In addition to the college degree requirment, should candidates for contracting officer appointment have to pass a written and oral exam in order to be eligible? Other professionals have to take licensing or certification exams, why not CO candidtates? Would a written and oral exam be an unreasonable qualification requirement?

What do you think about a one-half day objective exam (multiple choice) about laws, regulations, and polices; a one-half day objective exam about general business topics; and a one-half day data analysis and decision-writing "sample task," followed by a three hour presentation and defense of findings and conclusions before a panel of senior contracting personnel?

Would such a requirement be unreasonable?

If well-administered, would it enhance the image of contracting personnel? Would it improve the quality of the contracting workforce?

By Stan Livingstone on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 02:14 pm:

Vern,

I like the idea. It certainly would enhance our image and definately improve the quality of the workforce. To expand our concept, I think a fourth part of the exam is needed, and that is a practical mock exercise where the candidate is presented a situation using "actors" and they must analyze, "think on their feet", talk and make a decision in a simulated real life environment. As a reward for being certified, the CO should receive additional compensation in the form of either another grade or pay differnetial.

Stan

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 04:13 pm:

Vern, do you think that there is a real "need" or value added by requiring an examination and certification for contracting officers? I am not convinced, unless we are intending to recognize expertise in specialized areas of acquisition.

There are many different contract types, requiring some very good business judgement which cannot be gained without some specialized training and experience. FFP, CP are totally different critters with different philosophy and management requirements. Construction is very different than either services or supply. R&D, FPI and other specialized types require different skills or knowledge. Book learning alone should not qualify one for certification in these specialties. A certain amount actual experience should also be required.

Stan, I like the idea of compensation or a raise! If CO's get it for becoming "certified", I'll ask the same for registered professional engineers. Registration is currently a requirement for many engineer positions in the COE but there are no pay differentials or allowances for the cost of the required license. Maybe I can get both! (-: Happy Sails! Joel

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 05:13 pm:

Joel:

In response to your question about whether or not there is a need for such an exam--I think that the answer depends on whether or not we are or should be satisfied with CO performance, and whether or not we believe that an exam can be an effective way to determine CO competency.

Are you generally satisfied with CO performance?
Do you think an exam can be an effective way to determine CO competency?

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 05:50 pm:

Vern, I am generally satisfied with my COs' performance for the type contract they are administering. I am discovering that many of the CO's in my current program (Chemical Weapons Facility Demil Systems Contracts)are very good in one area but may not have a lot of experience in another type. We have PCO's from another agency who have delegated unlimited $ACO authority to our CO's for design and construction phases - they are not experienced in construction or in FFP. Our CO has experience in both contract types but we don't get involved in GOCO type, CPFF/CPAF contracts. This doesn't matter because the COE won't be administering those phases of the systems contract.

In my opinion, an exam is more useful if used to determine and certify competence in a specialized contract type, similar to specialized professional architect/engineer/systems designer licenses. If a CO wants to be certified for multiple contract types, that would be even better. But a generalized exam would be meaningless to me. I need experts in my type contracts. It also seems that many agencies are specialized in their primary needs. Happy Sails! joel

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, November 08, 2000 - 06:20 pm:

Joel:

Wouldn't an exam help to determine whether a CO candidate understood the difference between a Type I and Type II differing site condition, or what kinds of evidence are acceptable for establishing that there was unusually severe weather, or the proper application of the Eichealey Formula in the settlement of delay claims?

Would it help to determine if a candidate understood the meaning of construction terms like "balanced cut and fill" and "borrow"?

Wouldn't an exam be useful in determining whether the candidate understood the standard of responsibility of an architect-engineer to an owner?

By joel hoffman on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 08:10 am:

Vern, if those questions were part of a specialized test, they may be helpful. However, I doubt if many folks would pass, lawyers included!

An option to such an exam would be to offer and require CO's in construction, for example, to attend and PASS specialized training in those areas. At least, they would know where to review the course material, as the situation arises. Happy Sails! joel

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 08:59 am:

Joel:

I agree that one advantage of such a test would be to motivate people to study on their own. If there are construction contracting officers--people who must negotiate, settle, and make final decisions about construction claims--who don't know the difference between a Type I and a Type II differing site condition, a very common basis for construction claims, then an exam requirement might motivate them to study on their own in order to get and keep a warrant.

One thing that bugs me is the attitude that we must wait for scheduled training in order to learn. In my opinion, self study is as good if not better than most training. I say this even though I am in the training business. I urge acquisition managers to establish self study programs for their people. You don't need fancy computer "distance learning" setups, just some books, a study outline and a schedule, and an occasional meeting with a good tutor.

