Certainly some agencies need more funds for training. The issue is whether the training does much real long term good. For almost a decade we have been sending people to training, seminars, brown bag lunches, televised all hands meetings and such with what result? Are failed acquisitions, cost embarrassments and even screwball concepts in individual efforts way down? I've seen little evidence of such effect.

The business section of the Washington Post today in a piece on SARA quotes Mr. Davis as saying "Unfortunately, federal purchasing for complex services such as large-scale IT modernization continues to result in high failure rates for federal agencies." From experience in that area I concluded the problem was not training within the acquisition workforce. The most common failure appears to be inability of the {agency} to discipline itself for a period sufficient to carry out an IT modernization that is frequently resisted within its working divisions.

We, and I personally, have seen well conceived and highly disciplined acquisitions in complex services (IT in particular) degenerate in a flurry of incoherent shifts in strategy and tactics. These are very frequently driven by rear guard efforts to protect turf. They are characterized by contracts that might be said to be dealt death by RFC, almost to the extent we hear of bills on The Hill being dealt death by amendment. The result is usually explosive cost to deliver a cripple.

Workforce training is a good thing. It is not the solution to this problem. The solutions that have been tried and seem to begin showing signs of success seem also doomed to death as a result of the same internal conflicts. A deep running IT modernization treads on many toes. Discipline must accompany training. Experience shows almost no agencies have that long term discipline from within. Most will resist, even kill, proven methods because the medicine can be bitter.

By joel hoffman on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 06:52 pm:

Begging Vern Edward's forgiveness, I've taken the liberty of placing his 3/11/2002 comments, here:

"Sec. 102 would establish an acquisition workforce training fund. Subparagraph (b)(2) would require the GSA to establish a workforce training fund "in support of acquisition workforce training across executive agencies other than the Department of Defense." The fund would be "managed by the Federal Acquisition Institute." The subparagraph goes on to say that the money would come from "5 percent of the fees collected by executive agencies" under task and delivery order contracts, GWACs, MAACs and GSA FSS contracts. A reference to Title 10 suggests that DOD would be one of the "executive agencies" that must contribute to the fund, although it would receive no benefit. If that's true, then the new law might affect DOD's behavior with regard to such contracts. DOD is almost certain to oppose this provision. Nor will it want to have any part of its training funds controlled by the Federal Acquisition Institute. This bill would do nothing to improve training for the biggest acquisition workforce of all.

I doubt that the Government-industry exchange program that would be created by Sec. 103 would be of much overall benefit to the taxpayer, although it would certainly benefit some individuals. Such ideas almost invariably sound better than they turn out to be. This one would almost certainly result in the loss of some of the government's better GS-11s, 12s, and 13s to industry. (The new employer would simply pay the amount that the civil servant would owe upon early departure from the government. That amount would be less than the cost of recruiting, training and developing someone with similar expertise in government acquistion practices.) I can only imagine how chiefs of contracting offices will react to the prospect of losing one of their best employees to a one-year detail, with no guarantee of being able to get them back. I doubt that most such managers will consider the program to be beneficial to their own organizations, except in the most theoretical and altruistic sense.

SARA does not reflect any deep thinking about the nature of services or the various types of services, nor does it address the real challenges of services acquisition. Thus, SARA will not do much to improve the quality of the services that the government receives. Although good intentions are in evidence, the bill is not going to accomplish much of real value, unless you think that writing legislation is an accomplishment."

By Anon2U on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 10:57 pm:

I was hired off the street into contracting and was a career change for me. While I am considered very competent in my duties, I would not have been able to make a single competent decision without a full set of training courses. I took many DAU and GW/ESI courses and supplemented them by getting my MBA with an emphesis in contracting.

My agency had the funds to send me to all the courses required for me to attain my CO certification(the MBA was on me via GI bill). What if I was in an agency that does not have training funds (poor planning in my opinion). How can any of their employees possibly do their jobs.

The agency has hired almost no one lately that does not need almost every class including Con 101. There does not appear to be any highly trained personnel out looking for work. They are happy where they are or they are retiring.

In order to get new blood into the work force, there will have to be a lot of training and a lot of money for training.

By the way, I am always stating that I believe contracting has gotten so complicated, with you experts arguing over every aspect, that no one with less than a 130 IQ can comprehend the rules and regs anymore. It has to be simplified for a more and more inexperienced work force.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:04 am:

We need more and better training, no question about it. But more and better training is not enough. We need each and every acquisition professional to make a personal commitment to self-education and self-development. We need for them to take the FAR home in the evening and on weekends and read it. We need for them to read books like Formation of Government Contracts and Administration of Government Contracts and other pertinent books, like Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. We need for them to look up GAO, board, and court decisions and read them. We need for them to insist that their agencies subscribe to publications like Federal Contracts Report and the The Nash and Cibinic Report and we need for them to read those publications regularly and even write for them and for Wifcon. We need for them to join NCMA.

You can't make good contracting officers by sending them to training courses as if those courses were contracting officer factories. A training course about a subject is just the beginning of the road to knowledge about that subject. Training points you in a direction (unfortunately, the wrong direction as often as not); learning begins after the training course, in the privacy of one's own mind and in conversation and debate with one's professional colleagues.

By Anon on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:28 am:

Vern, wouldn't such a training regimen be better applied to members of Congress who are constantly "reforming" Federal acquisition. No matter how much training a procurement professional gets, what good is it when the yahoos on the hill keep changing the rules?

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 10:16 am:

Anon:

Good point. The rules have been changing too often and too quickly. In FY2001 the FAR was changed on an average of once a month. If you buy the little CCH paperback FAR as soon as it comes out it's out of date by the time you get it. We're already into FAC 2001-05, plus one correction, and many more FACs are in the mill.

But what's worse than the frequency of change is the quality of change. SARA is a bad bill for several reasons, even though it tries to do some good things. Congress is trying to fix acquisition by micromanagement through legislation and the legislation is restricting the executive branch's ability to adjust. For example, while contracting for performance is a good idea, the FAR definition of performance-based contracting--with its emphasis on objective and measurable specification of services--is making it hard for agencies to comply with the policy. And Congress has made that definition statutory for DOD. SARA would make it statutory for all agencies. Congress has jumped on the bandwagon without doing the necessary research and thinking.

The notion that performance-based contracting is common in the commercial sector is a laugh, if by performance-based contracting you mean the definition in FAR 2.101. But almost everybody who talks or writes about performance-based contracting starts out by telling that lie.

By anon52 on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 10:17 am:

Congress changes the rules for several reasons, one being that they aren't satisfied with the workforce's performance. Part of that problem is that Congress wants to force a system that is distinctly different than true commercial contracting through a hole meant for commercial contracting practices. They talk through both sides of their mouth at the same time.

The Federal Government has different goals, objectives and public constituencies to serve than do commercial firms. Look at the number of Statutes and contract clauses dedicated to social objectives, free and open competition, etc.

By Dave Barnett on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 10:46 am:

Anon, Vern, good points. I agree the Federal procurement specialist has got to keep up with the FAR, as it is changed, and that can be a bother for many, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE. With respect to the changes made by Congress, the FARC and DARC...if its a matter of being dissatisfied with the work product, how can they expect changes by constantly changing the rules. Isn't a stable business environment conducive towards better business practices? Then again, I may be an idiot as my teenaged kids think. Simplification/streamlining is a (dare I say?) joke. My friends in this business agree, the FAR is getting harder to comprehend and this isn't something one would expect from people who are supposedly gaining experience in this field, rather one would expect such people to more firmly grasp the rules. There still exist questions regarding the test program promulgated in FAR 13.5...why is the term "offers" used when simplified acquisition procedures indicate that "quotes" are requested, why is a "test" program going on for multiple years...either it's working or it isn't...what's going on here?

Yes, at times I find myself getting frustrated with this whole darn thing...

