Hi Everybody!

It's been a while since I've been here, year or two I'd say. Regular work projects have kept me pretty busy.

I think you're seeing 1102s becoming more business oriented, at least new 1102s, because that is a requirement for being hired in the first place. Unfortunately, not many agencies have the authority to hire; I know my activity doesn't until recently.

Which is the problem of itself. Generally speaking, the 1102s have been scaled back so much, that the workload is being pushed toward automation, only because it wouldn't get done otherwise. The routine purchases weren't getting done, as the 1102s were spending more time on the larger, more complex contracts. Which doesn't help our customer, which is the soldier in the field. Some are going to using IMPAC cards to buy commercial items at the local dealer outside the front gate, they get better service at maybe less cost, but response time can't be beat.

Of course, we've heard before that the Government may not be buying using best business practices, but we're fair! Trouble is, those sometimes don't coexist, due to regs, laws, SOPs, etc.

I see my 1102 role as an administrator, once I put that contract mechanism in place, I'm administering it to ensure it moves smoothly along. E-commerce, automated ordering processes, automated requisition fulfillment, that alleviates me from the routine. I still have the ability to work on the extraordinary contracting efforts, but beyond that, we don't have the manpower anymore to perform "Business as Usual".

Kennedy

I see things as moving toward bundled, omnibus and original equipment maufacturer long term contracting until the problems with this love the contractor and devolve government responsibility to them causes some major glitch or scandal. The pendulum doth swing. Give away more responsibility it will haunt the giver.

What problems will cause this?

-Obscene profitability based on lack of competition will renact CICA type controls. The "exposes" will be politically motivated but very effective. Results will be 1102s delving into oversight with a vengance. (this could happen today!)

- Legal shifts as the government refuses to take responsibility for some disaster, yet the public demands action against someone and the contractor is off the hook. Such as scenario could come from a defect in design that causes loss of life or environmental disaster on the scale of the Exxon Valdez. (How about a recent dual rotor aircraft crash?)

- A major governmental failure that cannot be fixed in time. A need for military, health or safety is not met with adequate response, an example might be a Y2K like problem or a military contingency that cannot be met. Public shame will drive the PCO into fixing things.

Take heart the trends in contracting will rebound to hit us in the eyes, and we'll need to open them again and get back to work!

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, April 12, 2000 - 12:00 pm:

Steve:

You have made a very astute analysis. I would add only this:

I think the future of the 1102 career field lies in the management of government-contractor relationships under on-going, long-term, complex support service contracts and contracts for large projects.

The job will entail more than monitoring the contractor's business management system. Such contracts will entail on-going, ad hoc negotiations about requirements, allocations of resources, budgets, and schedule priorities. Important decisions about those things will not be left entirely to the contractor, but will be the subject of negotiations, and the government's business manager (an 1102?) will represent it in those negotiations.

The business manager will have to rise above being a "petty tyrant" in order to make the government-contractor relationship work, and will have to eschew the command style adopted by many of today's 1102s ("the contractor shall...," "you are hereby directed to...."). He or she will have to know the statutes, the regulations, the case law, the principles of budgeting and finance (in both government and commercial environments), labor market dynamics, something about the government's technical requirements, and dispute resolution techniques.

Sounds like a fun job.

By Steve Cohen on Wednesday, April 12, 2000 - 11:34 am:

All-

I think it is inevitable that government contracts personnel will become more scarce. What the tax-payer wants is good business managers with common sense. Acquisition rules and regulations will be changed to accomodate newer and simpler ways of doing business. They will become understandable!

In the future, the government will depend on the contractor to manage the contract. Just as the government, to a large extent, has backed away from doing quality inspections and has placed the burden for quality on the contractor through certifying its quality system so will it be with the contract itself.

The ACO/Business Manager will become responsibile for monitoring the contractor's business management system which has been certified to assure it is implementing the contract as intended. Through this teaming/partnership/monitoring arrangement tax-payer savings will be gained through the cost avoidance of supporting a non-value added bureaucratic overhead structure. I know this might sound like a radical idea to some but I do believe it is not too far off the mark.

I think everyone agrees, for routine commodities and services, automated systems, credit cards, and e-commerce methodology will be used by other than government contracts people to acquire their needs. For the more complex acquisitions employees with contracts knowledge will be needed but I don't think they will be called contracts specialists but business managers. Their responsibilities and sphere of knowledge will be greater than just contracts. In addition, they will become fewer with their emphasis on writing implementation policy/procedures and providing oversight and direction. The technicians themselves will become more responsible for accomplishing and conducting the source-selection.