By bob antonio on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 12:20 pm:

Vern:

I do not support exams for contracting officers. Although I think people, writing, and speaking skills are important, I would prefer to see experience and competence determine the fate of a contracting officer. A test is a hit or miss on a specific day in a person's life.

I would prefer to see a career program for contracting professionals that gives them the opportunity to experience different types of acquisition. Actually, I would prefer a real Federal Acquisition Corps that would have hiring and developmental responsibility for the entire work force.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 12:49 pm:

Bob:

Thanks for your views.

Of course, I know that you realize that we're not going to get a Federal Acquisition Corps in our professional lifetimes. We're not even going to get that within DOD, much less among DOD and the various civilian agencies.

By Ramon Jackson on Thursday, November 09, 2000 - 11:54 pm:

Vern, probably not. Then who knows? Stranger things have just happened. Who would have ever predicted or believed a few days ago the entire country could go to the polls and somehow balance the nation's political power so precisely it is almost like a marble balanced on a knife edge? I'd like to see the probability numbers on that.

Hmmm. Maybe since the odd situation probably takes the big issues off the board everyone will focus on something the voters care nothing about and somehow create the Federal Acquisition Corps. Can't lose many votes on that obscure tinkering.

By Anonymous on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 05:59 pm:

Don't the required contracting courses currently in place require passing a test to obtain credit? Why not expand on that. Create a testing environment where the individual would have to make some real life contracting decisions based on the course material.

I have always believed that the post-course open-book objective exams have always been way too simple. I would favor oral exams or real-life scenarios that required application of the course material. I would probably even have to study the material if I knew I would have to thoroughly understand it and apply it in some way.

By Susan Marie Paolini on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 08:48 am:

Agree with Anonymous that any "useful" testing would relate to application of principles. I think a lot of contracting types test well - I do - but periodic trips to this site make it clear to me that the things I learn and read in (and out of) class don't go near giving the depth needed to apply the book stuff (the discussions in some of the threads often make me reread the FAR/Protest Decisions in a very different light).

Why not have something a little more fun, a "survivor" show for contracting teams to test application in real life situations. Audience can vote on best solution. (AR day activity?)

By Anonymous on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 05:31 pm:

Maybe some type of contracting simulation program could be developed. Something that gives the participant a taste of real-life contracting challenges. I've heard about audience participation movies, maybe something like that could be developed for contract specialists. A real-life contracting scenario could be played out on a screen in front of the participant and it could allow the participant the opportunity to choose a course of action from one scene to the next.

KOO-OOL!!!

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 06:15 pm:

All,

The ultimate criteria for a warrant has to be good judgment and maturity.

I think we all know at least one walking encyclopedia (or walking FAR and DFARS) who is dangerous because he thinks he knows everything and he won’t listen or take counsel.

On the other hand, many people have done good work in our field by demonstrating that they know when to go slow and do more research, and when to ask for help.

Recently, I was amused to encounter a newspaper article about one of our former contractors. Apparently, our contractor friend had claimed a large number of outstanding accomplishments in science and business, which the newspaper had printed without bothering to do any reference checks or fact checking. In the end, our contractor friend had to fess up to some massive miscommunications (i.e. he lied).

For reasons which should be obvious, I don’t want to be specific about the way that we made this inappropriate selection (many, many years ago). Suffice that it didn’t happen because of a shortage of advanced degrees in business related areas of study.

I would submit that the ability to spot a phony is an essential ability for a businessman. I would also submit that it has, if anything, an inverse correlation to formal education.

I guess it is always a good thing when our individual workers are better trained and educated. However, I don’t think that is our largest problem. Our real problem is a failure to share useful knowledge and make such useful knowledge readily available.

I don’t think that a single test is a viable answer for the reasons already cited. You would never get everyone to agree. (You would not even get agreement on the “correct” answer for many questions. Not without great difficulty.)

Howsoever--

My recommendation is that that an authoritative third party prepare a very long list of questions covering all areas of government contracting. For each question there should be a list of the key points which should be addressed. The individual buying office would be free to tailor a test by selecting a short list of relevant questions from the long list.

It would be best to publish the whole thing where everyone would have access and be able to comment. If somebody tries to memorize the list and all of the key points, more power to him. It would be a good education. To pass the local test he would have to demonstrate some understanding, which would require something more than just providing a memorized, rote answer.

Over time this would encourage an element of consistency, would provide some guidelines for education, and would allow our community to work toward a rough consensus on some key issues.

A doctor, engineer or CPA has to have a large body of exact knowledge readily available or some ugly things can happen. For this reason, there are testing and licensing requirements. This isn’t really true for contracting officers. Nothing is going to collapse and nobody is going to die if we get a point wrong.

