This DoD presentation is about ready to end after starting 2 hours ago. The most notable speaker of the group--at least for me--was Bernard Rotskar because he appeared to have some ideas. However, I found the program fairly dull, wandering, and disappointing.

We have an aging workforce and many of us will exit it during the next few years. The general gist of the presentation was that the government needs to figure out how to maintain a productive acquisition workforce during the changing environment. Are there any thoughts about the program? Are there any thoughts about how this can be accomplished?

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 04:37 pm:

Bob:

I think it would take a strong, knowledgeable leader with authority over both acquisition and personnel policy and operations and job tenure that is not tied to the four-year presidential term to do what needs to be done.

Won't happen.

By Ramon Jackson on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 11:45 pm:

The public does not know or care much except when an elected official or press type briefly cites a hammer incident. Without that fire from below the elected types really don't seem to care much for efficiency -- it might even work against them in pork catching expeditions.

Absent an angry deity willing and able to strike with real lightning bolts it won't happen. In the age when such stern measures are not correct we can expect much muddling through and minor efforts hailed as great changes.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 05:44 am:

The program had a specific agenda--to sell what was already being done. That may be fine. However, there was a great deal of wondering about the year 2004 when many would retire. One of the solutions was to give incentives for those that will retire at 2004 so that they will retire earlier. The goal was to create an orderly process for replacing the current workforce.

I found it a bit amusing although I understand what they were trying to do. Fortunately, one speaker felt that little will be done legislatively to permit broad-scale changes. With luck, that will be the case. Nature has a way of working things out.

By Kennedy How on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 12:25 pm:

The only legislation I see happening is one that mandates more cuts in the workforce. If I remember correctly, the next round of cuts will significantly affect the size of the Acquisition field, in the next couple of years.

Historically, we've absorbed those cuts with buyouts and early retirements. Problem is, there is nobody replacing them in the pipeline; since we're constantly over our manpower target. This is the single largest reason why we're at where we're at. If the Government determines that Acquisition is a core function of the Government (and thus, not to be contracted out), then we do not have the capability to accomplish that mission any longer. It's also bad that we've not be able to hire replacements for those who have left.

In this day and age of a robust economy and very low unemployment, it's problematical whether we can even recruit enough well educated, qualified business graduates to fill any open 1102-type slots. Even so, it would take a few years to bring those people into the ranks of a journeyman Contract Specialist. A few years already puts us at '05.

I'm like everybody else, I don't want to lose my job, but from the big picture perspective, absent any halt in downsizing, or real growth in the workforce, the only way to ensure a quality Acquisition workforce is to start grooming our replacements now. Before it's too late.

Kennedy

By Fred Weatherill on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 02:32 pm:

Gentlemen,

Let me offer an alternate view. The downsizing of the workforce, including 1102s, is a resounding success. All those people and their expense are gone, and the work of the government goes on. The voters are happy and the politicians promise more!

Ours is a personal and professional crisis. We believe that what we do is important. We believe that lessons learned need to be taught to others. In a kind procreative urge we want to pass our organizational genes on to another generation. Our biological clocks are running and there are no off-spring in sight.

As others have observed, there is no higher being, prime leader, or popular groundswell that is going to do what we think is needed. Until the political pain of a cut government exceeds the political gain of cutting government, expect no action on the issues you have raised.

In the meantime, our challenge is to protect the integrity we hold dear, and to keep our heads up.

By Anonymous on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:38 am:

I think we should look to more upward mobility and consider hiring interns who do not necessarily have the high grades, but have the common sense, street smarts and work ethic to successfully complete and apply the on-the-job and formal training offered by DOD.

The interns I have seen are all top-notch, bright and very well educated, but they are also, in my opinion, ambitious and perhaps more ready to move on than someone who comes through the ranks.

By Stan Livingstone on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 08:34 am:

Certainly bringing recent college graduates and interns into the 1102 series and providing them with proper training and job experience is the way to go. The problem is too many seasoned and knowledgeable people are leaving, and the replacement process isn't fast enough. My guess is it takes 10 to 15 years to groom someone to conduct major acquisitions. That's the time it takes to learn and experience (often by bumps and bruises, depositions, testifying, etc.) the myriad of issues a CO confronts in conducting major system buys. It's the cumulative years of personal experiences (sometimes painful) recounting Comp Gen and court decisions from years ago, knowledge of what worked and didn't at other agencies, etc. that is required to successfully lead a major procurement. Those kind of people are the ones leaving in numbers too large to immediately fill.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 10:22 am:

The Federal Acquisition Institute publishes an annual report on the federal civilian acquisition workforce. It's most recent one covers fiscal year 1998 and was published in April of this year.

