This has been one of my hopes for years now and some work I was doing the other day caused me to revisit the idea. I heard some murmurs about this from the Procurement Executives Council too.

Are any contract specialists from one agency's contracting activity participating in temporary assignments at another agency's contracting activity for the purpose of gaining a diversity of experience?

For example, in Prince George's County, Maryland, there is the IRS ($890 million in annual obligations), the Bureau of the Census ($830 million in 2000 probably due to the census that year), and Goddard Space Flight Center (around $1.7 billion in annual obligations). If you live in the center of the County, each can be reached in about the same time. This presents an opportunity for the HCAs of these activities to develop a system of rotating contract specialists for some period of time to gain new work experiences.

By formerfed on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 01:24 pm:

Bob,

The benefits of that kind of program are great. The problem is how does it get implemented? Despite agreement at high levels such as OFPP and the PEC, several barriers exist. Probably the largest is that very few Procurement Executives "own" the 1102's in their Department. Most 1102's work at bureau or operating levels where the POE has little control over assignments. Then there is always workload issues - who does the work while people are on assignment, even if I get someone in return they won't be productive, I can't afford to give up my best and take a chance of getting a poor performer in return, and the old fear that some other agency will hire my detail.

For instance, the agencies in the example you cited (IRS, Census, and NASA Odder) I believe all face staffing shortages while trying to work through major initiatives - tax modernization, clean up from the dicennial, etc.

Probably the only way this can work is smart selling to the POE's senior management, most of which are at the Assistant Secretary level. Most of the Departments need to have a firm commitment that they will make this work. In many cases, I see it almost having to be mandated to operating level/bureau heads.

But I agree - wouldn't it be great? I'm amazed how many very bright 1102's I've met who are still limited because they haven't had broad exposure.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 02:18 pm:

Bob and formerfed:

I was a guest speaker yesterday at the Department of the Interior Acquisition & Assistance Management Conference in Alexandra, Virginia, and got to hear Gary Krump, Vice Chairman of the Procurement Executives Council, speak in the morning. One of the things that he discussed was rotational assignments, and he said that an obstacle to the program is the fear on the part of some managers that they will lose their best people through such assignments.

The fear is legitimate. In the early 1980s I was briefly the OPR for the Air Force "Copper Cap" program in Air Force Systems Command, and I can tell you that organizations will use rotational assignments as a way to identify and then co-opt good people. A manager has to have an awfully altruistic world view to set such fears aside. Most want to know, "What's in it for me?"

By Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 03:43 pm:

In my command this procedure is available. Our problem is that ,first,it must be rotational within the Command, and it must be a quid pro quo.Each contracting office must be able to give up one for one. And lastly ,it is up to each specialist to find his QPQ.

By Dave Berkey on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 03:51 pm:

Bob and all:

From the recent postings on the PBSC chat group I would recommend that it is the Procurement Analysts who should have a mandatory contract specialist assignment every few years. For instance, require the promulgaters of OFPP PBSC policy to plan, negotiate, award and administer a few different types of PBSC contracts.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 04:31 pm:

Vern:

The idea was my way of having a Civilian Agency Acquisition Corps. The only way I can think of one agency getting around the problem of losing staff to another agency is by bringing their contracting organization up to the same level of the other contracting organization. However, some agencies are going to acquire things that are not as interesting as other agencies. So that would not work. So here is another idea. I am not giving up yet.

How about a five-year rotational program at the start of an individual's career. Agencies hire staff with the knowledge that this five-year program has been agreed upon. The initial period could be spent on, say: multiple award schedule contracting at the Federal Supply Service, participation in a major weapon system at a defense activity, etc. I think a trip to a DOE Operations office and their Facilities Management contracts would be helpful. Also, I think NASA does a few things that are different from other agencies. After the five year period, the individual can provide their preference for a work site and the government (FAI or something) could place the individual where they are needed.

I have had the opportunity to see all these different efforts and I think our 1102s would do a better job and enjoy their work more. Since we have so many contracting offices around the country, I think this may be possible without too great a strain on individuals.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 04:54 pm:

Bob:

Whatever the merits of your idea, it is not well-adapted to the practical realities of government operation. Each agency has its own mission, its own culture, and its own needs. It's worried about getting its own work done, today, right now.

You are taking a long-term, big picture view of the world and I think that's admirable, but it's not the way most mid-level agency managers see the world. Your five-year rotational assignment program does not help some chief of a contracting office get his or her contracts awarded and modified today, right now.