By Anon2U on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 11:59 pm:

Yes frustration is setting in and we have lost many good contracting professionals to other career fields. They saw a more simple, stable job awaiting them in one of the program offices and at my agency, changing career fields is fairly easy as long as you impress someone in the other office. Note however, there is no line of people trying to switch to contracting even with our fairly high pay grades.

By anon3 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 11:28 am:

We need more and better training, no question about it. But more and better training is not enough. We need each and every acquisition professional to make a personal commitment to self-education and self-development. We need for them to take the FAR home in the evening and on weekends and read it….. to insist that their agencies subscribe to publications like Federal Contracts Report and the The Nash and Cibinic Report and we need for them to read those publications regularly and even write for them and for Wifcon. We need for them to join NCMA.


== We have Government engineers of all types, some of whom are responsible for significantly important designs, etc. In each case, it is the GOVT that pays for their seminars, continuing education, etc. When it comes to procurement folk though, there seems to be a sudden expectation that these folk should do it on their own, including after hours. Regarding after hours, some people like to have a life.
The Government should PAY and PROVIDE for what it wants – that’s how it works in real life, although it may not seem like it. Let’s take a doctor. They go thru college, including some “hands on” stuff. They graduate and thereafter, their continuing education is their responsibility. So far, Vern’s position sounds like the correct one. HOWEVER, who really pays for that doctor’s education? One way or the other, his/her patients do – the cost of medical seminars, subscriptions, etc are INCLUDED in your medical bills (usually as part of the “overhead”). In other words, if a patient wants the best, most knowledgeable doctor, they are going to PAY for that continuing education and knowledge. A doctor is not penalized if, during a slack period, they sit down and read a medical magazine. Contracting folk have gotten in trouble for “wasting time” reading contracting publications or visiting sites like Wifcon. The argument that folk should spend serious off duty time keeping up with what’s going on would be more realistic if those that did then PERFORMED better (a doctor is judged as much on performance as on what classes they went to) and then got rewarded. Doesn’t happen consistently. I agree that good quality education and keeping up is highly valuable. But for the vast majority, the reward for doing that is not to be found in the Government. You can’t make good contracting officers by having mandatory classes and demanding that the individual is responsible for taking their own time, transportation and funding to get them – now and in the future while at the same time refusing parity in pay. And assuming that classes/education should be put ahead of performance is not a proven method to achieve quality.

By Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 06:22 pm:

Only problem with keeping up with professional development at home is that we have to stay at work so late to keep up or bring it home to prepare / research real work. Forget about taking care of laundry, dishes, medical appointments, and of course, the children that our job helps us support.

This stuff is fascinating and I enjoy thinking about it on my own time (at home now) but normal people around me are able to separate job from life.

Anonymous of course, since this is such blatant whining.

By ASK on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 02:19 pm:

Re: Vern Edwards'comment of 3/12 9:04 am : would you provide a recommended basic (or comprehensive) bibliography of works that all Federal government contracts people ought to be familiar with? It would be a good addition to Wifcon, or wherever it was posted.

By formerfed on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 03:26 pm:

I personally think training for the sake of training is a waste of time and money. Too many people can sit through courses, absorb little, and expect promotions because they are "qualified".

I totally agree with Vern's comments about people need to be motivated on their own and "...need each and every acquisition professional to make a personal commitment to self-education and self-development. We need for them to take the FAR home in the evening and on weekends and read it. We need for them to read books like Formation of Government Contracts and Administration of Government Contracts and other pertinent books, like Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. We need for them to look up GAO, board, and court decisions and read them. We need for them to insist that their agencies subscribe to publications like Federal Contracts Report and the The Nash and Cibinic Report and we need for them to read those publications regularly and even write for them and for Wifcon. We need for them to join NCMA...."

What's really needed is more effort in recruiting the right type of people that want to do all that naturally. By that, I mean obtaining people with the "raw" talent that want to work in procurement, that are eager to learn, that love to be challenged, and actually enjoy procurement. Some people find it hard to believe that a person can find GAO decisions intriguing or that they spend time reading a textbook instead of watching TV.

Sure there are lots of changes, and perhaps too many. But anyone interested in procurement doesn't often get surprised by what's appears in the FAR. Rather they follow events leading up to the FAR cahnge.

Training is good, but the cookie cutter approach where everybody must check off completion of all the courses on the list is a waste. Training dollars should go to making actual improvements in skills.

What really is needed is a recognition that special individuals are needed to be an 1102. Not everyone is cut out to do it, and requiring mandatory training will make competent Contracting Officers out of everyone. Recruitment must focus on identifying the right people, and training is more that taking clasess. Rather it is concerned with development, and that a key component is self development.

By bob antonio on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 03:45 pm:

OK formerfed:

When can I expect an article on a contracting subject from you?

By formerfed on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 03:52 pm:

uh,uh,uh...well,uh...

Okay, I'll do something. Maybe I could come up with ideas on this subject that might have an impact.

By Benthere Donit on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 06:33 pm:

I do not intend to pick on "anon3" and certainly understand the views. I am using the two quotes simply to introduce a contention. I expect flak, but I think something needs to be said about professional decline -- the search words I used to get the further quotes.

"Contracting folk have gotten in trouble for 'wasting time' reading contracting publications or visiting sites like Wifcon."

"Regarding after hours, some people like to have a life."

anon3

"Partially responsible for this decline, I suspect, is a decline in professionalism. Dean Roscoe Pound said that a profession is 'a group . . . pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service--no less a public service because it may incidentally be a means of livelihood.'" [Sandra Day O'Connor]

In my experience there is a question of professionalism in this issue. People are too frequently not treated as professionals as shown in the first quote. The response is to get unprofessional results. Professionals too "like to have a life." They also do not walk away from their job site and leave it all behind. An old fashioned definition of the word would tend to indicate a person who is interested in the discipline, works at gaining knowledge and applied skills and only somewhere down the list thinks in terms of payment. To a considerable degree their profession was their life. The result of a modern redefinition is what Justice O'Connor notes.

"The concept of professionalism has become quite fuzzy in modern America. Unfortunately, its most common meaning today is drawn from the world of sports, where "professionalism" is measured by the amount of the money one is paid for applying his or her skills. A cash-on-delivery definition of a "professional" is good enough for a group that wears short pants and plays children's games as a public diversion from the problems of society." [Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, Burley B. Mitchell, Jr. at the Norma Adrian Wiggins School of Law Campbell University Hooding Ceremony Sunday, May 10, 1998 with reference to lawyers]

"Professions have several characteristics. One of them, expertise, is currently assumed to be the defining element: The more expertise, the better state the profession is in. . . . For becoming a nurse, professor, lawyer or doctor is not about acquiring a bunch of expert tricks [my emphasis] but about becoming a certain sort of person with certain virtues. [Work Without Virtue, Or The Decline of Professionalism by Digby Anderson, director of the Social Affairs Unit, a London Think Tank, London with reference to nursing]

Vern Edwards proposes a course of action a professional of the old school would instinctively follow. My father, a fairly lowly paid minister, had a library and read theology after visiting shut-ins, the sick, those who had just lost a spouse and all those other duties making up a day composed of much more than eight hours "work." He read them on vacations. One of his close friends, a doctor, ended his evenings smoking his pipe and reading medical journals. Another friend, a judge, had similar habits. These were their interests, not a job. Those were also classic professions pictured more than forty years ago. Still, a person with the professional title was never someone who only thought in the profession during paid hours.

I found in the search on the words "professional" and "decline" many more speeches and papers on the subject. I'm afraid the termite in this wood is a degradation of the concept of professional among individuals and a lack of willingness to treat even true professionals as people of trust entitled to spend time "reading contracting publications or visiting sites like Wifcon."

If the Congress and the Executive desire professional levels of performance they will have to find ways of "recruiting the right type of people that want to do all that naturally" [formerfed] and then retaining them without crushing the professionalism from them. That is not going to be done with training (dogs can be trained, its no way to create a professional), rigid workplace rules and lack of opportunity to advance.

