforce training budget and obligation data.
Officials explained that knowing what training courses employees will
need, determining the courses that will be provided to meet training
needs, and knowing the costs of providing each course, including
related travel costs, allowed them to establish the funding required
for needed training. DOD employs a centralized approach in determining
its funding requirements for acquisition workforce training for its
services and components.[Footnote 14] Using its management information
system and estimated costs, DOD and the military services and
components go through the iterative process of reconciling course
needs, class size, instructor availability, and other costs, such as
travel. DAU funds (1) the cost of developing and presenting the courses
and (2) the travel expenses for DOD employees attending the courses.
The civilian agencies we reviewed employ similar procedures relying on
the data available to them in their interim systems comprised of
spreadsheets and unofficial manual records.
DOD, the military services, and civilian agencies stated they had
sufficient funds to meet their current minimum core training
requirements. NASA and HHS reported making acquisition workforce
training a priority and earmarking sufficient funds for it. Other
agencies-GSA and VA--said that because they use revolving funds to pay
for their training, they also had sufficient funds earmarked for their
acquisition workforce training. However, DOE, which reported having
limited funds for training, often relied on DOD and NASA courses
provided free of charge, on a space available basis, for much of its
acquisition training.
Although they could fund current core training, DOD, the military
services, and DOE-because they rely on DAU for much of their training-
expressed concerns with their ability to meet future required training
and career development needs of their employees, since DAU faces budget
reductions.[Footnote 15] A DOD official noted that fiscal year 2001
budget reductions combined with 2 years of ’straight-line“ budgets have
precluded DAU from providing all the courses requested by the DOD
components. Also, while all employees received core training for their
current positions and grades, they were often unable to receive core
training needed to obtain warrants at the next higher level to allow
them to work on larger contracts and to be competitive for promotion to
a higher grade. Army and Navy officials cited similar concerns
regarding DAU‘s budget reductions. Air Force officials stated that
anticipated increases in the acquisition workforce, because of the
implementation of the Refined Packard methodology, the replacement of
retirees, and its planned increases in cross training between
acquisition specialties to meet strategic objectives, would require
additional funding for core training in the future.
A DOE official said that DAU‘s budget cuts also potentially affect
DOE‘s ability to meet its future training requirements because of its
reliance on DAU-provided courses. The official also noted that DOE‘s
limited training funds have curtailed funding tuitions for college
courses, intern programs, continuing education, as well as management
and leadership development programs, which could have an impact on the
acquisition workforce‘s career development. Other agencies reviewed did
not indicate concerns about future training and career development.
Conclusions:
DOD and the military services have a more broadly defined acquisition
workforce, including functions beyond the traditional contracting
function. Civilian agencies‘ definitions are narrower. Regardless of
whether or not an agency determines to include a particular position in
its acquisition workforce, each agency needs to take active steps to
identify all those positions that have a role in the acquisition
process important enough to warrant specific training. This knowledge
can be fed into the agencies‘ strategic planning efforts and increases
their ability to provide human capital strategies to meet their current
and future programmatic needs. The challenge for civilian agencies
ensuring their acquisition workforce is receiving the proper training
has been made more difficult by OFPP‘s slow progress in implementing
ACMIS. Continued delays in implementing this system will increase the
time in which agencies have to use less sophisticated tools for
tracking acquisition workforce training.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In an effort to ensure agencies succeed in defining a multifunctional
and multidimensional acquisition workforce, we recommend that the
Administrator of OFPP work with all the agencies to determine the
appropriateness of further refining the definition of the acquisition
workforce and to determine which positions, though not formally
included in the acquisition workforce, nonetheless require certain
training to ensure their role in the acquisition process is performed
efficiently and effectively.
We also recommend that the Administrator of OFPP continue to monitor
the ACMIS contract milestones to ensure that the contractor and FAI
complete and implement the proposed governmentwide system on schedule.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the
Administrator of OFPP. She generally concurred with our recommendations
and made observations about OFPP‘s efforts regarding the acquisition
workforce (see appendix I). However, the Administrator took issue with
our conclusion that delays in implementing the ACMIS system caused
difficulties in ensuring the civilian agencies acquisition workforce is
trained. The Administrator noted that, despite the absence of a
centralized system, the agencies are responsible for managing the
training of their workforce. Our recommendations are intended to help
ensure that all staff integral to the success of agencies‘ acquisition
efforts receive appropriate training. Also, as we noted in the report,
the civilian agencies said they had not developed centralized
management information systems because they were awaiting the
implementation of OFPP‘s proposed governmentwide system that OFPP
originally tasked FAI to develop in September 1997.