Lawers will participate in this system but should be involved less. Due to the emphasis on working together and partnering in the truest sense fewer differences will rise to a level where they are needed. In fact, this will be the era of the arbitrator/ombudsman...not the lawer. Emphasis will be placed on keeping the partnership in good standing..not tearing it apart...reason and fairness will prevail and common sense will be appreciated once again.

Steve

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 01:37 pm:

Stan,

I think more kindly of my technical customers. But I won’t argue with the experience of other 1102’s in other locations.

As long as we market our rules as an impenetrable thicket of bureaucratic “Mother May I” our technical customers will take great pride in riding roughshod over the bureaucratic niceties to get the job done. When we explain our rules in commonsense terms, which anybody can understand, and explain the likely results when the rules are stupidly bent or broken, we can sell the value of our knowledge and experience.

There isn’t much that I can do to help truly sleazy people or egotistical jerks. But, I really haven’t encountered very many in those two categories.

This may seem a bit off the subject but bear with me. Ann Landers recently ran a series of letters from preachers who had had unpleasant experiences with disrespectful and rude behavior at wedding services. Apparently some of our clegy have got to the point where they dread weddings.

An old friend of mine is a semi-retired Texas preacher who does a good business in wedding and funerals. I was curious to see if he had similar experiences. He told me that he hardly ever has these problems. He gets to know the couple first, spends some time on counseling, and there is usually an attitude of mutual respect that makes it unlikely that the wedding will be disrupted by bad behavior.

Exactly so.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 01:29 pm:

Stan:

Historically, people in agencies have gone to contracting offices in order to get someone to process purchase transactions, i.e., to buy something. An 1102 or 1105 processed purchase requests more or less in accordance with the governing rules in the applicable procurement regulation.

Over the course of the last decade or so, the rules have permitted more and more purchase transactions to be processed by requestioners themselves, or by other persons outside of contracting offices. The principal tools of this change have been credit cards and contracts that allow requisitioners to place orders against pre-priced contractual instruments. The next phase of this transformation will be b2b e-purchasing that enables agencies to get competition through reverse auctions.

So far, these changes have mainly affected contracting persons who have been charged with buying commodities and other commercial items (goods and services) of relatively low dollar values. The kind of stuff you can get off GSA schedules. Such relatively small purchases account for the vast majority of contracting actions -- at least 95 percent according to FPDS data for FY99. However they account for only about 8 percent of annual dollar obligations.

I see no indication that the large dollar value buys that account for most of the annual obligations -- such as support service contracts, large R&D projects, large construction projects, information system acquisitions, weapons acquisitions, etc. -- will be transformed by e-purchasing, at least, not in the near term. Automation will eliminate some paper pushing, but source selection and contract administration will continue to require 1102 leadership.

What I foresee is more regulatory change to facilitate requisitioner purchasing/ordering of commodities and commercial items. This should enable the government to either (1) further cut the 1102 workforce, or (2) redirect 1102s to focus more on pan-transactional acquisition strategy and contract administration (which has been and continues to be sorely neglected) and pan-transactional strategic concerns.

This means that in order to provide value-added, 1102s must become market analysts, business strategists, and relationship managers. If this is true, then the complaints about "alleged improprieties" and "intimidation of contractors" in threads at this site, with their references to "petty tyrants," if valid, do not bode well for the future.

In any event, when it comes to the largest and most important of our contracts, the FAR is not going away, and program managers will be no more interested in it than they ever were. Stan, given our shared belief that program managers do not care much about the rules, the idea that COs don't need to be FAR experts presages acquisition anarchy and the inevitable scandal and Congressional reaction which must follow. We are already seeing this to some extent in expressions of concern and complaint about multiple award task order contracts.

I agree than knowledge of the FAR will not be sufficient, but as long as the FAR exists knowledge of it will be necessary to the development of sound government business strategy and to the creation and maintenance of effective government-industry business relationships.

Vern

By Stan Livingstone on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 12:46 pm:

Vern/Eric,

I think Vern's comment that "...most requisitioners (program managers et al.) don't care about compliance with the rules..." is right on target. In fact, I'll go further and state practically no one cares until an issue of non-compliane occurs. And only then does someone in charge want the problem resolved. They don't care who, as long as it's done. It could be a program analyst, a technical subject expert, a CO or a lawyer.

Vern, to answer your question, I think program managers need FAR experts, but it won't necessarily be 1102s. Rather they will look to whichever person comes up with the best solution.

Eric, your point about experience is important. The thing we have to do is market our experience where program offices see the value it conveys.

Stan

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 12:23 pm:

Stan,

Amen brother.

I agree with everything you say.

If I may continue with a few quibbles. I think the impact of automated contract preparation tools is overrated. I don’t think the typical 1102 spends more than 5% of his/her time preparing solicitations and contracts. Even if you cut that in half, the impact isn’t all that significant.