A problem the government has not quite solved is maintaining a WB/GS mentality where the GS end descends from the day when everyone in a government office was a "government clerk." Some surprising people doing amazing jobs in 1942 Washington were so designated, including the highly professional code breakers. Better legislation addressing long term problems might focus on how to create professional environment and recreate professional behavior than on mere training. Effective service contracting is complex. It will be benefited by professional rather than trained knowledge, skills and attitudes.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 08:08 pm:

There aren't as many books about government contracting as there once were. One reason is the demise of the foremost publisher of such books, Federal Publications, Inc., which was bought by West Publishing, which let its government contracts publications go out of print. Books devoted to government contracting are hard to come by for several reasons:

First, the rules about contracting change so frequently that books go out of date quickly. For any topic in which there is enough general interest to justify a book, the book will be out of date by the time it's been written, edited, published and distributed.

Second, people in contracting are not willing to buy many professional books with their own money, so sales are usually to organizations rather than to individuals. The resultant low sales volume results in high prices. Most books devoted to government contracting sell for between $80 to $120 dollars.

Third, people who work in contracting don't or can't write. Bob Antonio will confirm that. (Formerfed, we'll be looking forward to that article.) Most articles about contracting are written by lawyers and consultants. As a result, there are few practical how-to books.

All that having been said, here are some basic recommendations. I will not reference government publications, since they are generally well-known and obtainable over the Internet.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS LAW

Formation of Government Contracts, 3d ed., and Administration of Government Contracts, 3d ed., by John Cibinic, Jr. and Ralph C. Nash, Jr., which are published by The George Washington University Law School, 1998. These are the most famous books ever written about government contracting and they provide the reader with a basic legal educationn in the law of government contracts. But they are legal textbooks, not practical how-to books.

The Government Contracts Reference Book: A Comprehensive Guide to the Language of Procurement, 2d ed., by Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Steven L. Schooner, and Karen R. O'Brien. Also published by the GWU Law School. This is an essential desk reference.

Those three books are available from Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Their website is http://www.cch.com.

COST ESTIMATING AND PRICING

Most books about pricing discuss how to set prices, rather than how to analyze them. But I think that the beginning of wisdom when it comes to cost or price analysis is learning about how firms estimate costs and set prices. Here about five useful books about how to estimate costs and set prices; however, they do not address government pricing rules, policies or procedures, e.g., the Truth in Negotiations Act or the cost accounting standards.

Cost Estimating, 2d ed., by Rodney D. Stewart. Published by Wiley-Interscience. This is simply the best general introduction on cost estimating.

Engineering Cost Estimating, 3d ed., by Phillip F. Oswald. Published by Prentice-Hall. A more technical work than Stewart's book. Mostly high school math, but some statistics and a very little calculus.

The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Profitable Decision Making, by Thomas T. Nagle. (This may be in a second edition, but I'm not sure.) Published by Prentice-Hall. A good introductory text.

Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2d ed., by Kent B. Monroe. Published by McGraw-Hill. A more advanced text than Nagle's. High school level math.

Modern Cost Management & Analysis. by Jae K. Shim and Joel G. Siegel. Published by Barron's. A good overview of business practices and techniques. High school level math.

By bob antonio on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 08:16 am:

Vern:

You did not mention another book that I will add to the list. It is entitled the Source Selection Answer Book," by Vernon J. Edwards, Published by Management Concepts, Inc.

http://www.managementconcepts.com/publications/
acquisition/sourceselect.asp

Anyone wishing to view other books by that author can check the amazon.com site.

After reviewing the Steve Schooner articles that are available on the Analysis page, I would recommend his writings also. They are thoughtful and nicely researched with excellent and numerous footnotes. I need not say anything more about the Cibinic and Nash books. If you are in federal contracting, you have used the products of those two fellows and the dedicated researchers at the George Washington University.

In regard to writing articles for wifcon.com, you are correct. It is like pulling teeth trying to get individuals to write articles. I have no idea why it is so difficult. The articles you have written are accessed every day of every year they are on this site. The only reason I have not written more is because the maintenance of this site takes most of my free time.

By anon3 on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 11:25 am:

Benthere donit: posted some interesting comments: “ Partially responsible for this decline, I suspect, is a decline in professionalism. Dean Roscoe Pound said that a profession is 'a group . . . pursuing a learned art as a common calling in the spirit of public service--no less a public service because it may incidentally be a means of livelihood.'" [Sandra Day O'Connor]” – IMO this is an opinion expressed by someone who does not have to make a living. The concept of “Gentlemen” who pursue art as a “calling” is based on an old system of inherited wealth. It is true that a number of people will take a job that pays less than another because they like the one better, but the only people who work for no pay are those who can afford to do so. The idea that one does something ‘for the love of it” is based on an old religious dogma that money was evil and really has nothing to do with “professional” behavior. For long hours, extensive knowledge and low payment, one could use the example of a sheepherder (has to know livestock behavior, a fairly sound basic veterinary care, weather, terrain, feed, and management). This is not a job considered “professional” in the US (it is, however, in other countries) –because the education seldom comes from books (though some of it can) and the pay is exceedingly low.

“In my experience there is a question of professionalism in this issue. People are too frequently not treated as professionals.” – lots of lip service and fancy words have been given to the concept, but it all comes down to the idea that you get respect when you treat others with respect. Companies that have no loyalty to their employees either in benefits, treatment on the job or in job security / promotion can not expect to get it FROM their employees.

“An old fashioned definition of the word would tend to indicate a person who is interested in the discipline, works at gaining knowledge and applied skills and only somewhere down the list thinks in terms of payment.” – actually, that is what I would call a hobbyist. While people volunteer due to beliefs about moral or civic duty, the attrition rate in volunteerism is high. Professionals generally expect to get PAID for what they do, and to be paid well. If Doctors were all altruists working at gaining knowledge, etc, you’d see a lot more top quality surgeons, etc taking permanent residence at places like Indian Reservations. Instead, you have “doctors without borders” and other groups because you CAN’T get the professionals to stay there on a full-time basis because there isn’t enough money in it.

“ For becoming a nurse, professor, lawyer or doctor is not about acquiring a bunch of expert tricks [my emphasis] but about becoming a certain sort of person with certain virtues.” - and which virtues would these be as opposed to a fisherman? (dangerous job, long hours, skill required). This returns us to the concept that some jobs are more “virtuous” than others rather than recognizing that the reality is that some are of more economic importance or have more life/death criticality.

“These were their interests, not a job.” – again, it’s delightful when one has a job that one loves. However, loving the job does not make it a profession. I am still searching for evidence that Mayo clinic type doctors regularly drop their high-paying “jobs” to continue their professions in slums and low-income areas. One does occasionally find doctors who do this on a VOLUTEER basis – but not full-time.

If the Congress and the Executive desire professional levels of performance they will have to find ways of "recruiting the right type of people that want to do all that naturally" [formerfed]—IMO they will have to find ways to treat these people professionally (which means professional level pay and respect) in which case the adage “if you build it they will come” will apply.

and then retaining them without crushing the professionalism from them. That is not going to be done with training (dogs can be trained, its no way to create a professional), rigid workplace rules and lack of opportunity to advance.
actually, I suspect you have never had your life depend on the professionalism of a Search and Rescue dog or a Guide dog, nor ever had a military service dog save you. The thing is, that these dogs only work so when properly TRAINED and treated with respect. The handler can’t be micromanaging a dog that does this kind of work, and they can’t mistreat it. Strangely, the same seems to apply to people. You have to educate (train them) and treat them with respect and trust to get the best out of them.

“ Second, people in contracting are not willing to buy many professional books with their own money, …. Most books devoted to government contracting sell for between $80 to $120 dollars. “ – Exactly. They would rather spend it on the electric bill.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 - 11:16 pm:

A recent participant in a pilot test of DAU's online CON101 training course, which is billed as the basic training for DOD acquisition professionals, says

WOOF! WOOF! WOOF!