The Air Force Copper Cap program, as implemented within AFSC, entailed five years of rotational assignments among program offices within a systems division, such as the Space Division in Los Angeles. Program offices saw those trainees as valuable human resources and often did whatever they could to keep the best of them beyond their assignments, the big picture be damned. Trainees often became so committed to their current project, often due to strokes they were getting from program office officials, that they sought to postpone their next rotation, thus helping to undermine their own program. And Bob, this took place within one division of one command in one agency; the program worked, but it was a constant struggle to keep it working.

So while I'm not saying that your idea doesn't have merit, I am saying it doesn't adequately account for the proverbial real world.

By carol elliott on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 04:59 pm:

DOE has a program for Level III certified 1102's to spend a year rotational assignment with industry. In addition, they get additional training and/or temporary assignments within DOE. Total time from selection to "graduation" is about 3 years. The stated purpose is to provide contract specialists with a broader range of experience. Selection is made at a Departmental level, but candidates need their local supervisor's endorsement when applying for the program.

The workload impact is no joke. We've got one individual that will be returning from their year in August and another starting with industry in September. Both still have program commitments that will take time over the next couple of years. For an office with only 15 contract specialists this is a huge impact.

Since the assignment is with industry instead of another agency I think the perception is that it is less likely that the specialist will not return. To participate in the program, the specialist has to commit to repay the agency its investment or put in three years after the completion of the program. When you consider a year's salary, benefits, training, and travel costs it would take a heck of a job offer to be worth the outlay to repay the agency. I suspect that the businesses that have benefit of the "free" employee are required to sign some type of no poaching agreement.

I believe NASA has a similar program, and I thought that the Air Force did something similar when I worked there years ago. My recollection was that the Air Force's program was primarily geared toward technical disciplines instead of 1102s.

I think the year with industry is a great opportunity to broaden skills but there are a lot of things unique to the Federal Government and rotational assignments within the Government should be explored. Rotations between agencies at least allow the Government to receive the benefit while the specialist is on assignment instead of the deferred benefit that comes when the specialist returns from the time with industry.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, June 06, 2001 - 08:54 pm:

Vern:

I have been dealing with that attitude for 30 years. I think the year with industry would be fun with little real value. If anything, the individual may be asked by industry to stay with them. However, anything to increase exposure with new ideas is a good opportunity.

By formerfed on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 07:44 am:

A simple solution is send a message to new 1102's that broad experience is good for their career. In that matter, 1102's feel free to change jobs and seek wide exposure early in their careers while in the lower grade levels. In those areas throughout the country where federal jobs are dense, mobility below the GS-13 level is generally easy.

One thing that often astonishes me is the frequent lack of personal motivation for many. We seem to promote this idea that it is someone else's job to ensure employee training. Far to many people expect training to appear as their right, without any initiative on their part. It's almost like someone just needs to tell me what to take and when. What seems to be lacking is the simple message that "you are responsible for your own career. If you want to succeed, you need broad exposure. Seek opportunities in other areas, and not just the contracting office but wherever you think is beneficial. Go for details and rotational assignments. Volunteer for projects. Take public speaking. Offer to make presentations. Join NCMA and go to the meetings." Many agencies offer training opportunities that go unused, often because they aren't promoted. For example, agencies often have special programs for advanced degrees or a year assignment in the private sector, but few people take them up.

Perhaps FAI could develop a blueprint for personal success and let every new 1102 have it for guidance. Selling the concept that more and varied experience is essential is key to learning and job performance.

By Roston on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 08:14 am:

Great discussion. Since I'm on my last legs of a career, looking back I think this would be good, but personally difficult. Unless, as has been mentioned, you are in DC, California or other areas that have numerous government and industry opportunities available. It would be very difficult to have to re-locate a young family every 3-5 years.

The comment from Mr. Berkey is particularly on target. Policy Analysts tend to specialize in a few areas and lose sight of their days as Contract Specialists and Contracting Officers. As all regulations and policies flow down, we have to make sense of it all and put it all together.

It would be interesting and probably somewhat comical to see some of the Policy Analysts (from OFPP, OMB and at the higher levels in each Department) struggle to perform the duties of a contract specialist.

By Anonymous on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 10:53 am:

Those who can do, those who can't write policy.

