Department of Defense
Additional Actions and Data Are Needed to Effectively Manage and Oversee DOD's Acquisition Workforce Gao ID: GAO-09-342 March 25, 2009Since 2001, the Department of Defense's (DOD) spending on goods and services has more than doubled to $388 billion in 2008, while the number of civilian and military acquisition personnel has remained relatively stable. To augment its in-house workforce, DOD relies heavily on contractor personnel. If it does not maintain an adequate workforce, DOD places its billion-dollar acquisitions at an increased risk of poor outcomes and vulnerability to fraud, waste, and abuse. GAO was asked to (1) assess DOD's ability to determine whether it has a sufficient acquisition workforce, (2) assess DOD initiatives to improve the management and oversight of its acquisition workforce, and (3) discuss practices of leading organizations that could provide insights for DOD's acquisition workforce oversight. To do this, GAO analyzed key DOD studies, obtained data from 66 major weapon system program offices across DOD, and interviewed officials from 4 program offices. GAO also met with representatives from six companies recognized as leaders in workforce management.
DOD lacks critical departmentwide information to ensure its acquisition workforce is sufficient to meet its national security mission. First, in its acquisition workforce assessments, DOD does not collect or track information on contractor personnel, despite their being a key segment of the total acquisition workforce. DOD also lacks information on why contractor personnel are used, which limits its ability to determine whether decisions to use contractors to augment the in-house acquisition workforce are appropriate. GAO found that program office decisions to use contractor personnel are often driven by factors such as quicker hiring time frames and civilian staffing limits, rather than by the skills needed or the nature or criticality of the work. Second, DOD's lack of key pieces of information limits its ability to determine gaps in the acquisition workforce it needs to meet current and future missions. For example, DOD lacks information on the use and skill sets of contractor personnel, and lacks complete information on the skill sets of its in-house personnel. Omitting data on contractor personnel and needed skills from DOD's workforce assessments not only skews analyses of workforce gaps, but also limits DOD's ability to make informed workforce allocation decisions and determine whether the total acquisition workforce--in-house and contractor personnel--is sufficient to accomplish its mission. DOD has initiated several recent actions aimed at improving the management and oversight of its acquisition workforce. For example, DOD is developing a plan for managing the civilian acquisition workforce and is establishing practices for overseeing additional hiring, recruiting, and retention activities. It has also taken actions to develop some of the data and tools necessary to monitor the acquisition workforce, such as a competency assessment scheduled to be completed in March 2010. Each military service and agency has also begun, to varying degrees, efforts to assess its workforce at the service level. In addition, some efforts aimed at improving DOD's overall workforce may also provide additional information to support acquisition workforce efforts. However, these initiatives may not provide the comprehensive information DOD needs to manage and oversee its acquisition workforce. To manage their workforces, the leading organizations GAO reviewed (1) identify gaps in their current workforces by assessing the overall competencies needed to achieve business objectives; (2) establish mechanisms to track and evaluate the effectiveness of their initiatives to close these gaps; (3) take a strategic approach in deciding when to use contractor personnel to supplement the workforce, such as limiting the use of contractor personnel to performing noncore-business functions and meeting surges in work demands; and (4) track and analyze data on contractor personnel. These practices could provide insights to DOD as it moves forward with its acquisition workforce initiatives.
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-09-342, Department of Defense: Additional Actions and Data Are Needed to Effectively Manage and Oversee DOD's Acquisition Workforce
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-342
entitled 'Department Of Defense: Additional Actions and Data Are Needed
to Effectively Manage and Oversee DOD's Acquisition Workforce' which
was released on March 25, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2009:
Department Of Defense:
Additional Actions and Data Are Needed to Effectively Manage and
Oversee DOD's Acquisition Workforce:
GAO-09-342:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-342, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since 2001, the Department of Defense‘s (DOD) spending on goods and
services has more than doubled to $388 billion in 2008, while the
number of civilian and military acquisition personnel has remained
relatively stable. To augment its in-house workforce, DOD relies
heavily on contractor personnel. If it does not maintain an adequate
workforce, DOD places its billion-dollar acquisitions at an increased
risk of poor outcomes and vulnerability to fraud, waste, and abuse.
GAO was asked to (1) assess DOD‘s ability to determine whether it has a
sufficient acquisition workforce, (2) assess DOD initiatives to improve
the management and oversight of its acquisition workforce, and (3)
discuss practices of leading organizations that could provide insights
for DOD‘s acquisition workforce oversight. To do this, GAO analyzed key
DOD studies, obtained data from 66 major weapon system program offices
across DOD, and interviewed officials from 4 program offices. GAO also
met with representatives from six companies recognized as leaders in
workforce management.
What GAO Found:
DOD lacks critical departmentwide information to ensure its acquisition
workforce is sufficient to meet its national security mission. First,
in its acquisition workforce assessments, DOD does not collect or track
information on contractor personnel, despite their being a key segment
of the total acquisition workforce. DOD also lacks information on why
contractor personnel are used, which limits its ability to determine
whether decisions to use contractors to augment the in-house
acquisition workforce are appropriate. GAO found that program office
decisions to use contractor personnel are often driven by factors such
as quicker hiring time frames and civilian staffing limits, rather than
by the skills needed or the nature or criticality of the work. Second,
DOD‘s lack of key pieces of information limits its ability to determine
gaps in the acquisition workforce it needs to meet current and future
missions. For example, DOD lacks information on the use and skill sets
of contractor personnel, and lacks complete information on the skill
sets of its in-house personnel. Omitting data on contractor personnel
and needed skills from DOD‘s workforce assessments not only skews
analyses of workforce gaps, but also limits DOD‘s ability to make
informed workforce allocation decisions and determine whether the total
acquisition workforce”in-house and contractor personnel”is sufficient
to accomplish its mission.
DOD has initiated several recent actions aimed at improving the
management and oversight of its acquisition workforce. For example, DOD
is developing a plan for managing the civilian acquisition workforce
and is establishing practices for overseeing additional hiring,
recruiting, and retention activities. It has also taken actions to
develop some of the data and tools necessary to monitor the acquisition
workforce, such as a competency assessment scheduled to be completed in
March 2010. Each military service and agency has also begun, to varying
degrees, efforts to assess its workforce at the service level. In
addition, some efforts aimed at improving DOD‘s overall workforce may
also provide additional information to support acquisition workforce
efforts. However, these initiatives may not provide the comprehensive
information DOD needs to manage and oversee its acquisition workforce.