The real impact of the automated contract preparation tools will be in terms of allowing the contract administration and payment processes to operate in a fairly seamless, paperless mode. Also, the automated tools should allow us to work these documents in a parallel, team oriented manner rather than the usual serial, bureaucratic process, with a vast savings in time and effort. (However, anyone with a LAN already has the technological prerequisites to do this. I think the obstacles are more cultural than technological.)

Just as I can now put a few key words into a database and find relevant case law, our technical customers will soon have ready access to the rules and regulations. The problem is not in making the information available. The problem is to organize the information in a way that makes it readily accessible to program managers and CORs. This hasn’t happened, but it will.

However, just as my access to a database doesn’t make me a lawyer, ready access to our rules and regulations, without a guide and without some expert commentary, isn’t going to make the average technical person a competent PCO.

It takes a few years of experience to get a feel for this line of work. There is difference between knowing what the rule says and knowing what it means.

But mostly I agree. We need to stop being the walking rulebooks and start marketing our judgment and our ability to facilitate.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 11:30 am:

Stan:

I agree that automated systems will handle solicitation and contract writing. I think they will take over many routine buying transactions for commodities and other commercial items. But doesn't FAR implement laws that have to be followed when making acquisitions? And doesn't someone have to be responsible for ensuring compliance with those laws? If so, who will that be?

I recognize that most requisitioners (program managers et al.) don't care about compliance with the rules, but does that mean that it's not an important responsibility? Also, the biggest single part of the FAR consists of Part 52, which includes the texts of the solicitation provisions and contract clauses. And those texts often relate to complex regulations, such as the cost accounting standards, the cost principles in FAR Part 31, the rules in FAR Part 22 about labor laws, the rules in FAR Part 25 governing foreign acquisition, etc. Doesn't someone have to know what those regulations say and what they mean? Do you think that program managers want to take on that responsibility?

In other words, won't we still need experts in the FAR? Will the government hire more lawyers to do what COs used to do?

And can people be good government business managers if they don't know the government's business rules?

By Stan Livingstone on Monday, April 10, 2000 - 10:49 am:

My favorite subject!

1102s, as the regulation expert and the drafter of solicitations and contracts, are on the way out. Most people don't care how proficient we are in the FAR. We have smart automated systems to create solicitations and contracts, and just have to answer some questions to produce a document. Any good program manager with some legal advice can do a good job of puuting together an RFP.

What we as 1102s have to do is provide some value to program managers and customers. They must view us as having something beneficial to them. That includes business sense, knowledge of the marketplace, analytical skills, reasoning ability, oral and written communication skills, ability to lead and/or facilitate teams and discussions, and bargaining techniques. In short, we must bring something to the acquisition process that customers see as valuable and they don't have.
Just having a CO warrant won't cut it. In fact, unless we get our collective act together, I see future CO warrants given to individuals that demonstrate trust, responsibility, and exercise of good judgment regardless of their job series. Either that, or our legal advisors end up as CO's.

By Vern Edwards on Saturday, April 8, 2000 - 01:22 pm:

Contracting professionals should find a copy of the April 8 edition of The New York Times. The business section includes an article entitled, "Another Economy on the Supply Side: For Purchasing Managers, Net is Friend and Foe."

The article specultates that B2B e-purchasing will put an end to purchasing as a viable career field. It quotes Charles E. Dana, vice president for global sourcing at Owens Corning, who said, "Purchasing will be a place where sales, manufacturing, even human resources people do a two-year stint. But it won't be a real career anymore."

Safwan M. Masri, vice dean of the Columbia Business School is quoted as saying, "Finance people and design engineers will do the negotiating, while third-party e-procurement companies comb the net for suppliers."

Roy Graham, president of the Casbah Corporation, is quoted as saying, "Four years from now, chief procurement officers will have been replaced by chief trading officers with Internet skills who coordinate buying and selling on the Web."

What does this mean for GS-1102s? Will agencies continue to need their own buyers to purchase commodities and other commercial items? Will these developments affect service buyers as much as supply buyers? The GS-1105s are already gone, are the 1102s next? Will contract specialists have to become business managers? If so, will their current skill sets be enough?

Will GSA schedules as we know them today still be with us in five years, or will they be replaced with an e-purchasing system in which requisitioners can conduct their own auctions without going through a purchasing office? (GSA has already developed a prototype e-purchasing reverse auction site at http://www.buyers.gov/.)

What does this mean for the future of the GS-1102 career field? Why should young people enter that career field? If the GS-1102 survives, what will its work be like? What skills will government buyers need in the world of e-purchasing?