Here are some of the statistics in the report. (Warning: the statistics are not always consistent and the report does not clearly define all statistical categories.)

According to FAI, the civilian acquisition workforce includes GS-1101s, 1102s, 1104s, 1105s, 1106s, and 1150s. In FY98 there were 59,062 persons in those series. GS-1102 was the largest series, with a population of 27,400.

The average pay grade of the civilian acquisition workforce was GS-10.18. The average grade of the GS-1102 series was GS-11.31. [Only GS-1150s (industrial specialists) had a higher average grade--GS-11.40.] Among agencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission boasted the highest average pay grade for 1102s: GS-13.85.

The average age of the civilian acquisition workforce was 45.93 years. The average age of GS-1102s was 45.41 years. Forty-two (42) percent of GS-1102s will be eligible to retire by the year 2007.

As of September 1998, only 58 percent of GS-1102s had college degrees. The National Science Foundation had the highest percentage of college graduates--92 percent. NASA was second with 76 percent. The Department of Veterans Affairs was last with 36 percent. The Air Force had 71 percent, the Army (which employed more 1102s in FY98 than any other agency) had 56 percent, the Navy had 58 percent, and "other Defense" had 60 percent. Of the 1102s with college degrees, 64 percent had degrees in business, law or public administration.

Only 52 percent of new hires in FY98 had college degrees. At that rate, the percentage of 1102s with college degrees is declining!

The government hired 1,531 persons into the 1102 series in FY98 from both internal and external sources. Most new hires into the 1102 series enter at the lower grades, GS-5 (13 percent), GS-7 (33.4 percent), and GS-9 (17.4 percent).

Most new hires (80 percent) enter the 1102 series from other government positions; only 44 percent of those had college degrees. Of these FY98 internal hires, 4 percent were eligible to retire in that year and 14 percent will be eligible to retire in 2003.

Eighty-three (83) percent of the external hires had college degrees. One (1) percent of the external new hires will be eligible to retire by 2003; 5 percent will be eligible to retire by 2008.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 10:30 am:

Stan:

I don't think that it takes 10 to 15 years to teach someone how to conduct a major acquisition. It's complicated, but it's not rocket science.

I'm not sure that it takes 10 to 15 years to teach someone rocket science.

Vern

By Charlie Dan on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 11:35 am:

I recall that when I came to work for the Air Force in 1973, they were facing similar projections (though I don't remember the projections being quite as dire). The Air Force engaged in a major effort to recruit recent college graduates with high GPAs, into something called the Copper Cap program. Recruits were enrolled in aggressive training programs, and promoted annually from GS-7 to GS-12, as I remember. The idea was to "groom" the recruits to be prepared to compete for management positions. From what I saw, the program worked.

Even though I wasn't hired as a Copper Cap, my installation (Kirtland AFB, NM) sent me through the same training program. The training was expensive, but appears to have paid off over the long run. I've kept in touch with several of my peers who went thru the Copper Cap (or a similar) program. Of 7 civilians, including myself, who entered Govt service at Kirtland during the same time period, 5 of us are now (or recently were) procurement directors for federal contracting activities. Another is a procurement director for a major federal contractor.

Makes me think we need something very similar to the Copper Cap program today!

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 11:43 am:

Charlie:

I was a Copper Cap. I started as a GS-5 and left the Air Force as a GS-15. For a while I was in charge of the Copper Cap program in Air Force Systems Command. It was a good program, but the Air Force lost 30 to 40 percent of the people who were recruited into the program in my era. They went to industry, to other agencies, and to other work.

The challenge in all such programs is retaining the best people.

By Kennedy How on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 12:38 pm:

10-15 years sounds high to me as well. At my activity, we became more systems oriented by year 5, if we showed the aptitude. If we didn't, we stayed with our regular acquisition duties.

I came in as an intern, 5-7-9 grade progression. I became an 11 soon after I became eligible; by then, I had show some kind of aptitude. I got assigned my own vehicle system to buy and manage, and became a 12 afterwards. This was because our middle management had a philosophy that if your performance was deserving of a promotion to the next grade level, you would be qualified to handle a system acquisition.

I'm not surprised that the Army has the most ll02s; I think there has been a concerted effort to consolidate all of the acquisition series into 1102s. I don't know of many 1101s, 1103-5s here. We've been converting the last bastions of 1150s as well. Since we're top-heavy here, it's probably not a surprise that we're being cut back as well.

We've not had many external hires; while we've had upward mobility (by eliminating most clerical jobs, or by lateral from some other discipline), finding recent Business graduates with high GPAs is difficult in this economy. I don't like the idea of lowering standards, but from a personal perspective, I'm a good example of somebody with a low GPA who's had success in his Acquisition Career.

Kennedy