To manage their workforces, the leading organizations GAO reviewed (1)
identify gaps in their current workforces by assessing the overall
competencies needed to achieve business objectives; (2) establish
mechanisms to track and evaluate the effectiveness of their initiatives
to close these gaps; (3) take a strategic approach in deciding when to
use contractor personnel to supplement the workforce, such as limiting
the use of contractor personnel to performing noncore-business
functions and meeting surges in work demands; and (4) track and analyze
data on contractor personnel. These practices could provide insights to
DOD as it moves forward with its acquisition workforce initiatives.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making recommendations aimed at improving DOD‘s management and
oversight of its acquisition workforce, including the collection of
data on contractor personnel. DOD concurred with three of the
recommendations and noted that implementing the other requires careful
consideration.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
GAO-09-342. For more information, contact John K. Needham at (202) 512-
5274 or needhamjk1@gao.gov.
[End of figure]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
DOD Lacks the Information Needed to Determine the Sufficiency of Its
Acquisition Workforce:
Recent Initiatives May Not Yield the Information Needed to Assess,
Manage, and Oversee DOD's Total Acquisition Workforce:
Practices of Leading Organizations Could Provide Insights for DOD's
Acquisition Workforce Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: DOD Acquisition Workforce--Military and Civilian Personnel for
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2007:
Table 2: Military, Civilian, and Contractor Personnel in Acquisition-
Related Functions by Service as Reported by Selected Program Offices in
2008:
Table 3: AT&L's Recent Acquisition Workforce Oversight Initiatives:
Table 4: Examples of Service-Level Acquisition Workforce Initiatives:
Table 5: Examples of Leading Organizations' Use of Workforce
Assessments:
Table 6: Examples of Metrics Related to Recruiting and Retention
Initiatives:
Abbreviations:
AT&L: Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics:
DOD: Department of Defense:
MDA: Missile Defense Agency:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 25, 2009:
The Honorable Evan Bayh:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard Burr:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support:
Committee on Armed Services United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel Akaka:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Ensign:
United States Senate:
The Department of Defense (DOD) is the largest buying enterprise in the
world. Since fiscal year 2001, DOD's spending on goods and services
more than doubled to $388 billion in fiscal year 2008, and the number
of weapon system programs has also grown. Despite this substantial
increase, the number of civilian and military personnel in DOD's
acquisition workforce--which is responsible for planning, executing,
and supporting DOD's acquisitions--has remained relatively stable. To
supplement this in-house acquisition workforce, DOD relies heavily on
contractor personnel. Our prior work has shown that relying on
contractor personnel to perform core missions[Footnote 1] often creates
significant challenges for DOD and other federal agencies.[Footnote 2]
At the same time, changes in the federal acquisition environment have
created significant challenges to building and sustaining a capable
acquisition workforce across the government. In addition, federal
agencies are facing profound demographic changes in their workforces,
including a potentially large loss of retirement-eligible personnel and
increased competition for a limited pool of highly skilled talent.
Since January 2001, GAO has designated strategic human capital
management as a governmentwide high-risk area.[Footnote 3] In addition,
the DOD acquisition workforce is included in another high-risk area--
DOD Contract Management--that GAO designated in 1992.[Footnote 4] Both
GAO and DOD have noted that if a workforce adequate to manage the
department's billion-dollar acquisitions is not maintained, there is an
increased risk of poor acquisition outcomes and vulnerability to fraud,
waste, and abuse. In this context, you asked us to review several
issues related to the state of DOD's acquisition workforce. This report
(1) assesses DOD's ability to determine whether its acquisition
workforce is sufficient to meet its national security mission, (2)
assesses the department's recent initiatives to improve the management
and oversight of its acquisition workforce, and (3) discusses practices
of leading organizations that could provide insights for DOD's
acquisition workforce oversight.
To conduct our review, we analyzed key DOD workforce documents,
including the department's Implementation Report for the DOD Civilian
Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010 and related assessment of the
acquisition workforce. In addition, we met with representatives from
the Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics (AT&L), the Office of Civilian Personnel Policy within the
Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, the three
military services, and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). We also
gathered data from 66 major weapon system program offices across all
DOD components. To obtain more detailed information, we interviewed
officials from 4 program offices, 1 from each service (Army's Joint
Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor, Air Force's
Reaper, and Navy's Presidential Helicopter) and 1 from MDA (Airborne
Laser). We selected the program offices, in part, because they were
responsible for developing and acquiring major weapon systems, mostly
in the development phase, and contained a mix of both contractor and
civilian personnel. To better understand the workforce management
practices of leading organizations, we met with representatives from
six companies recognized as leaders for various aspects of workforce
management: Deloitte; General Electric Company (General Electric);
Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin); Microsoft; Rolls-Royce,
PLC (Rolls-Royce); and Valero Energy Corporation (Valero Energy). We
also reviewed research on leading workforce practices or discussed
workforce management issues with officials at a number of nonprofit and
consulting organizations: Aerospace Industries Association, APQC,
[Footnote 5] IBM Center for The Business of Government, National
Academy of Public Administration, Partnership for Public Service, and
the Society for Human Resource Management.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to March 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
At the end of fiscal year 2007, the number of civilian and military
personnel in DOD's acquisition workforce totaled over 126,000--of which
civilian personnel comprised 89 percent.[Footnote 6] According to DOD,
these in-house personnel represent more than 70 percent of the total
federal acquisition workforce. DOD defines its acquisition workforce to
include 13 career fields, based on the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act of 1990.[Footnote 7] From fiscal years 2001 to 2007,
the number of civilian and military acquisition personnel in these 13
fields declined overall by 2.5 percent; however, some career fields
have increased substantially, while others have shown dramatic
declines. Table 1 shows the 13 fields, the number of military and
civilian personnel in each of these fields in 2001 and 2007, and the
percentage change between those 2 years.
Table 1: DOD Acquisition Workforce--Military and Civilian Personnel for
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2007:
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Program Management;
Fiscal year 2001: 14,031;
Fiscal year 2007: 12,427;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -11.4 %.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Contracting;
Fiscal year 2001: 25,413;
Fiscal year 2007: 26,038;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: 2.5.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Industrial/Contract Property
Management;
Fiscal year 2001: 620;
Fiscal year 2007: 481;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -22.4.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Purchasing;
Fiscal year 2001: 4,121;
Fiscal year 2007: 1,170;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -71.6.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Facilities Engineering;
Fiscal year 2001: 0;
Fiscal year 2007: 4,394;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: n/a.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Production Quality and
Manufacturing;
Fiscal year 2001: 10,547;
Fiscal year 2007: 8,364;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -20.7.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Business, Cost Estimating
and Financial Management;
Fiscal year 2001: 10,279;
Fiscal year 2007: 7,387;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -28.1.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Life Cycle Logistics;
Fiscal year 2001: 11,060;
Fiscal year 2007: 12,604;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: 14.0.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Information Technology;
Fiscal year 2001: 5,612;
Fiscal year 2007: 4,423;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -21.2.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: System Planning, Research,
Development and Engineering--Systems Engineering;
Fiscal year 2001: 34,899;
Fiscal year 2007: 34,710;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -0.5.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: System Planning, Research,
Development and Engineering--Science and Technology Manager;
Fiscal year 2001: 0;
Fiscal year 2007: 483;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: n/a.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Test and Evaluation;
Fiscal year 2001: 5,113;
Fiscal year 2007: 7,419;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: 45.1.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Auditing;
Fiscal year 2001: 3,457;
Fiscal year 2007: 2,852;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -17.5.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Unknown/Other;
Fiscal year 2001: 4,097;
Fiscal year 2007: 3,281;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -19.9.