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 12:09 pm:

After reading some of the recent comments, I can only conclude that to some folks contracting is a job, not a profession. So be it.

By Dave Barnett on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 01:01 pm:

Some work to live; some live to work...

By Fred Weatherill on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 05:48 pm:

I am going to take a somewhat different tack in this discussion about training, professionalism, and reform.

The Federal Acquisition Regulations are just that, “federal”. The laws, and the regulations that follow are the creations of the Congress. That means that the FPR is a “political” document. It is an instrument of legislative will, and special interest. In spite of its pretence to the contrary, it is not how real buyers in the real world conduct acquisitions. It is also not how real people in the real market place conduct their business. Who of us has ever said, “this is the way we do it at the office, I’ll try it at home tonight.” Because what we are asked to do is not “reality” based, we must put an inordinate amount of training into novice contracting officers. Federal contracting is not the native tongue of anyone; it is Esperanto.

The regulations are not about what we think is effective, or even practical. Reforming regulations is about “doing something”. Reformers of acquisition continue to perpetuate the mistake of the Progressives of the early twentieth century. Faced with wide spread corruption they had a choice to make. Do they seek better men to run the government or do they seek better processes that operate independently of human nature. Unlike the Founding Fathers who believed that better men made for a better society, and thus public education. The Progressives put their faith in process. Process would keep human nature in check. Process would eliminate the need for independent decision making with all its attendant chances for error. Process was to bring predictability of results, and regularity of outcome. Faith in process leads to ever more process. The more process the greater the need for regulation. Over time, we become like Confucian and Scholastic scholars. We spend more and more time interpreting layers upon layers of arcane, incoherent, and archaic regulations.

Some of the Wifcon commentators have suggested that, in the name of professionalism, we personally embrace what is, ultimately, a body of thought disconnected from the outside world. Except for having to complete a project, why would any sane person ever consider taking this into his own home? Legislative calls for more training and more professionalism are really attempts to create error free government. That Holy Grail does not exist, but the quest goes on.

The regulation reformers are like hot house gardeners breeding and cross breeding ever more exotic orchids. We, contracting officers, are workers in the hot house who laboriously tend the plants.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 07:49 pm:

Gosh, Fred, that's sort of poetic ("Esperanto," "exotic orchids".) It's also angry and bitter.

Many contracting officers do work that is important and interesting.

By formerfed on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 08:21 am:

Fred,

I see the procurement field as extremely interesting and challenging, and the degree of independence I had, coupled with the responsibility dwarfed most contracting counterparts in the industry sector.

The procurement field is a wonderful mix of law, accounting, business, and communication. You need to be versed in so many different things. The assignments I had involved acquiring aircraft, boats, weapon systems, electronic surveillnace systems, construction projects overseas, and a wide variety of professional services that span just about everything. In some cases the authority I had and the ability to make decisions on my own actually sacres me reflecting back. I know of very few, if any, of my friends who had the same experiences outside the government.

I was was fortunate to work at a number of places across the country where I gained valuable experience and bosses pushed me to try new things and take on new assignments. Sure, the regulations are complex and difficult to understand at times, but I learned how to research things and sort my way through. After some years, I became comfortable with them.

In most situations a government Contracting Officer has a rewarding and exciting job. In my earlier post, I tried to say that a Contracting Officer requires an almost unique blend of knowledge, skills, and abilities, and that we need to recognize that in recruiting and developing people in the positions. There are too many 1102's that found themselves in the field for a variety of the wrong reasons. Too many of those can't or won't turn into someone who can think, act, or perform the way we expect a Contracting Officer to be.

My concern is some people believe training is the answer and that if everyone attended all the required courses, they then becomes the ideal CO.
A Contracting Officer needs certain things that can't be taught by merely attending courses. For starters, they must be self motivators, and want to learn on their own as several of the prior contributors stated much better than I did. If the interest in the field isn't there, taking courses won't help.

By anon3 on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 11:14 am:

Vern wrote: After reading some of the recent comments, I can only conclude that to some folks contracting is a job, not a profession
== First, one can be “professional” about something one considers a job. To me, “professionalism” is a desire to give fair value for fair pay, to perform in an honest, complete fashion in getting “the job done”. One does not have to love something to be a professional at it. Neither is it required for the individual to work for unrealistically inadequate benefits nor in unrealistically unreasonable environments. The ultimate extreme of that is voluntary slavery. In an era where most folk spend a fair amount of time commuting to their place of work, more hours per year than MOST other countries require or expect their workers (who, strangely, are not thereby “nonprofessional” nor incompetent), expecting a person to spend an additional 20 or more hours a week to “finish the job” or “self-educate” is neither reasonable nor realistic. If we are talking 2 or so, fine. If we are talking 20 on the rare occasion, fine. Expecting people to do 60 hours regularly for 40 hours pay is not reasonable and you aren’t going to get it. Whining that these people are thereby “unprofessional” isn’t going to change that. Professionalism, IMO, is not dictated by the number of hours you spend working. It is dictated by what you do on the hours you DO work.


Fred wrote: The regulations are not about what we think is effective, or even practical. Reforming regulations is about “doing something”. …. Do they seek better men to run the government or do they seek better processes that operate independently of human nature. ….. Process would keep human nature in check. Process would eliminate the need for independent decision making with all its attendant chances for error. Process was to bring predictability of results, and regularity of outcome. Faith in process leads to ever more process. The more process the greater the need for regulation.
== yes. Faced with a small but highly visible case of incorrect pricing (the infamous “hammer”, etc), the answer wasn’t to educate the employees, nor was it to provide guidance on QUESTIONING superior’s directions to “JUST BUY IT”, nor yet to support those who were “whistle-blowers”. The answer was a pile of regulation to “prevent the problem” which also made it much more difficult to buy things rationally. I have yet to get a coherent answer as to why “IT” needs to be treated like such an exotic item. Yes, the computer market is volatile, yes there were cases where “the newest, latest & greatest” were bought every 6 months and the cost to the Govt. was high. So is the cost of the paperwork needed to justify buying anything that has a computer chip in it – regardless of function. Did the Clinger-Cohen solve improper buys of computers or waste? Did the cost of it’s implementation offset the savings?


Fred wrote: Over time, we become like Confucian and Scholastic scholars. We spend more and more time interpreting layers upon layers of arcane, incoherent, and archaic regulations.
== and over time, the management becomes less willing to think “outside the box” so that true innovation and creativity is often squashed rather than allowed to solve problems. For every FAR regulation, a DFARS and a dozen lower level regulations are generally added, each with their own additional restrictions and policy about what can or can’t be done.

Vern: Many contracting officers do work that is important and interesting.
== probably so. But the fact that the Government has a problem in keeping and obtaining people who meet it’s qualifications would rather indicate that something is wrong in Paradise.

I take my job seriously. I try to ensure that we get what we need in the best possible way and that the administration of contracts is as easy and efficient as possible. I have had the joy of solving difficult procurement problems in innovative and creative ways. I have also seen innovative, creative and KNOWLEDGEABLE people crushed because their approach did not happen to match that of the “status quo”. I have seen qualified PROFESSIONAL people who cared leave because they were tired of fighting the system in an endless “no win” battle. I have seen qualified, knowledgeable, SKILLED and highly appreciated folk denied the possibility of promotion or advancement because they didn’t have certain pieces of paper and where the training budget was $0.00. Just recently, my activity was informed that any travel related to training was “our” responsibility.

Again, if you treat your folk with RESPECT, you get it. You don’t, and complaining that the results aren’t “professional” won’t help.

By Anonymous on Thursday, March 21, 2002 - 08:41 pm:

If you are a self starter, efficient, knowledgable, and have good people skills, you make some good contracts and task orders within your 40 hours. Then, they give you more because you are so good. Then, they heep on extra details and meetings because they "know you can handle it". Soon, here comes the career broadening opportunity to some really bad tasking that they couldn't get anyone else to do.