We also received written comments from DOE, NASA, and VA and comments
via e-mail from DOD, HHS, and GSA as discussed below. All agencies
generally agreed with our findings.
DOE concurred with our findings and offered additional technical
comments regarding the inclusion of financial assistant specialists in
its acquisition workforce and the status of certification and training
requirements for personnel in its acquisition workforce. We
incorporated these comments where appropriate. DOE‘s comments appear in
appendix II.
NASA noted that it included procurement clerks in its acquisition
workforce. We changed the report to reflect this. NASA also provided
additional specific information regarding the training required of
those acquisition personnel not included in its acquisition workforce
definition. NASA‘s comments appear in appendix III.
VA concurred with our findings and noted the release of its Procurement
Reform Task Force Report, which addresses the need for acquisition
workforce enhancements. VA‘s comments appear in appendix IV.
DOD provided several technical comments and suggestions to clarify our
draft report. We incorporated these comments and suggestions where
appropriate.
HHS concurred with our findings and provided technical comments. HHS
noted that although certain acquisition personnel are not under the
control of its acquisition office, that office has established
regulations to ensure they receive required training. We believe our
report adequately reflects their concerns.
GSA stated it had reviewed our report and had no comments.
Scope and Methodology:
To accomplish the objectives, we reviewed policies and procedures,
examined records, and interviewed acquisition personnel, training, and
budget officials at DOD, Army, Navy, Air Force; VA, DOE, HHS, GSA, and
NASA. However, we did not attempt to determine the adequacy or
timeliness of the training these agencies provided their employees.
These agencies are the largest in terms of their annual expenditures
and among the largest in terms of the number of people in their
acquisition workforce. In fiscal year 2000, their acquisition workforce
included almost 25,000 contract specialists and purchasing agents (the
primary career fields in the acquisition workforce), who were
responsible for nearly $200 billion in federal obligations for goods
and services.
To obtain information on the oversight and guidance provided to federal
agencies, we reviewed legislation, regulations, directives, and
policies and interviewed officials at OFPP and FAI.
We conducted our review between October 2001 and June 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30
days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
other interested congressional committees, the secretaries of Defense,
Army, Air Force, Navy, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Veterans
Affairs; and the administrators of General Services Administration and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4125 or Hilary Sullivan at (214) 777-
5652 if you have any questions regarding this report. Major
contributors to this report were Thom Barger, Cristina Chaplain, Susan
Ragland, Sylvia Schatz, and Tanisha Stewart.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Cooper
Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
Signed by David E. Cooper:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503:
OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY:
July 23, 2002:
Ms. Hilary Sullivan:
Assistant Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management General
Accounting Office - Central Region - Dallas Office 1999 Bryan Street,
Suite 2200
Dallas, TX 75201-6848:
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
This letter is in response to your e-mail requesting OFPP‘s comments on
GAO draft report, GAO-02-737, ’Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to
Better Define and Track the Training of Their Workforce.“:
OFPP recognizes the importance of the acquisition workforce having the
knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to execute the Government‘s
acquisition processes in an effective and efficient manner. Our staff
actively engages with the acquisition leadership of Executive agencies
and their staffs to understand the challenges they face and to identify
where OFPP‘s assistance could improve agencies‘ ability to manage their
operations. The efforts of the Federal Acquisition Institute to define
required workforce competencies and to reshape training standards to
reflect current training needs are examples of our commitment to
ensuring a qualified acquisition workforce is executing the
Government‘s business.
GAO is making two recommendations with which OFPP generally concurs.