AT&L workforce by functional career field: Total;
Fiscal year 2001: 129,249;
Fiscal year 2007: 126,033;
Percentage change 2001 to 2007: -2.5.
Source: DOD data.
[End of table]
During this same time period, the number of contracting actions valued
at over $100,000 increased by 62 percent and dollars obligated on
contracts increased by 116 percent, according to DOD. Moreover, DOD has
reported that the number of major defense acquisition programs has
increased from 70 to 95. To augment its declining in-house acquisition
workforce, DOD has relied more heavily on contractor personnel.
In addition to the overall decline in its in-house acquisition
workforce and an increased workload, DOD faces shifting workforce
demographics and a changing strategic environment. The U.S. workforce
as a whole is aging and experiencing a shift in the labor pool away
from persons with science and technical degrees. According to DOD,
advances in technology, such as the ability to do jobs from almost
anywhere in the world, are also driving workforce changes and
increasing global competition for the most highly educated and skilled
personnel. To address these and other challenges--including wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, an evolving mission to combat threats around the
world, and an increased need to collaborate with both domestic and
international partners--DOD has begun to establish a more centralized
management framework for forecasting, recruiting, developing, and
sustaining the talent pool needed to meet its national security
mission.
Several components in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
share policy and guidance responsibility for the workforce. The Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness serves as the Chief
Human Capital Officer for DOD--both for military and civilian
personnel--and has overall responsibility for the development of the
department's competency-based workforce planning and its civilian human
capital strategic plan. Within the Office of Personnel and Readiness,
the Office of Civilian Personnel Policy has overall responsibility for
managing DOD's civilian workforce and has the lead role in developing
and overseeing implementation of the plan. For example, the
Implementation Report for the DOD Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan
2006-2010 lists enterprisewide skills and competencies for 25 mission-
critical occupations, which the department has begun to assess in terms
of future needs, budget-based projections, and anticipated gaps.
Another OSD component, AT&L, is responsible for managing DOD's
acquisition workforce, including tailoring policies and guidance
specific to the acquisition workforce and managing the training and
certification of that workforce. As required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (2008 NDAA), AT&L has drafted an
addendum for the implementation report for the civilian human capital
strategic plan to specifically address management and oversight of the
acquisition workforce.[Footnote 8]
Each military service has its own corresponding personnel and
acquisition offices that develop additional service-specific guidance,
and provide management and oversight of its workforce. The services
have generally delegated the determination of workforce needs to the
command levels and their corresponding program offices. Although each
service uses a different management structure, the commands typically
make overall organizational budgetary and personnel allocations,
whereas the program offices identify acquisition workforce needs; make
decisions regarding the civilian, military, and contractor makeup of
the workforce; and provide the day-to-day management of the workforce.
In addition, each service designates organizations aligned by one or
more career fields to monitor and manage career paths and training, and
to identify gaps in current skill sets.
DOD Lacks the Information Needed to Determine the Sufficiency of Its
Acquisition Workforce:
DOD lacks critical departmentwide information in several areas
necessary to assess, manage, and oversee the acquisition workforce and
help ensure it has a sufficient acquisition workforce to meet DOD's
national security mission. Specifically, AT&L does not have key pieces
of information regarding its in-house acquisition workforce, such as
complete data on skill sets, which are needed to accurately identify
its workforce gaps.[Footnote 9] In addition, it lacks information on
the use and skill sets of contractor personnel performing acquisition-
related functions. Omitting these data from DOD's assessments not only
skews analyses of workforce gaps, but also limits DOD's ability to make
informed workforce allocation decisions. Critical success factors for
human capital management include collecting data on workforce
competencies and skills mix, and evaluating human capital approaches--
including those for acquiring and retaining talent--for how well they
support efforts to achieve program results.[Footnote 10] Such efforts,
linked to strategic goals and objectives, can enable an agency to
recognize, prepare, and obtain the knowledge, skills, abilities, and
size for the workforce it needs to pursue its current and future
missions.
AT&L Lacks Information on the Use of Contractor Personnel in Its
Acquisition Workforce:
DOD has increasingly relied on contractors to perform core missions,
but has yet to develop a workforce strategy for determining the
appropriate mix of contractor and government personnel.[Footnote 11]
Our prior work has noted the importance of effective human capital
management to better ensure that agencies have the right staff who are
doing the right jobs in the right place at the right time by making
flexible use of its internal workforce and appropriate use of
contractors.[Footnote 12] We have also reported that decisions
regarding the use of contractors should be based on strategic planning
regarding what types of work are best done by the agency or contracted
out.[Footnote 13]
While DOD planning documents state that the workforce should be managed
from a "total force" perspective--which calls for contractor personnel
to be managed along with civilian and military personnel[Footnote 14] -
-DOD does not collect departmentwide data on contractor personnel.
Program offices, however, do have information about contractor
personnel. Data we obtained from 66 program offices show that
contractor personnel comprised more than a third of those programs'
acquisition-related positions (see table 2).[Footnote 15] According to
MDA officials, the agency collects and uses such data in its agency-
level workforce allocation processes, which in turn has helped inform
staffing and resource decisions at the program office level. Because
contractor personnel likely comprise a substantial part of all
personnel supporting program offices, AT&L is missing information on a
key segment of the department's total acquisition workforce (in-house
and contractor personnel).
Table 2: Military, Civilian, and Contractor Personnel in Acquisition-
Related Functions by Service as Reported by Selected Program Offices in
2008:
Organization (number of program offices reporting data): Air Force
(19);
Total[A]: 1,549;
Military: 297;
Civilian: 357;
University and Federally Funded Research and Development Center: 428;
Contractor: 467;
Contractor personnel as a percentage of total: 30.
Organization (number of program offices reporting data): Army (12);
Total[A]: 1,723;
Military: 188;
Civilian: 1,122;
University and Federally Funded Research and Development Center: 40;
Contractor: 373;
Contractor personnel as a percentage of total: 22.