By Charlie Dan on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 11:45 am:

This is a great discussion. I'm seeing a lot of ideas I agree with.

I came into the Government working for the Air Force, in the heyday of the Copper Cap Program. I agree with Vern that it had its flaws, and that both employees and managers gamed the program to their own advantage. Nevertheless, I disagree with Vern as to the ultimate usefulness or value of the Copper Cap Program. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half dozen Copper Cap "graduates" from my own small AF organization who went on to become procurement directors at various contracting activities. One rose to the level of procurement executive for an entire agency -- not the Air Force. In my opinion, the Copper Caps benefited the taxpayer, even when they left the Air Force.

Dave Berkey makes an excellent point - and working in DOE, we have both suffered from ill-conceived policies drafted by people too long removed from the procurement "trenches." That is a fundamental problem with OFPP, as noted in another thread on this forum. In fact, one of my own great learning experiences occurred when I left a DOE HQ procurement policy job for a position with a DOE contractor, and immediately had to implement DOE policies I had recently written. Talk about a reality check!!!!!!

I believe any procurement professional benefits from widening the variety of their experience. Experience in one agency vs. another, buying spare parts vs. construction vs. services vs. R&D, as a contractor vs. a fed, in Washington vs. a field activity, etc., etc., etc. The more different things you do in the contracting field, the more you learn.

Or maybe this is just my personal way of justifying the fact that I haven't been able to hold down a steady job?!

By carol elliott on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 12:13 pm:

Bob,

Please expand on your comment that the year with industry will little real value. I agree that there real differences between government and industry, but both share the need to get the best value for their procurement dollars.

By anon3 on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 12:24 pm:

First, if offices aren't able to retain their 1102s, perhaps they aren't effectively "competing" for them? In an era where much is made over following industry, and new rules are being made over what an 1102 MUST have (interpetations of the law notwithstanding) in order to obtain promotion, it seems to come to a screaching halt when the prospect of some OTHER group, organization, division, whatever, "stealing" the highly qualified. Well, you can't "steal" them, they have to decide that Job A is better than Job B. And if the Air Force is better at getting and retaining the best and brightest than say, the Navy, then maybe the Navy needs to look at why that is and change so that THEY can have the best and brightest.

On the other hand the arguement of specialist versus a generalist is an old one. There are pluses and minuses to both approaches - someone who has a broad knowledge (but less than expertise in any area) vs someone who is an absolute expert (but only in their small niche). It may be that one doesn't need "cross training" to get infusions of different ideas & approaches as much as occasional "cross agency" get togethers at both the higher and lower levels to look at various issues.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 12:30 pm:

Charlie:

How can you disagree with me about the ultimate usefulness or value of the Copper Cap program? I didn't say anything about that. I said the program worked! I'm a former Copper Cap myself and I think it was a great program. I simply pointed out some problems associated with its management.

Come on, Charlie, read a little more carefully!

Vern

By bob antonio on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 12:37 pm:

Formerfed, and all:

Currently, the "Human Capital" issue is the rage in government. I listened to DoD management talking about it last year. All very bright individuals. Then they left with the same issue unresolved. Now, some new very bright individuals will discover the same issue and, at the expiration of their term, leave with it unresolved. It will be left to the rank-and-file to work it out. This is the federal way. Say it cannot be done and move to the next appointment.

From my viewpoint, I rank experience first with career-related formal education (degree) second, and outside activities third.

One of key benefits of my organization is repeated over, and over, and over again by its employees--that is diversity of experience. Our staff may move from one internal organization to another and gain experience on totally different federal programs of totally different agencies. I have done that while continuing in the field of contracting, and to a lesser extent grants and cooperative agreements for my entire career. You can read my biography to see the agencies I have "helped."

If I managed a federal contracting workforce, I would want them to have a diversity of experience. A Department of Energy management and operating contract has little in common with a Federal Supply Service multiple award schedule. The way the National Aeronautics and Space Administration looks at things is a bit different than other agencies. The concession contracts at the National Park Service are a whole different story. The needs of the Small Business Administration's constituents are also important to federal contracting. In addition, managers at different contracting activities have different ways of doing things. You will even deal with contractors from different industries who view the world slightly differently.

So, tell me. Do we want a federal contracting workforce that sits with the same federal supply schedule for 30 years or do we want one that has been given the opportunity for diverse experience?