The first recommendation calls for OFPP to review how it has defined
the acquisition workforce and to determine if additional training may
be required for other positions that have a role in the acquisition
process. We believe our past efforts, which focused primarily on the
contracting field, properly targeted the career field that is central
to the acquisition process and, therefore, ensured the highest return
on investment. Our discussions with agency acquisition leaders
indicated that diverse organizational structures and agency-unique
approaches to conducting business would render impractical attempts to
identify other occupational series as part of a government-wide
acquisition workforce. However, we understand the need to maintain an
awareness of changing roles demanded of different functional
disciplines as our business processes continue to evolve. We will
continue to engage agency leadership to identify opportunities for
contributing to effective and efficient management of the acquisition
process and agencies‘ acquisition workforce.
The second recommendation calls for OFPP to monitor completion of the
Acquisition Career Management Information System (ACMIS). We disagree
with GAO‘s conclusion that OFPP is responsible, due to delays in
implementing ACMIS, for causing agencies difficulty in ensuring their
workforce is trained. Agencies are accountable for training their
workforce. While a centralized tracking system such as ACMIS increases
visibility of information at all levels within an agency, agencies are
able to manage training even with decentralized manual records. The
absence of a centralized system is not an acceptable excuse.
Nonetheless,
OFPP has pursued ACMIS to take advantage of the benefits offered by a
centralized, standardized system and continues to monitor its progress.
Our staff has been, and will continue to be, involved with the Federal
Acquisition Institute and the contractor team in reviewing the ACMIS
development product, and we are confident the system will be available
for deployment as scheduled later this year.
OFPP appreciates the interest of GAO and the Congress in improving the
acquisition process and the acquisition workforce. We look forward to
continued cooperation toward a more effective and efficient government.
Sincerely yours,
Angela B. Styles
Administrator:
Signed by Angela B. Styles:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
July 19, 2002:
Ms. Hilary Sullivan Assistant Director U.S. General Accounting Office
Acquisition and Sourcing Management Central Region - Dallas Office:
1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6848:
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report for code
120085 entitled ’Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define
and Track the Training of Their Workforce“ (GAO-02-737), and offer the
following comments.
On page 2, Results in Brief, the second sentence in the paragraph, ’The
civilian agencies have not [adopted multi-disciplinary, multi-
functional definitions of their acquisition workforce]“ is misleading,
given that some of the civilian agencies have defined their workforce
to include acquisition-related functions. That sentence would be more
accurate if it stated, ’Some civilian agencies have not.“ This
correction should also be reflected in the statement ’Civilian agencies
generally include only contract and procurement management...“ by
rewording it to ’Some civilian agencies include only...“:
Page 6, the second bullet under the first full paragraph, states that
the ’DOE includes program managers and property managers in its
definition, but it is still finalizing the certification and training
requirements for these positions.“ To be accurate, this bullet should
be revised to read: ’DOE defines its acquisition workforce to include
financial assistance specialist, property managers and program/project
managers. A training and certification program for financial assistance
specialists was implemented in December 2001. A training requirement
for property managers has been in place since October 1, 1999, with
certification requirement under development. A training and
certification program for program/project managers is currently being
developed and is expected to be implemented by January 2003.“:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft report for code
120085. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact
Mrs. Cynthia Yee of my staff, at 202-586-1140.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Hopf, Director Office of Procurement and Assistance
Management:
Signed by Richard H. Hopf:
cc:
Merley L. Lewis, ME-1.1:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Office of the Administrator Washington, DC 20546-0001:
July 18, 2002:
Mr. David E. Cooper Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management United States General Accounting
Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Cooper:
NASA has reviewed the draft GAO report ’Acquisition Workforce: Agencies
Need to Better Define and Track the Training of Their Workforce“
(120085) and thanks you for the opportunity to provide comments. The
information gathered from your report should help us improve NASA‘s
identification, tracking, and training of our acquisition workforce.
Although there were no formal recommendations, NASA is cognizant of the
fact that the report noted its narrowly defined definition of
acquisition workforce. The report recognizes the fact that we include
personnel in the contract specialist and purchasing agent job series,
as specified by the Clinger-Cohen Act. However, it also highlights the
fact that NASA does not include additional positions in which
contracting functions are performed, such as property disposal or
procurement clerks. In fact, we do include procurement clerks in our
definition of acquisition workforce.