Organization (number of program offices reporting data): Navy[B] (18);
Total[A]: 2,374;
Military: 183;
Civilian: 1,196;
University and Federally Funded Research and Development Center: 56;
Contractor: 940;
Contractor personnel as a percentage of total: 40.
Organization (number of program offices reporting data): Joint
Programs[C] (9);
Total[A]: 1,460;
Military: 147;
Civilian: 480;
University and Federally Funded Research and Development Center: 145;
Contractor: 688;
Contractor personnel as a percentage of total: 47.
Organization (number of program offices reporting data): Missile
Defense Agency (7);
Total[A]: 1,656;
Military: 114;
Civilian: 559;
University and Federally Funded Research and Development Center: 174;
Contractor: 809;
Contractor personnel as a percentage of total: 49.
Organization (number of program offices reporting data): Total (66);
Total[A]: 8,762;
Military: 929;
Civilian: 3,714;
University and Federally Funded Research and Development Center: 843;
Contractor: 3,277;
Contractor personnel as a percentage of total: 37.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[A] Program offices reported additional administrative and other staff
that we excluded from this table, as they would not be considered part
of the acquisition workforce.
[B] Navy includes one Marine Corps program office.
[C] Joint Programs can be staffed by personnel from multiple services.
[End of table]
DOD also lacks information on factors driving program offices'
decisions to use contractor personnel rather than hire in-house
personnel. DOD guidance for determining the workforce mix outlines the
basis on which officials should make decisions regarding what type of
personnel--military, civilian, or contractor--should fill a given
position.[Footnote 16] The guidance's primary emphasis is on whether
the work is considered to be an inherently governmental function, not
on whether it is a function that is needed to ensure institutional
capacity.[Footnote 17]
The guidance also states that using the least costly alternative should
be an important factor when determining the workforce mix.[Footnote 18]
However, of the 31 program offices that reported information about the
reasons for using contractor personnel, only 1 indicated that reduced
cost was a key factor in the decision to use contractor personnel
rather than civilian personnel. Instead, 25 cited staffing limits, the
speed of hiring, or both as main factors in their decisions to use
contractor personnel. Additionally, 22 program offices cited a lack of
in-house expertise as a reason for using contractor personnel, and 17
of those indicated that the particular expertise sought is generally
not hired by the government. In addition, at 3 of the 4 program offices
we visited, officials said that they often hire contractors because
they may face limits on the number of civilian personnel they can hire,
and because budgetary provisions may allow program offices to use
program funds to pay for additional contractor personnel, but not for
hiring civilian personnel. Program officials also cited the lengthy
hiring process for civilian personnel as a reason for using contractor
personnel.
AT&L Lacks Key Pieces of Information Necessary to Conduct Gap Analyses:
AT&L's lack of key pieces of information hinders its ability to
determine gaps in the number and skill sets of acquisition personnel
needed to meet DOD's current and future missions. At a fundamental
level, workforce gaps are determined by comparing the number and skill
sets of the personnel that an organization has with what it needs.
However, AT&L lacks information on both what it has and what it needs.
With regard to information on the personnel it has, AT&L not only lacks
information on contractor personnel, but it also lacks complete
information on the skill sets of the current acquisition workforce and
whether these skill sets are sufficient to accomplish its missions.
AT&L is currently conducting a competency assessment to identify the
skill sets of its current acquisition workforce. While this assessment
will provide useful information regarding the skill sets of the current
in-house acquisition workforce, it is not designed to determine the
size, composition, and skill sets of an acquisition workforce needed to
meet the department's missions.
AT&L also lacks complete information on the acquisition workforce
needed to meet DOD's mission. The personnel numbers that AT&L uses to
reflect needs are derived from the budget. Because these personnel
numbers are constrained by the size of the budget, they likely do not
reflect the full needs of acquisition programs. Of the 66 program
offices that provided data to us, 13 reported that their authorized
personnel levels are lower than those they requested. In a report on
DOD's workforce management, RAND noted that the mismatch between needs
and available resources means that managers have an incentive to focus
on managing the budget process instead of identifying the resources
needed to fulfill the mission and then allocating resources within the
constraints of the budget.[Footnote 19]
Recent Initiatives May Not Yield the Information Needed to Assess,
Manage, and Oversee DOD's Total Acquisition Workforce:
AT&L has begun to respond to recent legislative requirements aimed at
improving DOD's management and oversight of its acquisition workforce,
including developing data, tools, and processes to more fully assess
and monitor its acquisition workforce. Each service has also recently
initiated, to varying degrees, additional efforts to assess its own
workforce at the service level. Some recent DOD efforts aimed at
improving the broader workforce may also provide information to support
AT&L's acquisition workforce efforts. While it is too early to
determine the extent to which these efforts will improve the
department's management and oversight, the lack of information on
contractor personnel raises concerns about whether AT&L will have the
information it needs to adequately assess, manage, and oversee the
total acquisition workforce.
As required by the 2008 NDAA, AT&L plans to issue an addendum to the
Implementation Report for the DOD Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan
2006-2010. According to DOD, this addendum will lay out AT&L's strategy
for managing and overseeing the acquisition workforce.[Footnote 20] The
addendum is to provide an analysis of the status of the civilian
acquisition workforce and discuss AT&L's efforts for implementing the
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, which the 2008 NDAA required
DOD to establish and fund.[Footnote 21] AT&L has focused its
implementation efforts in three key areas: (1) recruiting and hiring,
(2) training and development, and (3) retention and recognition. AT&L
has established a steering board responsible for oversight on all
aspects of the fund, including the approval of the use of funds for
each proposed initiative. In addition to the addendum to the
implementation report, AT&L created its own human capital plan in an
effort to integrate competencies, training, processes, tools, policy,
and structure for improving the acquisition workforce. AT&L has also
developed some tools and begun initiatives designed to help with its
management of the acquisition workforce, such as its competency
assessment that is scheduled to be completed in March 2010. AT&L
recently established the Defense Acquisition Workforce Joint Assessment
Team tasked with assessing and making recommendations regarding
component workforce size, total force mix, future funding levels, and
other significant workforce issues. According to an AT&L official, the
team will also develop an estimate of the acquisition workforce needed
to meet the department's mission that is unconstrained by the budget.
Table 3 provides a brief description of AT&L's recent efforts.
Table 3: AT&L's Recent Acquisition Workforce Oversight Initiatives:
Initiative: Joint Competency Management Initiative;
Goal: Update competency models to identify behaviors, underlying
knowledge, skills, and abilities for successful performance. Each
career field has its own model;
Expected results of initiative: Develop workforce strategies to address
critical skill gaps and target new education and training resources.