To avoid the pitfalls that Vern pointed out, we would need some form of central management--at least for some period of time. I don't believe parochial attitudes should decide whether it is done or not. If it improves the contracting workforce's ability to serve the public, then it should be done. I think it could do this in two ways. First, the diversity of experience. You would be more aware of what is out there. Second, I think our contracting workforce would enjoy their work more. Could you imagine the productivity from a happy workforce?

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 12:55 pm:

Bob:

Again, your ideas have a lot of merit. But your most recent comments presume that there is an entity called "the federal government." No such thing exists. There is a Department of the Air Force, a General Services Administration, a Department of the Treasury, a Department of Commerce, etc. Within each of those there are specific offices. You cannot compare your office, the General Accounting Office, to any of those others because the GAO has governmentwide oversight responsibilities. Those other organizations and the contracting offices within them have specific missions.

There is no "federal contracting workforce," although many people (including me) have talked as if such a thing exists. There isn't even a DOD contracting workforce. There is an Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division contracting workforce and a Social Security Administration contracting workforce (although SSA regional directors would argue with you about that) and a GSA Public Building Service contracting workforce, etc.

In order for governmentwide rotational assignments to work you would have to establish a federal contracting workforce management structure with general oversight authority. Good luck. Otherwise, you would have to show the managers of the multitudinous contracting workforces that there is something in it for them, right now, today.

I'm not trying to be discouraging, just realistic.

By bob antonio on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 12:58 pm:

Carol:

I did not see your note when I responded to Vern.

In my opinion, 1 year is too short a time period. Going from industry to government or government to industry is a bit different than going from government agency to government agency in the field of contracting. I would prefer a longer time period. In the course of a 30-year career, I think a longer period could be justified.

For example, managing this site has given me the opportunity to face some issues that a private organization faces. I enjoy the marketing opportunity and the requirement to serve my clients.

By bob antonio on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 01:09 pm:

Vern:

"To avoid the pitfalls that Vern pointed out, we would need some form of central management . . . ." That is my acknowledgement that we do not have a federal contracting workforce organization. I should have been more clear. We did try it before and it failed. So, it would be a major fight.

However, if it improves service to the taxpayer, it should be done. Congress would have to make that determination. When I post a note here, I may have more than the obvious reason for posting.

By george on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 02:34 pm:

Mr. Edwards:

Is it your position, that there is no executive branch of government? Is there not an Office of the President with an Office of Management and Budget?

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, June 07, 2001 - 03:45 pm:

george:

Oh yes, there's an Executive Branch. I know that because it's written in books. But do you believe that the Executive Branch functions as an organic whole?

Do you believe that the Captain in charge of contracts at the Naval Sea Systems Command spends much time worrying about how the Department of Commerce is going to get enough trained contract specialists? Do you believe that the head of contracts at NOAA is willing to spend money training contract specialists in how GSA's Public Building Service awards and administers maintenance contracts for federal court houses?

I don't believe any of those things.

Should agency managers worry about what's going on in other agencies? Should they worry about the future of the "federal contracting workforce"? Well, maybe they should; but I don't believe that they do. (Well, maybe they do in academic settings, executive conferences and so forth.) What I believe they worry about is the things that affect how their boss will appraise their performance. That's what I worried about when I was an agency manager; that's what the agency managers of today that I know worry about.

Interagency rotational assignments sounds like a good idea. I'm sure that many contract specialists would enjoy such assignments and would find them enlightening and career enhancing. Such assignments may even be of benefit to the taxpayers. Sure. But do I believe that most agency chiefs of contracting offices would be excited by the prospect of loosing some of their people, especially their best people, to such assignments?

Nope.

Just like Bob, I like to think and talk about what ought to be. But I have to think about what is.

By bob antonio on Friday, June 08, 2001 - 05:45 am:

Vern:

You hit on the answer. The HCAs and Procurement Executives can be directed through the performance goals in the Senior Executive Service (SES) contracts. If the Executive Office of the President, which includes OMB, decides an issue is important enough, they can influence the contents of those performance contracts. If the contracts are not persuasive, the managers always can be shown the GS-15 slot they they were promoted from and which they can be demoted to.

Although we can make a choir out of the SES, we should not detrimentally affect their ability to perform. I believe a rotational policy can improve the moral and overall contracting knowledge of the contract specialists. However, I do not know if it is the correct thing to do. From notes that I have received, I think that the SES contracting heads will have a more satisfied group of contract specialists.