Within two years, your contracts are as late as the ones being worked by less efficient personnel, you have no time for contract administration, you have more to administer because you made more, and people who depend on your extra details start pressuring you to help them.

You still want to do a good job so you start working overtime. You have less time at home and you skip some sleep. Now you are tired and feel sick. You gain weight from lack of exercise. Within three years you feel terrible, look terrible and are ready for a nervous breakdown.

Am I sniveling. You bet. Can you say no to the extra work? Sure, at the risk of getting an fully satisfactory evaluation versus an outstanding. Sure, if you never want to get the next promotion. I realize this applies to all career fields not just contracting.

I still love my job and my personality is to push ahead in spite of what is wrong. But most of my co-workers have gone into a shell and hide in their cubes all day. If I look at the contracts and detail rosters from 10 years ago (yeah we have such a mess that I found some), my peers were energetic and ambitious. But now, they are either in another career field, or in their cubes - burn out victims. And it seems to me that this affects contracting more than many other fields.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 09:05 am:

anon3:

What is your point? Are you saying that if you are not treated well by your employer then you needn't have the self-respect to undertake self-improvement and self-initiated professional development?

If you aren't being treated well, then quit and go work somewhere else. If you are good at what you do, you can get a better job.

If I were working in a place that was as bad as you and Anonymous of 3/21 at 8:41 have described, I would be out of there in a heartbeat, knowing that I can get a better job. I have at least that much self-respect. I'm very good at what I do; if I don't get RESPECT then I'm gone.

You're right, Anon of 3/21--you're sniveling.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 09:15 am:

anon3:

And another thing--a profession is what you are, not just what you do.

The difference between a job and a profession is that a professional is still a professional even when unemployed. A professional takes his professionalism with him. It's not your employer's responsibility to make a professional out of you, it's your responsibility to make a professional out of yourself. Medical practices do not make doctors and law firms do not make lawyers--they hire them. The same goes for architects, teachers, nurses, engineers and the other professions.

Contracting people like to be called professionals. I know I do. But if that's what I want to be, then I have to BE professional.

By anon3 on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 11:27 am:

Per Vern, a doctor that doesn't practice medicine is still a "professional", although he doesn’t really explain why. Nor does he really explain why a doctor is ”professional” and other careers might not be. From the distinctions I’ve seen, it’s largely based on the amount of education required to obtain expertise in the “job” and the amount of money it pays. Nurses were not originally considered “professionals” because they were just “doctor’s helpers”. It was much later historically that nursing has come to be considered a “profession”. The difference between an amateur ice skater and a professional is? And how does a “professional” football player compare to the college player? If it is not that the one is supposedly making a living off their “job” and the other isn’t, please be so kind as to provide the distinction. Does the one suddenly have certain morals and other attributes that didn’t exist prior to their becoming “pro”? Tiger Woods is a pro (and he takes his job pretty seriously) – would he be a pro if he weren’t playing for money but just the “love of golf?” If so, is every duffer thereby a pro? You ask "why not leave?" - well, perhaps it's because of that sense of moral and civic obligation I mentioned -- to leave would abandon those who have nothing to do with the problems but who depend on good contracting. That doesn't make me one iota less angry about a situation that doesn't have to exist and shouldn't exist. It is not my employer's responsibility to "make a professional" out of me (although you have yet to define what a professional is adequately enough that one can determine clearly what is/or isn't a "professional" position)-- It IS their responsibility to give me adequate tools for the job I do and to provide me with a reasonable job environment in which to do that job. When they don't, when instead one encounters processes that don't work and which the management KNOWS doesn't work. Tools and products that don't work(like "APADE" and "SPS" which both have been the subject of investigations or worse, like the Marine cover-up on their vstol aircraft or the "O" ring fiasco with Challenger) and which nevertheless, any feedback on change/improvment is a sure ticket to a "poor team player" evaluation, folk leave. They don't leave because they suddenly become unprofessional. They leave because they find that "you can't get there from here".

I have friends and relatives who are nurses. And one of the critical issues with nurses is that there aren't enough of them because the "JOB" doesn't pay enough for the required skills and hours. Same for teachers. So you are right, employers don't "make" professionals, they hire them -- and if they don't treat them with respect, those folk don't stay.

By Benthere Donit on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 02:24 pm:

Comments above clearly demonstrate the attitudes that have brought about a decline of professionalism. One of the references I found pointed out that the term has become wrapped in the sports definition that a professional is one who gets paid for what others do for fun. That is a relatively new definition that has damaged the concept.

Anon3 contends no one has defined "professional." It is obvious that a once commonly accepted view has vanished. Vern Edwards has in fact provided a good one: "The difference between a job and a profession is that a professional is still a professional even when unemployed. A professional takes his professionalism with him. It's not your employer's responsibility to make a professional out of you, it's your responsibility to make a professional out of yourself." Social changes since the early 1960s in particular have tended to disparage "elites" and the result can be seen in this discussion.

Much has been written lately about the dilution of higher education's requirements over the same period. People used to "flunk out" with considerable regularity when they did not meet standards that were sometimes arbitrary and more generally based on an acceptable level of knowledge in a subject. Yes, a professional then was someone who had documented mastery of a particular knowledge field. People had reasonable expectations the person with degrees in that field had a generally accepted knowledge base that allowed them to perform in the specialty. Now we have sometimes see very shallow, even empty, degrees.

As an example, I once had a younger "professional" with a Master's who challenged my words in a memo. They weren't "big" words. They were precise words. I was approached, in a somewhat insulting manner, with proposed changes and to explain what I meant. I was shocked that I had to pull a dictionary and give a little tutorial on why my wording was precise and their's would have led someone with a dictionary or word precision to a conclusion different from the one we both intended. I had a "credentialed professional" that did not know words a college sophomore at my school and time could not have ignored without eventual departure minus a degree. Now, as we "graybeards" were strongly encouraged to depart and make room, we had someone moving up in government who did not understand plain English.

I use these as examples of a general problem. In an effort to right some very obvious wrongs our society "threw the baby out with the bath water." It was wrong that a person wearing a coat and tie would be treated very differently than one wearing bib overalls when stopped for a traffic violation. It was wrong that so many students from better off homes attended college with college level ability, even interest, when those from poor or minority homes who were highly qualified were nearly excluded. It was wrong to disparage the necessary work of a fireman, sheep herder or welder because they did not learn from books.

In trying to right those wrongs we tended to quit using higher education as a test of one's ability to master a defined knowledge base. Outside the hard sciences (sometimes in them) it is difficult to certainly match a degree with what a person might really know in the subject. It is not just in the government. I've nearly quit going to medical doctors for that reason -- a couple of near disasters based on gaps in what they should have known made me highly suspicious of current credentials.

There are worthy jobs. There are worthy professions. There are differences. Go back to "The difference between a job and a profession is that a professional is still a professional even when unemployed. A professional takes his professionalism with him. It's not your employer's responsibility to make a professional out of you, it's your responsibility to make a professional out of yourself." You invest the time and money to become recognized as having a certain body of knowledge. You provide yourself with the tools to work in that field and expect to make a living doing so. You, not your employer, provide the motivation to keep current in the field and will do so even if the immediate job no longer exists. You have certain standards of the profession that you will not compromise for pay -- you leave.

That last has also has been compromised. We've seen too many lawyers, doctors and other "professionals" complicit in employer's anti professional conduct. Too many have not been "out of there in a heartbeat." We have too many employers who do not treat professional performance as professional and too many so called professionals who are not. We are in trouble.

I am perfectly willing to accept an expert "blue collar" worker with self gained knowledge, a sense of responsibility, and integrity the equal respect I would a "professional" of the type we are discussing. The qualifying difference there is that for this work we expect a person to have spent a period of time without pay gaining "book learning" that equips them to master complex mental work and most of all to communicate in a standard and commonly recognized fashion for that profession. I am also supportive of non traditional ways of determining the knowledge exists. In fact, with degrees suspect, I am more supportive than ever of other proofs and performance is the key.