Initiative: Data Green Initiative;
Goal: Improve reliability, analysis, and transparency of workforce
information;
Expected results of initiative: Provide more advanced capability to
track, shape, and understand workforce strategies.
Initiative: Data Mart;
Goal: Enable real-time analysis and provide aggregate workforce data.
(Main component of Data Green Initiative);
Expected results of initiative: Create a central depository of
workforce data.
Initiative: Workforce Lifecycle Model;
Goal: Provide for identification of potential retirement losses by
capturing years of service;
Expected results of initiative: Use data to understand experience,
hiring, bench strength, and retirement trends, and to forecast
attrition rates.
Initiative: Budget Exhibit PB23;
Goal: Provide link between the AT&L Human Capital Strategic Plan and
the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution system;
Expected results of initiative: Document the services' planned
workforce needs over the future years' budgets.
Initiative: Defense Acquisition Workforce Joint Assessment Team;
Goal: Assess component workforce size, total force mix, and other
significant issues;
Expected results of initiative: Recommend component workforce size,
total force mix, and future funding levels.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.
[End of table]
Each service has also begun to take a more focused look at its
acquisition workforce by developing service-specific acquisition
workforce plans and designating leads tasked with monitoring career
paths and training, and identifying gaps in current skill sets. For
example, responsibility for different aspects of the Navy's acquisition
workforce has recently been distributed among a number of corporate-
level offices--such as Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Research,
Development, and Acquisition; and Manpower, Personnel, Training, and
Education. To illustrate, Research, Development, and Acquisition will
develop and maintain acquisition strategic guidance and provide
management oversight of the capabilities of the Navy's acquisition
workforce. Table 4 provides examples of service-level workforce
initiatives.
Table 4: Examples of Service-Level Acquisition Workforce Initiatives:
Service: Air Force;
Initiative: Acquisition Sustainment Unit model being created by the Air
Force Manpower Agency for use by the acquisition community. Expected to
identify objective workforce factors, ascertain the correlation between
manpower and performance, and explore alternative models that consider
trade-offs between accuracy, costs, and ease of implementation.
Service: Air Force;
Initiative: Civilian Force Management Dashboard and Diversity and Years
to Retirement tools used by the Force Management Division that contain
demographic data and retirement data, respectively. Provide insight to
the career field managers to analyze their workforce and develop career
field sustainment plans.
Service: Air Force;
Initiative: Pilot program in the Air Force Materiel Command's
Electronic Systems Center to create a competency-based organization
with a holistic approach to workforce management. Includes
organizational analysis, validation and development of competency
models for critical acquisition positions, selection of core
competencies, and recruiting and retention strategies.
Service: Army;
Initiative: Acquisition Workload Based Staffing Analysis Program
developed by Army's Acquisition, Logistics and Technology office to
provide the ability to gather up-to-date information on acquisition
workload requirements. Expected to provide the ability to model
acquisition organizations with the ultimate goal of forecasting future
requirements. Currently being upgraded to project the right mix of
skills for each stage in a program's life cycle.
Service: Navy;
Initiative: Memorandum of Agreement between Navy offices to establish
responsibilities for managing the workforce with a total force
perspective.
Service: Navy;
Initiative: Intelligent Workbook provides a way to align people with
programs servicewide under the Navy's new total force approach to
workforce management. Data are broken up by "Enterprises" and provide
details on the number of personnel present, number of personnel
required, and competency requirements by subprocesses of work. Allows
for comparisons of competencies versus requirements.
Service: Navy;
Initiative: Naval Air System Command developed Workforce Shaping System
to provide total annual workforce inventory, linking products to tasks
to skills to funding source. Gives managers the ability to document
expected outcomes and allow for redeployment of personnel based on
skills and organization's workload.
Service: MDA;
Initiative: Establishing functional groups to provide matrix management
over the acquisition workforce.
Service: MDA;
Initiative: Revalidating the competency assessment developed a few
years ago.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.
[End of table]
In addition to the AT&L and service-level initiatives, some DOD efforts
aimed at improving the broader workforce may provide information that
can assist AT&L in assessing, managing, and overseeing the acquisition
workforce. Some promising initiatives include the following:
* The Office of Civilian Personnel Policy recently established a
Civilian Workforce Capability and Readiness Program, and in November
2008 officially established a corresponding program management office
tasked with monitoring overall civilian workforce trends and conducting
competency assessments and gap analyses.
* DOD, through its components, is developing an annual inventory of
contracts for services performed in the preceding fiscal year. This
inventory is required to include, among other things, information
identifying the missions and functions performed by contractors, the
number of full-time contractor personnel equivalents that were paid for
performance of the activity, and the funding source for the contracted
work. The Army issued its first inventory, which determined the
equivalent number of contractor personnel it used in fiscal year 2007
based on the number of hours of work paid for under its service
contracts.
* DOD has issued guidance directing programs to consider using DOD
civilian personnel to perform new functions or functions currently
performed by contractor personnel in cases where those functions could
be performed by DOD civilian personnel. The guidance also requires that
DOD civilian personnel be given special consideration to perform
certain categories of functions, including functions performed by DOD
civilian personnel at any time during the previous 10 years and those
closely associated with the performance of an inherently governmental
function. When the inventory of contracts for services is completed,
DOD is mandated by the 2008 NDAA to use the inventory as a tool to
identify functions currently performed by contractor personnel that
could be performed by DOD civilian personnel. DOD is developing
additional guidance and a tool to assist in developing cost comparisons
for evaluating the use of in-house personnel rather than contractor
personnel.
These initiatives have the potential to enhance DOD's acquisition
workforce management practices and oversight activities. However, these
efforts may not provide the comprehensive information DOD needs to
manage and oversee its acquisition workforce. For example, although the
Army has issued its first inventory of its service contracts,
inventories for all DOD components are not scheduled to be completed
before June 2011. Further, as currently planned, the inventory will not
include information on the skill sets and functions of contractor
personnel.
Practices of Leading Organizations Could Provide Insights for DOD's
Acquisition Workforce Efforts:
As DOD continues to develop and implement departmentwide initiatives
aimed at providing better oversight of the acquisition workforce, some
of the practices employed by leading organizations for managing their
workforces could provide insights for DOD's efforts. These practices
include:
* identifying gaps in the current workforce by assessing the overall
competencies needed to achieve business objectives, compared to current
competencies;
* establishing mechanisms to track and evaluate the effectiveness of
initiatives to close workforce gaps;
* taking a strategic approach in deciding when and how to use
contractor personnel to supplement the workforce; and:
* tracking and analyzing data on contractor personnel.