As I mentioned before, the concept of a Civilian Agency Acquisition Corps was killed years ago. I know longer remember why.

In Washington, there are always brief moments of opportunity. Legislation is enacted that few people have read. Later this year and into next year, the Administration will begin its push for new contracting out policies. As Director Daniels said, that is how he will judge Angela Syles performance in her position. If there is drastic changes in contracting-out policy, there may be an opportunity for central training--or even an organization--for contracting out issues. At least, I expect some type of discussion on it. I know of no one interested in an acquisition corps or any one prepared to propose it. However, stranger things have happened. There will be an important opportunity to affect contracting within the next 20 months because it will be in play.

I apologize if there are typos but I must run.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, June 08, 2001 - 10:54 am:

Bob:

When you talk about a "Civilian Agency Acquisition Corps," are you talking about establishing an independent acquisition agency?

By bob antonio on Friday, June 08, 2001 - 12:29 pm:

Vern:

I really had not given it much thought. The idea has so many potential problem areas and a past record of failure that I only considered it a discussion issue. Do you remember when they tried the old Civilian Agency Acquisition Corps? It floated around in proposed legislation for a while. I would like to know why it never happened. I can no longer remember.

The most important thing is what you have been saying. The head of the contracting activity needs to know he/she will have staff available to get his/her requirements done. I would be concerned with a formal organization that managed contract specialists for their entire careers. If we had one, we would be in a matrix management situation. I consider "matrix management" to be synonymous with bubonic plague, leprosy, lukemia, anthrax, etc.

Here is one possibility off of the top of my head and it does border on fantasy. Actually, it may be fantasy. Congress passes a law creating the authority for central training and management of the contract specialist workforce. They give that authority to the Procurement Executives Council (PEC). The Federal Acquisition Institute--if it ever existed--is given to the PEC along with all other acquisition training programs (definite fantasy). The PEC is required by the law to appoint a team to manage the bodies (the law actually requires the DoD to provide support for managing the bodies) and another team to manage the training. The PEC identifies a 5 year initial rotation period as part of the development process. After the five year period, the individuals are placed in permanent positions based on their displayed competence. They then become part of the contracting activity they are assigned to. The PEC also would have authority to recieve and assist with requests for rotations from one contracting activity to another after the initial five year period. However, my initial feeling would be to use this to keep valuable staff or to solve problems.

I think the concept has the potential to produce a better quality of contract specialist. I am not sure if it would. If it did, it would come at a cost. Maybe some of the cost could be recovered through standard training programs, etc. There will be much initial inefficiency in such an effort. You mentioned that also. For this idea to be truly useful, the longer term benefits would have to outweigh the initial inefficiencies. Any cost/benefit anlysis for this would be speculation.

By Erica on Friday, June 15, 2001 - 09:01 am:

I support rotational assignments, especially for the folks who are implementing policy and designing new programs.

I am often frustrated when new policy and programs are put in place that we (OCONUS) are expected to use. The policy makers don't think the process through in terms of how things OCONUS are different. Or they establish a website for our use - but it won't accept our addresses or phone numbers or e-mails.

I understand that agencies don't want to loose their staff and it might be hard to allow folks time to rotate, but it should be a requirement before implementing programs/policy which affect the DoD civilians and military who are working overseas!

I worked at the same activity for 16 years before moving overseas. I have learned so much in the past 5 years working in two different office - first in Bahrain and now in Naples. I have a more rounded view of the world and I wouldn't trade this experience for anything.

By bob antonio on Friday, June 15, 2001 - 09:24 am:

Erica:

Thanks for adding your thoughts. The more opinions on this subject, the more it may be considered. Have a nice weekend in the city of my mother's ancestors.

By Anonymous on Thursday, July 05, 2001 - 03:04 pm:

I believe there is a de facto rotational program in acquisition. The younger contract specialists stay until the agency they work for slows down on promotions to the next pay grade. They rationally move to an agency with better pay, better benefits, or simply to take advantage of a better commute. In doing so they gain the broad exposure that a rotational assignment provides. I think the agencies' fears about losing staff during a rotational assignment are illegitimate because if there is a better contract position to be had a contract specialist worth her salt will find it whether it is though a rotation or just a simple job hunt. The market for a competent contract specialist is there. Agencies that are afraid of loosing personnel have to open up their wallets, expand benefit programs, and deal with reality.