Let's talk about performance though. I might be lost in the conversations of a carpenter, herder, welder. I do not expect to have a professional in contracting or a technical field not recognize words that have precise meaning in context. I do not expect to see a draft of contract wording that throws random misplaced homonyms and, worse, homophones into what has to be clearly understood and precise text. I would not well long tolerate someone frequently committing mistakes such as "Shall provide censor for electronic communications" when the what we required was a {sensor}. Everyone makes mistakes and weaknesses in writing. Consistent inability to communicate in predictable fashion in contracting is asking for trouble. It is the equivalent of a medical doctor without knowledge of anatomy.

On the matter of improving government contracting Congress should require professional standards for professional positions. Congress should also stop contributing to the erosion of the term. Currently, in government, one of the few differences in management is that a professional and a non professional can travel on a week end for a Monday morning meeting and the non professional gets paid. All distinctions between "salaried" and "hourly" except those oddities have been abolished. Yes, the professional eventually will possibly attain a higher grade. That is not what being a professional is about. True professionalism, as anon3 and others have so accurately pointed out, is now nearly in invitation for abuse. If Congress wants better professionals it needs to define professional standards, require performance levels and stop the abuse. More training is a finger in the dike.

By anon3 on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 04:59 pm:

"Go back to "The difference between a job and a profession is that a professional is still a professional even when unemployed. A professional takes his professionalism with him" -- would you kindly mind explaining this? Frankly, it seems a piece of "doublespeak" to me.

I’ll tell you how I see things. “professional” is a word which really doesn’t say what some seem to think. The only thing that “professional” means is that someone has “a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long & intensive academic preparation and “employment” – that is what my Webster’s 9th new collegiate dictionary defines the term to mean. So a professional is NOT still a professional when “unemployed” if one follows Webster. What several “oldsters” seem to be using as “professional” really refers to a level of work ethic and a standard of quality. Those of us who are grousing aren’t in the least (or at least I’m not) saying that we won’t put into our efforts our very best. We aren’t saying that we believe in slacking, etc. What we are saying is that if one determines that a certain level of expertise is required to do a job (whatever it is) that “you get what you pay for”. “Pay for” does NOT always = $. It can equal medical coverage, acclaim, social standing, etc. But you don’t get something for nothing on a long term basis.

Some of us have expressed a reluctance to take work home, to do intensive studies at home or on our “own nickel” or to work for wages that are unrealistic. And there are reasons for that. We don’t have the time any more (leisure time has DECREASED in many cases), we don’t see that the extra effort gains any results either in productivity or advancement and we haven’t got the money to spare (Americans are perhaps the most indebted of the major industrial countries – for a number of reasons). This is not, using Webster, a reason to determine such a person “nonprofessional”. A doctor who spends a lot of time learning but who doesn’t really care about his patients is perhaps a “professional” but they aren’t particularly ethical. The reverse isn’t true.

“ sports definition that a professional is one who gets paid for what others do for fun. That is a relatively new definition that has damaged the concept. “ == oh it needn’t be sports. A hobby gardener is not the same thing as a farmer. It isn’t due to money spent learning or even time spent doing the raising of plants. It’s the fact that for the one, a livelihood depends on success. That is the difference between what someone does for fun – be it a hobby astronomer or what have you. The difference between “professional” and “hobbyist” or amateur is based not necessarily on skill, study or dedication, it is, per the dictionary, being paid. I am perfectly comfortable with discussing a WORK ethic issue – but what is “professional level” work is basically founded on the concept that if you don’t do it right, you can’t make a living at it, whereas if you don’t do it right as an amateur, you only fail yourself. I doubt that any of those in the Olympics lacked what Vern and others would have termed a “professional attitude”. I know a lot of “doctors” (employed or not) who do. It is a WORK ETHIC issue, and that, IMO, is the term to use when discussing that sort of thing.

Much has been written lately about the dilution of higher education's requirements over the same period.
== yep. And to compare, one ought to look at the % of illiterates during WWI and WWII which is what, presumably, we are diluting from. I don’t mean to disparage the view that some educational expectations have been lowered due to various social concepts, because I agree. But the idea that some “golden age” previously existed is generally wrong. Those graduating from say, Harvard or Yale might have had a tougher level to meet – but the % of people with a sound basic education was much lower at the same time. Like a pendulum, we now have the fault on the opposite side. Obtaining both general education + top quality education seems to be a problem we have yet to solve.


As an example, I once had a younger "professional" with a Master's who challenged my words in a memo.
== be happy. I run into this all the time. I’ve been told that in any clearance that one must write for a 4th grade reading level and absolutely zero understanding of the technical or military issues on major projects. The higher the approval level, the more assumption of zero knowledge is to be made (I’m waiting to be asked to define what a “ship” or an “aircraft” is).

I’ll suggest an alternate: an ethical worker is an ethical worker no matter WHAT job they hold. And regardless of how much education that job requires. THAT is what I believe Vern and others are trying to call “professionalism”. But professionalism is either defined by $ and education (as it is in the dictionary) or it is defined as an attitude REGARDLESS of what one does. So that a street sweeper can be a “professional” and a doctor can fail to be.

You provide yourself with the tools to work in that field and expect to make a living doing so. You, not your employer, provide the motivation to keep current in the field and will do so even if the immediate job no longer exists. You have certain standards of the profession that you will not compromise for pay -- you leave. …Too many have not been "out of there in a heartbeat”
== maybe. But perhaps those folk who would otherwise “be out of there in a heartbeat” are still there, “putting up with it” precisely because they have work ethic views of not letting others down or because leaving is not as easy as it may seem. Relocating when there is a second person’s career to consider, or other issues not related to the “job” can easily provide incentive to stay. In a growing job market, when skilled workers are looked for, leaving is low risk. In a recession, it can be economic suicide.

we expect a person to have spent a period of time without pay gaining "book learning" that equips them to master complex mental work and most of all to communicate in a standard and commonly recognized fashion for that profession.
== no argument there. But generally speaking, that is what one does PRIOR to employment. In other words, it’s the 4+ years of college and the degree. The problem comes about when the rules are changed and what was considered highly qualified previously is suddenly unqualified simply because of what the degree was in, not because of any lesser demonstrated skills, etc.

I am also supportive of non traditional ways of determining the knowledge exists. In fact, with degrees suspect, I am more supportive than ever of other proofs and performance is the key.

I do not expect to have a professional in contracting or a technical field not recognize words that have precise meaning in context. I do not expect to see a draft of contract wording that throws random misplaced homonyms and, worse, homophones into what has to be clearly understood and precise text.
== I’ll point out that a degree in ENGLISH is not on the list of accepted degrees. Maybe it should be. I know a fair number of folk holding degrees in accounting (which is an accepted degree) who can’t string 2 sentences together.

I would not well long tolerate someone frequently committing mistakes such as "Shall provide censor for electronic communications" when the what we required was a {sensor}.
== You and Noah Webster. Shakespeare wouldn’t have had a problem. “the what” isn’t exactly the best English either. While I do concur that it is essential that the correct terms and yes, spelling, be used in official documents, I prefer to have an engineer who understands what the “censor” in the electronics communications is FOR and also knows what the electronic communications is supposed to do. The vast majority of contracts personnel dealing with the purchase of such items are totally clueless (technical degrees weren't on the list of acceptable degrees either).

By Benthere Donit on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 07:37 pm:

Nonsense anon3.

Before getting into the nonsense let's take a look at something: "I would not well long tolerate someone frequently committing mistakes such as "Shall provide censor for electronic communications" when the what we required was a {sensor} (format typo). Everyone makes mistakes and (has) weaknesses in writing." Precisely! I'll close with a comment on this.

Just think of what happens in contracting when the mistakes are not obviously odd constructs and the reader really doesn't know the difference between "censor" and "sensor" -- their reading by phonics doesn't help a bit. Now, since a "censor" and "sensor" are entirely different, how would one know what the engineer means? I suppose we can eliminate the Roman official since this has to do with communications. We can only hope context provides the answer again. What do you mean? Purchase of such items? Where does one purchase a censor?