We have previously reported many of these practices as critical factors
for providing good strategic human capital management.[Footnote 22]
The leading organizations we reviewed develop gap analyses and
workforce plans from estimates of the number and composition of
personnel with specific workforce competencies needed to achieve the
organization's objectives. For example, Lockheed Martin assesses the
skill mix needed to fulfill future work orders and compares this with
the firm's current skill mix to identify potential workforce gaps. An
official at Lockheed Martin said one such assessment indicated that the
company needed skill sets different from those needed in the past
because it is receiving more proposals for logistics work associated
with support and delivery contracts, rather than its traditional system
development work. Table 5 provides examples of how companies we
reviewed link workforce assessments to their organizational objectives.
Table 5: Examples of Leading Organizations' Use of Workforce
Assessments:
Company: Deloitte;
Use of workforce assessments to meet organizational objectives:
* Gap analyses are calculated by comparing competencies needed to meet
future business demands with competencies of the current workforce;
* Recruiting plans and employee retraining are based on gap analyses;
* Analytical framework created to help develop additional solutions for
workforce issues that take into account existing tools and initiatives,
as well as the nature of the work to be performed.
Company: Lockheed Martin;
Use of workforce assessments to meet organizational objectives:
* Skill mix needed to fulfill future work orders is assessed and
compared with the firm's current skill mix to identify potential
workforce gaps.
Company: Microsoft;
Use of workforce assessments to meet organizational objectives:
* Targets for growth in the number of employees are defined by the
company's finance function. Workforce plans for hiring and employee
development are designed to meet these growth targets while maintaining
or improving workforce capabilities;
* In developing workforce plans, staffing teams provide estimates of
hires needed, consistent with employee growth targets, attrition rates,
and expected transfer rates;
* An algorithm is used to compare data on employees added, open
positions remaining, time required to fill open positions, and other
measures with business units' current and future capabilities and
objectives.
Company: Valero Energy;
Use of workforce assessments to meet organizational objectives:
* Employee skills and career goals are maintained in a database to
assist in moving employees to where needed and to identify strengths
and weaknesses in the workforce. The database is also used to identify
where resources need to be spent to build the talent pool.
Source: GAO analysis of company information.
[End of table]
These leading organizations also assess their efforts to close
workforce gaps by tracking data on specific recruiting and retention
metrics. For example, Microsoft assesses the quality of its new hires
based on the performance ratings and retention for their first 2 years
with the company. According to a company official, this allows
Microsoft to compare the results of using its different hiring sources,
such as college recruiting and other entry-level hiring methods.
Similarly, Deloitte uses performance ratings, retention data, and
employee satisfaction surveys to help determine a return on investment
from its college recruiting efforts and to identify schools that tend
to supply high-quality talent that the company is able to retain. Table
6 provides examples of recruiting and retention metrics used by the
companies we reviewed. In addition to tracking data on metrics,
Deloitte uses quantitative models that analyze workforce demographics
and other factors to predict actions of job candidates and employees.
Data from such metrics and models can be used to inform other workforce
decisions and focus limited resources for use where the greatest
benefit is expected.
Table 6: Examples of Metrics Related to Recruiting and Retention
Initiatives:
Company: Deloitte;
Initiative: College recruiting;
Metrics tracked:
* Performance ratings;
* Retention data;
* Employee satisfaction surveys.
Company: Lockheed Martin;
Initiative: Retention;
Metrics tracked:
* Attrition rates for mentored versus nonmentored employees.
Company: Microsoft;
Initiative: Recruiting;
Metrics tracked:
* Quality of hiring assessed based on new hire performance ratings and
retention for first 2 years.
Company: Microsoft;
Initiative: Retention;
Metrics tracked:
* Employees' opinions regarding value of compensation packages and
preferred forms of compensation.
Company: Rolls-Royce;
Initiative: College recruiting;
Metrics tracked:
* Time to fill open positions;
* Interview-to-offer ratios;
* Offer acceptance percentages;
* Offers by school.
Source: GAO analysis of company information.
[End of table]
Finally, the companies we reviewed take a strategic approach to
determining when to use contractor support. Officials from Deloitte,
General Electric, and Rolls Royce said they generally use contractors
to facilitate flexibility and meet peak work demands without hiring
additional, permanent, full-time employees. Some of the companies also
place limits on their use of contractor employees. General Electric,
for example, uses contractor personnel for temporary support and
generally limits their use for a given operation to 1 year in order to
prevent the use of temporary personnel to fill ongoing or permanent
roles. Additionally, General Electric and Lockheed Martin limit the use
of contractor personnel to noncore functions. An official from General
Electric said that it rarely outsources essential, sophisticated, or
strategic functions, or large components of its business. Likewise,
Lockheed Martin does not outsource capabilities that are seen as
discriminators that set the company apart from its market competitors.
Deloitte, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and Microsoft also
maintain and analyze data on their contractor employees in order to
mitigate risks, ensure compliance with in-house regulations and
security requirements, or to ensure that reliance on contractor support
creates value for the company. An official at Deloitte noted, for
example, that if work involving contractor support continues for an
extended period, the business unit might be advised to request
additional full-time employee positions in its next planning cycle or
streamline its process to eliminate the need for contractor support. At
Rolls Royce, an official told us that one unit uses an algorithm to
determine the percentage of work being outsourced by computing the
number of full-time-equivalent personnel needed to complete the same
level of work performed through outsourcing. This information is
important because of the cost of outsourcing. According to the company
official, outsourcing may be more costly--all other factors being
equal--because of the profit consideration for the contractor.[Footnote
23] As a result, outsourcing decisions can become a trade-off between
multiple factors, such as cost, quality, capacity, capability, and
speed.
Conclusions:
Major shifts in workforce demographics and a changing strategic
environment present significant challenges for DOD in assessing and
overseeing an acquisition workforce that has the capacity to acquire
needed goods and services, as well as monitor the work of contractors.
While recent and planned actions of AT&L and other DOD components could
help DOD address many of these challenges, the department has yet to
determine the acquisition workforce that it needs to fulfill its
mission or develop information about contractor personnel. While DOD
has begun to estimate the number of full-time-equivalent contractor
personnel through its inventory of contracts for services, this effort
will not identify the skill sets and functions of contractor personnel
performing acquisition-related work or the length of time for which
they are used. At the same time, DOD lacks guidance on the appropriate
circumstances under which contractor personnel may perform acquisition
work. Without such guidance, DOD runs the risk of not maintaining
sufficient institutional capacity to perform its missions. Until DOD
maintains detailed departmentwide information on its contractor
personnel performing acquisition-related work, it will continue to have
insufficient information regarding the composition, range of skills,
and the functions performed by this key component of the acquisition
workforce. Without this information upon which to act, the department
runs the risk of not having the right number and appropriate mix of
civilian, military, and contractor personnel it needs to accomplish its
missions.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better ensure that DOD's acquisition workforce is the right size
with the right skills and that the department is making the best use of
its resources, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the
following four actions:
* Collect and track data on contractor personnel who supplement the
acquisition workforce--including their functions performed, skill sets,
and length of service--and conduct analyses using these data to inform
acquisition workforce decisions regarding the appropriate number and
mix of civilian, military, and contractor personnel the department
needs.