During the course of the review, NASA asserted that managing a much
wider range of acquisition personnel, including ’other equivalent
positions,“ such as Contracting Officer Representatives and Contracting
Officer Technical Representatives, would be much more difficult than
current practice. Agency managers responsible for acquisition workforce
training did not have authority over personnel in offices, other than
theirs, to require they take specific training courses. Although NASA‘s
Acquisition Career Development Program only covers employees in the
1102 job series, there are other programs in place to assure that
program/project managers receive adequate training necessary to carry
out their functions. The Academy of Program and Project Leadership
(APPL) and the NASA Project Management Development Process (PMDP) are
examples of programs currently in place to train program/project
managers. Although the Assistant Administrator for Procurement does not
have the authority to require program/project managers to attend the
acquisition training classes, acquisition training is part of the core
APPL and PMDP Programs.
If you have any questions, or require additional information, please
contact Tom Luedtke, Assistant Administrator for Procurement at (202)
358-2090.
Cordially,
Michael D. Christensen
Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions:
Signed by Michael D. Christensen:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WASHINGTON:
July 18, 2002:
Ms. Hilary Sullivan Assistant Director Acquisition and Sourcing
Management U. S. General Accounting Office:
1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6848:
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed your draft report,
ACQUISITION WORKFORCE: Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the
Training of Their Workforce (GAO-02-737). The report adequately
captures the current status of management, training, and funding
programs for ensuring the professionalism of VA‘s acquisition
workforce.
In May 2002, VA released its Procurement Reform Task Force Report,
which addresses the continual need for acquisition workforce
enhancements to further optimize VA‘s acquisition system.
Implementation of the report‘s key recommendations and action steps is
being closely monitored to ensure successful goal attainment.
VA appreciates the opportunity to comment on your draft report.
Sincerely yours,
Anthony J. Principi:
Signed by Anthony J. Principi:
FOOTNOTES
[1] See U.S General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update,
GAO-01-263, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001).
[2] DOD officially refers to its acquisition workforce as the
acquisition technology and logistics workforce.
[3] Contracting officers are federal employees with the authority to
bind the government by signing a contract. This authority is delegated
to them through ’warrants“ issued by the head of their contracting
activity.
[4] Contracting officer representatives (CORs) and contracting officer
technical representatives (COTRs) are federal employees designated by
the contracting officer to perform certain contract administration
duties.
[5] The DAU is the primary provider of acquisition training for DOD and
the military services and, in some cases, provides training for
civilian agencies.
[6] FAI, under OFPP‘s direction, is charged with supporting and
continuing the development of a competent professional civilian
acquisition workforce.
[7] Specifically, the act identified positions in the General Schedule
Contracting series (GS-1102) and in the General Schedule Purchasing
series (GS-1105).
[8] Warrants are the contracting officer‘s certificate of authority to
enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related
determinations and findings.
[9] Contracting authority is the dollar amount a contracting officer is
authorized to obligate the government for purchasing goods and
services.
[10] The methodology was based on an earlier approach developed in 1986
for the President‘s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management,
otherwise known as the Packard Commission.
[11] Civilian personnel (General Schedule) positions in this category
are: GS-246 Contractor Industrial Relations, GS-340 Program Management,
GS-1102 Contracting, GS-1103 Industrial Property, GS-1105 Purchasing
Specialist, and GS-1150 Industrial Specialist.
[12] In making its determinations, DOD looked at the function--such as
planning, design, production deployment, or logistics support---and the
duties involved---such as documenting mission needs, establishing
performance goals, prioritizing resource requirements, and planning and
executing acquisition programs.
[13] See U.S. General Accounting Office. Acquisition Reform: GSA and VA
Efforts to Improve Training of Their Acquisition Workforces, GAO/
GGD-00-66, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2000).
[14] The term ’DOD components“ refers to agencies not within the
military services, such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the
Defense Contract Management Agency, and the Defense Logistics Agency.
[15] Congress reduced DAU‘s fiscal year 2002 budget of $100 million by
$5 million. The Office of the Secretary of Defense cut another $5
million. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology &
Logistics) plans to supplement DAU‘s budget by $3.5 million.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