A degree in English may not be necessary. A good solid test of reading comprehension and writing in the language used for contracts in this country should be mandatory for work where requirements are stated, promises are made, millions in public funds are spent and results can either aid or cripple the work of agencies. In the end contracting is about written precision and clarity.

Now for the nonsense.

Are you seriously proposing that a doctor or lawyer not working at the moment ceases to be a professional? To me it appears you have taken one word from a definition and made it something it was not meant to be at all. A key part of such a definition certainly deals with an intent to profit from the "calling" rather than it being purely a hobby. A professional taking a sabbatical is still a professional. A very wealthy person in a "calling," perhaps the ministry, law or medicine is a professional even if they live on their wealth. Using your own words: a professional "is based not necessarily on skill, study or dedication, it is, per the dictionary, being paid." No it is not "per the dictionary." It is an obtuse definitional switch. Read the first and major qualification. Contrary to a statement you made later it is what a professional does before and during the work that is the key.

Dilution of education was about the knowledge base required for an individual certified as having completed a course of study. What does the number of illiterates at any given time period have to do with that? Nonsense. No, a smattering of literacy in all the population does not make up for loss of expertise at the highest degrees of education.

 

If you want a track team to win the high jump you find one person who can jump seven feet, not seven people who can each jump one foot. (F. E. Terman of Stanford quoted by T. L. Martin)

Many of you are right. The government cannot provide one foot jumper environment and continue to expect those who can jump seven feet to dwell there. The real blame for the decline of professionalism in government lies in its own actions.

No, I certainly do not mean "ethical" is the same as "professional." A person doing work requiring no preparation whatsoever can be ethical. They are not a professional. I do not think Vern Edwards would disagree. Presumably any able bodied person can use a shovel to clean up construction trash. Training or study is momentary. They can be absolutely ethical, a wonderful worker and not a professional. I'm afraid you are doing too well making my point that the very meaning of the word has been lost.

Anyone writing a memo, letter, document or anything else of substance in contracting must have it read by someone before it is final. My nearly universal experience has been that I can read something several times and someone else can catch a mistake nearly instantly. That is what editors do for our best authors. More importantly though the second eye and mind will tend to catch those statements that are perfectly clear to you as the writer and not at all clear from a slightly different perspective.

By Vern Edwards on Saturday, March 23, 2002 - 11:11 am:

Anon3 et al.:

Here is one of the definitions of the noun profession, as provided in Webster's Third New Internation Dictionary (Unabrided):

"4a: a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive preparation including instruction in skills and methods as well as in the scientific, historical, or scholarly principles underlying such skills and methods, maintaining by force of organization or cencerted opinion high standards of achievement and conduct, and committing its members to continued study and to a kind of work which has for its prime purpose the rendering of public service -- see LEARNED PROFESSION b: a principal calling, vocation, or employment <preferred to move and move again, rather than give up their old ~ of farming -- G. W. Pierson><men who make it their ~ to hunt the hippopotamus -- J.G. Frazer> c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling <form an association that will reflect a credit on the ~ -- Thomas Pyles>"

Capitalization in the original.

(The other defintions cited in Webster's are: "the act of taking the vows that consecrate one-self to special religious service," "an act of openly declaring or publicly claiming a belief... ," "Christian or religious conviction... ," and "archaic: professorial teaching or status.")

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., (OED) defines the noun profession in pertinent part as follows:

"III.6. The occupation which one professes to be skilled in and to follow. a. a vocation in which a professed knowledge or some department of learning or science is uded in its application to the affairs of others or in the practice of an art founded upon it. Applied spec. to the three learned professions of divinity, law, amd medicine; also to the military profession."

Note: a calling; a vocation.

According to the OED, the usage in III.6. dates to the year 1541 and a reference to: "the medicynall professyon." The following OED definition : "b. In the wider sense: Any calling or occupation by which a person habitually earns his living," dates to 1576, "Why do not you apply your selfe, to some one kinde of profession, or other, wherein there is certaintie and stay of liuing?"

According to the OED, the noun professional is of much more recent origin, dating only to 1848:

"B. sb. 1. One who belongs to one of the learned or skilled professions; a professional man. 2.a. One who makes a profession or business of any occupation, art, or sport, otherwise usually or often engaged in by amateurs, esp. as a pastime: see the adj., sense 4."

Books and articles about the development of the idea of professionalism indicate that the term was originally applied to ministers and physicians, then to soldiers and lawyers. During the second half of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century it gradually came to be applied to more occupations, such as architecture, engineering, and teaching. In each instance, a profession was considered something more than just a job--it was a calling. It required long study and apprenticeship. At first, the word professional was applied to persons engaged in learned professions, but it has come to be applied to almost every occupation; some people today apply the words profession and professional to thieves and prostitutes.

To me, a profession is more than just a job. It is more than just what you do; it is part of what you are. It is not a nine to five endeavor. It is one of the ways that you define yourself. Anon3, I never said that a doctor who doesn't practice medicine is still a professional. What I said was: "The difference between a job and a profession is that a professional is still a professional even when unemployed." A doctor who doesn't have a job is still a doctor and can practice medicine as long as he or she has a license to do so. The same goes for nurses, lawyers, engineers, teachers, architects, and so on.

If I could have my way, contracting officer appointment with authority in excess of, say, $500,000, would be similar to Senior Executive Service, with salary beginning at the GS-14 level. (Salary would be independent of actual grade. A GS-12 contracting officer would be paid at the GS-14 salary level or higher.) As a condition of appointment I would require that a candidate (a) have a bachelor's degree in any subject, (b) have completed a five-year apprenticeship as an 1102 and (c) pass a written exam as a condition of appointment -- a long, hard exam, similar to a bar exam, with several essay questions (so the candidates must prove that they can think and write) and no true or false or multiple choice questions. The exam would consist of at least two parts: Part I would pertain to the rules in the FAR and other government-wide regulations; Part II would pertain to general topics in business and law. (I would grandfather persons without a bachelor's degree if they were currently employed as contracting officers or had at least ten years service as an 1102 if and only if they could pass the exam. I would not grandfather anyone else, now or in the future.) Persons wanting to take the exam would be required to prepare on their own time. (Just like persons preparing for a bar exam, or for a promotional exam in a police or fire department.)

Contracting officer certificates of appointment would be made by a central, government-wide authority, such as OFPP. Once having been appointed, a person could take that appointment from job to job within the Federal government. Individual agencies would be permitted to require contracting officers to pass a second, shorter exam about its agency-peculiar rules before a contracting officer could sign contracts on behalf of that agency. (Just like states sometimes require of doctors and lawyers arriving from a different state.) Contracting officers would have to earn a minimum number of hours of professional continuing education credits each year, either through employment-related training or on their own time, just like doctors and lawyers.

Contracting people have long maintained that they are and should be treated like professionals. But what do they mean by professional? The occupations that I consider to be truly professional -- medicine, law, engineering, teaching, architecture, etc. -- all require special education and training or apprenticeship and require licensing based on written examination. Yet some contracting people object to special educational requirements (think about all the whining that followed the requirement for 1102s to have bachelor's degrees and business classes). And goodness knows that if the government required that a person pass a written test before he or she could become a contracting officer you would be able to hear the howls of complaint in a raging storm at the ends of the earth.

By anon3 on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 11:14 am:

Vern, et al:
Are you seriously proposing that a doctor or lawyer not working at the moment ceases to be a professional?
==yep. They may have a degree entitling them to PRACTICE a profession, but retired or unemployed they are NOT acting professionals. The mere possession of a degree or certificate does not, IMO, entitle a person to be termed a “professional”. Otherwise, please explain exactly WHAT certificates and degrees entitle a person to be called a professional, when lack of same may still allow a person to be a professional and why those who may have occupations equally requiring skill, dedication, etc are not “professions”. The dictionary is at least coherent. A profession is a JOB which requires a certain amount of skill and / or higher level education. Professional is an attitude and that applies whatever the person may be doing. And it’s what I was terming job ethics.