* Identify and update on an ongoing basis the number and skill sets of
the total acquisition workforce--including civilian, military, and
contractor personnel--that the department needs to fulfill its mission.
DOD should use this information to better inform its resource
allocation decisions.
* Review and revise the criteria and guidance for using contractor
personnel to clarify under what circumstances and the extent to which
it is appropriate to use contractor personnel to perform acquisition-
related functions.
* Develop a tracking mechanism to determine whether the guidance has
been appropriately implemented across the department. The tracking
mechanism should collect information on the reasons contractor
personnel are being used, such as whether they were used because of
civilian staffing limits, civilian hiring time frames, a lack of in-
house expertise, budgetary provisions, cost, or other reasons.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report. DOD concurred
with three recommendations and partially concurred with one
recommendation. DOD's comments appear in appendix I. DOD also provided
technical comments on the draft report which we incorporated as
appropriate.
DOD partially concurred with the draft recommendation to collect and
track data on contractor personnel to inform the department's
acquisition workforce decisions. DOD stated that it agrees that
information on contractor personnel supporting the acquisition mission
is necessary for improved acquisition workforce planning, especially
with regard to the number and the acquisition functions performed. The
department also noted that establishing a contractual requirement to
capture more detailed workforce information, such as skill sets and
length of service of contractor personnel, needs to be carefully
considered. We agree that the manner in which data on contractor
personnel are to be collected should be carefully considered. We
continue to believe that comprehensive data on contractor personnel are
needed to accurately identify the department's acquisition workforce
gaps and inform its decisions on the appropriate mix of in-house or
contractor personnel.
DOD concurred with our recommendation to identify and update on an
ongoing basis the number and skill sets of the total acquisition
workforce that it needs to fulfill its mission and stated that it has
an ongoing effort to accomplish this. DOD states that its ongoing
efforts will address this recommendation; however, the efforts cited in
its response improve DOD's information only on its in-house acquisition
workforce and do not identify the total acquisition workforce,
including contractor personnel, the department needs to meet its
missions. We revised the recommendation to clarify that DOD's
acquisition workforce management and oversight should encompass
contractor as well as civilian and military personnel.
DOD also concurred with our recommendations to revise the criteria and
guidance for using contractor personnel to perform acquisition-related
functions, and to develop a tracking mechanism to determine whether the
revised guidance is being appropriately implemented across the
department.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense. The
report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-5274 or needhamjk1@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
John K. Needham:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
March 19, 2009:
Ms. Katherine V. Schinasi:
Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Schinasi:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, GAO-09-342, "Department Of Defense: Additional Actions and Data
Are Needed to Effectively Manage and Oversee DoD's Acquisition
Workforce," dated February 13, 2009, (GAO Code 120692). Detail comments
on the report recommendations are enclosed.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to respond to your draft
report and look forward to working with you as we continue to ensure a
strong and capable Defense acquisition workforce.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
L. S. McMichael, for:
Frank J. Anderson, Jr.
Director, Human Capital Initiatives:
Enclosure: As stated:
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report, Dated February 13, 2009:
GAO Code 350898/GAO-09-342:
"Department Of Defense: Additional Actions and Data Are Needed to
Effectively Manage and Oversee DoD's Acquisition Workforce"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
collect and track data on contractor personnel who supplement the
acquisition workforce-including their functions performed, skill sets,
and length of service-and conduct analyses using these data to inform
acquisition workforce decisions regarding the appropriate number and
mix of civilian, military, and contractor personnel the department
needs.
DOD Response: Partially concur. The Department agrees that information
on contractor support to the acquisition mission is necessary for
improved Defense acquisition workforce planning especially with regard
to the number and the acquisition functions performed. Establishing a
contractual requirement to capture more detailed workforce information,
such as skill sets and length of service of contractor employees needs
to be carefully considered. DoD is implementing 10 U.S.C. 2330a, as
amended by section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2008, to collect information on functions (e.g. program
management/support services, systems engineering services, etc.). The
number of contractor work-year equivalents is also collected. DoD-wide
implementation is being conducted in phases. The Army's initial
submission, as identified in a September 29, 2008 Federal Register
notice, is posted at [hyperlink,
http://www.asamra.army.mil/insourcing]. In January 2009, the Department
chartered a multi-functional and Joint-Service team, the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Joint Assessment Team (JAT), to improve
identification of the acquisition Total Force, to include contractor
support. The team includes functional experts from the manpower,
procurement and acquisition policy, civilian personnel policy, and the
comptroller community. The JAT is developing recommendations to improve
measuring and collecting necessary contactor support data as part of
total acquisition workforce identification.
Recommendation 2: The Gao Recommends That The Secretary Of Defense
Identify and update on an ongoing basis the number and skill sets of
the total acquisition workforce that the department needs to fulfill
its mission. DoD should use this information to better inform its
resource allocation decisions.
DOD Response: Concur. This is an ongoing effort. Total acquisition
workforce tracking and analysis is a critical part of improving the
human capital process. As part of AT&L Human Capital initiatives, DoD
has deployed a comprehensive, recurring, and consistent workforce
analysis process to support tracking, understanding, and shaping
workforce strategies. Updated data on the organic workforce is
submitted by the components quarterly and is used for enterprise-wide
ongoing analysis. In addition, the Department has deployed a competency
assessment of the acquisition workforce to identify gaps and improve
both training and human capital planning. Over 18,000 members of the
Defense contracting workforce have completed competency assessments.
Over 2,000 assessments for program managers and for our life cycle
logistics managers have also been completed. The program manager
competency effort is being expanded to include all program managers and
deputy program managers for major acquisition programs. Assessments
will be completed for the remainder of the Defense acquisition
workforce during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. As noted above, the focus
of the data analysis capability and competency assessments have first
been on the organic workforce and not contractor support. As additional
information becomes available, it will be factored into the overall
workforce analysis.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
review and revise the criteria and guidance for using contractor
personnel to clarify under what circumstances and the extent to which
it is appropriate to use contractor personnel to perform acquisition-
related functions.
DOD Response: Concur. The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued guidance
on April 4, 2008, to implement 10 U.S.C §2463 enacted by the FY2008
NDAA, Section 324, Guidelines on In-sourcing New and Contracted Out
Functions. Section 2463 directs DoD to give special consideration to
using DoD civilian employees to perform certain categories of functions
and to use the inventory of contractors (required by 10 U.S.C. §2330a)
to identify those functions. These guidelines improve DoD's ability to
address cost considerations, realign inherently governmental and exempt
functions for government performance, and manage the Defense Total
Force more efficiently and effectively. The Defense Acquisition
Workforce Joint Assessment Team (JAT) is also developing
recommendations regarding appropriate guidance on use of contractor
support for acquisition mission needs.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
develop a tracking mechanism to determine whether the guidance has been
appropriately implemented across the department. The tracking mechanism
should collect information on the reasons contractor personnel are
being used, such as whether they were used because of civilian staffing
limits, civilian hiring timeframes, a lack of in-house expertise,
budgetary provisions, cost, or other reasons.
DOD Response: Concur. The Department agrees that appropriate mechanisms
are needed to track compliance with policy on decisions to use
contractor support. Related policy, which will address this
recommendation, is being developed in response to the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2009, section 831, Development of Guidance on
Personal Services Contracts. Also, the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Joint Assessment Team's (JAT) ongoing effort includes developing
recommendations on appropriate expanded guidance on use of contractor
support for acquisition mission needs.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John K. Needham, (202) 512-5274 or needhamjk1@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Katherine V. Schinasi, Managing
Director; Ann Calvaresi-Barr, Director; Carol Dawn Petersen, Assistant
Director; Ruth "Eli" DeVan; Kristine Heuwinkel; Victoria Klepacz; John
Krump; Teague Lyons; Andrew H. Redd; Ron Schwenn; Karen Sloan; Brian
Smith; Angela D. Thomas; and Adam Yu made key contributions to this
report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to
Strengthen DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-235]. Washington, D.C.: February 10,
2009.
High Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271]. Washington, D.C.: January
2009.
Department of Homeland Security: A Strategic Approach Is Needed to
Better Ensure the Acquisition Workforce Can Meet Mission Needs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-30]. Washington, D.C.:
November 19, 2008.
Human Capital: Transforming Federal Recruiting and Hiring Efforts.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-762T]. Washington, D.C.:
May 8, 2008.
Defense Contracting: Army Case Study Delineates Concerns with Use of
Contractors as Contract Specialists. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-360]. Washington, D.C.: March 26,
2008.
Defense Management: DOD Needs to Reexamine Its Extensive Reliance on
Contractors and Continue to Improve Management and Oversight.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-572T]. Washington, D.C.:
March 11, 2008.
Federal Acquisition: Oversight Plan Needed to Help Implement
Acquisition Advisory Panel's Recommendations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-515T]. Washington, D.C.: February
27, 2008.
The Department of Defense's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does
Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-439R]. Washington, D.C.: February 6,
2008.
Defense Acquisitions: DOD's Increased Reliance on Service Contractors
Exacerbates Long-standing Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-621T]. Washington, D.C.: January 23,
2008.
Department of Homeland Security: Improved Assessment and Oversight
Needed to Manage Risk of Contracting for Selected Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-990]. Washington, D.C.: September
17, 2007.
Federal Acquisitions and Contracting: Systemic Challenges Need
Attention. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1098T].
Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007.
Defense Acquisitions: Improved Management and Oversight Needed to
Better Control DOD's Acquisition of Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-832T]. Washington, D.C.: May 10,
2007.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Federal Acquisition Challenges and
Opportunities in the 21st Century. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-45SP]. Washington, D.C.: October
2006.
Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function At Federal Agencies.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-218G]. Washington, D.C.:
September 2005.
A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2002.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For the purposes of this report, we defined core missions as those
that most directly affect the department's ability to accomplish its
missions.
[2] GAO, Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress
to Strengthen DOD's Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-235] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10,
2009); Federal-Aid Highways: Increased Reliance on Contractors Can Pose
Oversight Challenges for Federal and State Officials, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-198] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 8,
2008); and Department of Homeland Security: Improved Assessment and
Oversight Needed to Manage Risk of Contracting for Selected Services,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-990] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 17, 2007).
[3] GAO, High Risk Series--An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January
2009).
[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271].
[5] APQC was previously known as the American Productivity & Quality
Center.
[6] DOD's acquisition workforce count does not include other
contributors to acquisition, such as contracting officer
representatives, and nongovernmental contributors, such as contractor
personnel.
[7] Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.
101-510, § 1202(a) (1990).
[8] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Pub. L.
No. 110-181, § 851 (2008).
[9] For purposes of this report, although university and Federally
Funded Research and Development Center personnel are retained by DOD
through contracts, we do not include them as contractor personnel
because DOD tracks them separately.
[10] Our prior work has also shown that having valid and reliable data
is critical to assess an agency's workforce requirements and allow
management to spotlight areas for attention. See GAO, A Model of
Strategic Human Capital Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15,
2002).
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-235].
[12] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP].
[13] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP].
[14] DOD, Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan 2006-2010 and
Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Feb. 6, 2006).
[15] For the purposes of this report, we defined acquisition-related
functions to be those related to planning, executing, and supporting
DOD's acquisitions, including: program management; business functions,
such as auditing, business, cost estimating, financial management,
property management, and purchasing; contracting; and engineering and
technical, including systems planning, research, development and
engineering, life-cycle logistics, test and evaluation, production,
quality and manufacturing, and facilities engineering.
[16] Department of Defense Instruction 1100.22, Guidance for
Determining Workforce Mix, paragraph 1.1 (Apr. 6, 2007).
[17] Inherently governmental functions are so intimately related to the
public interest that they should only be performed by government
personnel. These functions include those activities which require
either the exercise of discretion in applying government authority or
making value judgments in making decisions for the government. Federal
Acquisition Regulation 2.101.
[18] Department of Defense Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower
Management, paragraph 3.2.3 (Feb. 12, 2005); Department of Defense
Instruction 1100.2, Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix, paragraph 4
(Apr. 6, 2007).
[19] RAND Corporation, Civilian Workforce Planning in the Department of
Defense: Different Levels, Different Roles (Santa Monica, Calif.:
2006).
[20] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 851.
[21] Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 852; 10 U.S.C. § 1705. The fund is financed
by an amount equivalent to a portion of the military services' and
defense agencies' expenditures for certain types of service contracts.
The largest proportion of the fund is currently slated for recruiting
and hiring.
[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP].
[23] GAO has also reported that using contractor personnel may be more
costly than using government personnel in some cases. See GAO, Defense
Contracting: Army Case Study Delineates Concerns with Use of
Contractors as Contract Specialists, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-360] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 26,
2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