If you want a track team to win the high jump you find one person who can jump seven feet, not seven people who can each jump one foot. (F. E. Terman of Stanford quoted by T. L. Martin)
==true. If, on the other hand, you need a dog sled team to win the Iditerod you select a group of UNIFORMLY performing dogs because if one is 2 mph faster than the others it throws the pace off. This country has currently gone for the uniform education for it’s public education system. You want top level education you can find it in this country – in the elite private educational systems. Complaining that the public education system is geared for the average rather than the elite is silly. It’s also as old as Roman history (read some of the early Roman writers). I don’t deny that our educational system has major flaws, but the complaint is one that is found as a commonality of older generations complaining about the uneducated younger ones on a regular basis.

They can be absolutely ethical, a wonderful worker and not a professional. I'm afraid you are doing too well making my point that the very meaning of the word has been lost.
== so by your definition, only those who have certain educational levels (as yet undefined) in CERTAIN positions requiring skills (not yet defined) can be “professionals” and they are “professionals” regardless of if they can perform their tasks well or badly, ethically or not. NIXON was I suppose a professional politician. Personally I rather prefer the ex-marine, ex wrestler Governor as a GOOD ethical one.


Just think of what happens in contracting when the mistakes are not obviously odd constructs and the reader really doesn't know the difference between "censor" and "sensor"
== and my view is that they ought to know. And they also ought to know what a radar is and the basic principals it uses to work if they are engaged in buying radar, modifying radar or developing alternatives to radar. But expecting an engineer to write with consistent level quality English while we maintain a total ignorance on technical issues seems to be the norm. And again, English and technical degrees weren’t considered “suitable” degrees for contracting folk. So feel free to pick on the accountant for not doing accounting well, but if you want them to write coherent clear English then you need to change what the universities require in terms of obtaining accounting degrees.


"4a: a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive preparation including instruction in skills and methods as well as in the scientific, historical, or scholarly principles underlying such skills and methods, maintaining by force of organization or concerted opinion high standards of achievement and conduct, and committing its members to continued study and to a kind of work which has for its prime purpose the rendering of public service -- see LEARNED PROFESSION b: a principal calling, vocation, or employment c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling "

== ok. What is the definition of “calling” as used in the sentence above? And I mentioned education. See the word EMPLOYMENT used above? Pierson’s example is fun. A person needs a lot of college education to be able to take a gun and shoot hippos, do they? And you’ll note farmers being listed as a profession in there. I personally prefer to put the emphasis on the high standards of achievement and conduct – which is my “ethical” issue. If the issue is “prime purpose the rendering of public service” then there are plenty of nuclear physicists who aren’t “professional”. And one can rather doubt that all clergy are given the current information on the news these days regarding priests. So again, NO, a doctor or lawyer is NOT a professional by virtue of having passed the bar or having obtained a medical license. Any more than a truck driver is a professional by virtue of having passed a DMV test. They have a SKILL and EXPERTISE which they can then opt to use “rendering public service” (but most don’t) and if they will or won’t exercise high standards of achievement and conduct.

According to the OED, the usage in III.6. dates to the year 1541 and a reference to: "the medicynall professyon."
The following OED definition : "b. In the wider sense: Any calling or occupation by which a person habitually earns his living," dates to 1576, "Why do not you apply your selfe, to some one kinde of profession, or other, wherein there is certaintie and stay of liuing?"

==and therefore my use of the definition “employed” is wrong? Seems it has rather well established usage in that manner.

If I could have my way, contracting officer appointment with authority in excess of, say, $500,000, would be similar to Senior Executive Service, with salary beginning at the GS-14 level. (Salary would be independent of actual grade. A GS-12 contracting officer would be paid at the GS-14 salary level or higher.) As a condition of appointment I would require that a candidate (a) have a bachelor's degree in any subject, (b) have completed a five-year apprenticeship as an 1102 and (c) pass a written exam as a condition of appointment -- a long, hard exam, similar to a bar exam, with several essay questions (so the candidates must prove that they can think and write) and no true or false or multiple choice questions. The exam would consist of at least two parts: Part I would pertain to the rules in the FAR and other government-wide regulations; Part II would pertain to general topics in business and law.
== and I’d have no problem with your criteria (although frankly, I’d add some topics/questions on construction, specifications and other technical issues because while one is not required to be an expert in these areas, you DO have to understand what your requirement is about.). But the fact is that people with $500K warrants don’t get paid GS14 wages and aren’t likely to. And those who would do it “out of public service” get tired of dealing with processes and systems (like APADE and other “automated” systems) that do not work and which cannot be fixed or eliminated because someone further up the food chain has their political position based on requiring said system or process. They get tired of being in buildings that aren’t structurally sound (and never were built to code) with poor heat and ventilation, they get tired of being in unsafe locations (where security has been told multiple times about problems) and they get tired of being fired or demoted if they mention these things. And it does NOT make them thereby unprofessional. If there were a chance of getting GS-14 pay I might be more willing to spend extra time doing extra study. But you won’t get quality people in or get them to stay with those same requirements and a GS-5 pay. People just aren’t that self-sacrificing.


I would grandfather persons without a bachelor's degree if they were currently employed as contracting officers or had at least ten years service as an 1102 if and only if they could pass the exam.
== no problem there, but it wasn’t an option, was it? When one is about 3 years shy of retirement, spending time off work to put oneself thru college for a SECOND degree in one of the “accepted” categories just isn’t cost effective. Neither calling such people unprofessional nor complaining that the numbers of folk retiring / leaving is depriving the Govt. of people with extensive knowledge is going to change that. Having an option such as you suggest might. But again, it wasn’t offered, was it?

By the way, many of those responsible for Apollo and other aviation achievements were engineers working without benefit of degrees. WWII interrupted many of their college endeavors and many went to work without going back to school. They probably could have TAUGHT the classes. They certainly could have passed some exam. But the fact was that they were treasured on their RESULTS, not on if they did or did not have a particular piece of paper.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

By Vern Edwards on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 11:35 am:

Yes, we will have to disagree. You and I have entirely different views about professionalism.


Vern

By Benthere Donit on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 01:46 pm:

Shades of Orwell's 1984. War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength. The individual professional is one of a dogsled team.

We seem to have redefined things in an ironic way. With the defeat of a Communism that pretended to offer "equality" and a rise of the economic greed-is-good mantra we have, on a social level, apparently decided to erase distinction. Anyone's opinion is as good as an expert's based on study and knowledge. Anyone who works for pay is a professional -- particularly if they are pure. Teamwork is more important than excellence. I suppose the ideal is a dog team of GS-5 "contracting officers" towing an acquisition behind without direction. No thanks!

Yes, we will disagree. I can only hope Congress agrees to take two steps:

First, change the environment, preferably government wide. Stop giving lip service to excellence while creating an environment hostile to excellence. Anon3 has some good points on this subject; however, some of the best examples of professional excellence I've seen were in shabby spaces lacking air conditioning with broken desks or in the field with downright uncomfortable conditions. It isn't the spaces. It is the requirement to work with other dogs that cannot or will not pull that discourages excellence. Excellence literally runs away when those nonproductive dogs are treated and rewarded as well as the dog that can and will. (Ahhhh, shades of Animal Farm.)

Second, require professional competence in the contracting area. I like, with some reservations, Vern's suggestion. In particular I think the SES feature has promise. Place a formal pay premium on the warrant that increases with warrant responsibility. Pull the warrant and drop the person back into the general pool if they fail to perform. Test for knowledge on entry and for major warrant increments. Tolerate some "learning mistakes" -- they will happen -- but be absolutely intolerant of either laziness or repeated mistakes demonstrating inability to learn from books, others or experience.