However, if we do our jobs badly, we have an altogether awesome ability to induce delay, degrade the quality of the final product, antagonize people and waste money.

I agree with Stan and Anon that a test using “a practical mock exercise where the candidate is presented a situation using "actors" and they must analyze, "think on their feet", talk and make a decision in a simulated real life environment” would be a good idea. I would include a large pile of confusing data to be sorted and analyzed.

But I would prefer to use a test of this kind to select new hires. People who have difficulty thinking on their feet, analyzing data and making decisions in real time shouldn’t be hired as contract specialists.

Actually, (personal opinion) nobody should be hired as a contract specialist unless he/she has the potential to be a good contracting officer.

Eric

By Fred Weatherill on Friday, November 17, 2000 - 05:58 pm:

All,

I have a better idea. What we do is to form two lines, on one side we put contractors and politicians, and on the other we put agency managers and lawyers. Then we send anyone who wants to be a CO or any CO that wants a promotion down between the lines. Each side tries their best to beat the tar out of the CO. Anyone who emerges out the other side will be judged worthy to be a CO.

On a more serious note, I would like to suggest that we bring to bear one of our operating principles. We judge a contractor by his past performance. So, also, should we judge a contracting officer.

As we talk about degrees, tests, and certifications we need to remember that one of the attractions and benefits of the relatively open entry into the 1102 series has been that a lot of folks have done very well. Many have risen to responsible positions by dint of their merit. This thread has examples of engineers, historians, and other having done so.

The hazard of specific degree requirements and entrance examinations is that these same people may now be excluded from both initial placement and later promotions. From the information contained in these messages it seems that this includes many of us.

As I used to tell my trainees, when we had such things, being a contracting officer is the best job in the government. Where else can you interact with the real world of the market place, and at the end of the day be looking at the goods you have acquired, or the building or plane you have built. The new requirements will not change that. But, it will mean that a different group of people will get the opportunity to see it for themselves.

Did I mention that the CO is bare foot, and has the choice of running over hot coals or broken glass?

By susan marie paolini on Monday, November 20, 2000 - 09:04 am:

When they emerge from the other side, must they still be breathing to qualify?

By Kennedy How on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 09:37 am:

I don't really like book-type exams because all they do is prove that somebody can regurgitate what's in a book. I feel that it's more important that one knows that the book exists, because then I can look up what is needed. I believe I have a good memory, but I don't sweat the minutia, I know the FAR addresses Advanced Payments, I don't know Chapter and Verse, but I can look it up. I remember things that AREN'T written in stone, because I know the stone exists, and it's always there. But, if I was discussing something face to face with one of you all, and you tell me something useful about something, I will remember that, because it's not anywhere that I can refer to it.

I believe that a practical examination in more appropriate, because there is a lot of practical knowledge that has made Government contracting the way it is. This is why you see a lot of "Best Practices" articles. This stuff isn't in a book. This stuff is what you learn by doing, or by whatever common sense you have in applying whatever it is you know to whatever situation you have.

In this case, there may not be a "right or wrong" answer, you are looking at how well they can achieve a contracting objective. The good 1102s do things efficiently and legally.

Here's an example question: Which is correct,
1. If it's not expressly permitted by the FAR, it is prohibited.

2. If it's not expressly prohibited by the FAR, it is permitted.

This question will tell you a lot about how somebody will view their job, especially when something new and unusual comes in.

A lot of this is colored by how my mind operates; I don't do real well in the hard sciences, but in the areas of analytical thought, I shine there. Some say that's the mark of a good BS-er, but there are a lot of "free thinkers" out there who are "idea people", who can look at things from various perspectives and can function well without being hamstrung by things that really aren't applicable.

Finally, I thought of this question last night (I have a cold, and couldn't sleep). You have a requirement for $10m worth of computer equipment. What's the best way to buy this? 10 years ago, I might have said "Reverse Auction", and it would have been wrong. Now, look at where we are today!

Kennedy

By Anonymous on Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 09:12 pm:

Kennedy:

Since when don't the hard sciences involve analytical thought? I just showed your comment to a physicist that I'm traveling with and we both had a good laugh.

By joel hoffman on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 08:39 am:

I posted this thought under another topic, in response to a wandering discussion. This is probably the better location for my comment -

How does one document "common sense" or a good "business sense", if that is an essential quality for an effective 1102? Unless one is competing locally for a position, without some sort of credentials, the selecting official will have to contact reliable references and interview them.

I believe it's possible to test for and document sound business judgement for acquisition personnel. This type of certification would certainly be useful for selection officials who aren't personally familiar with a candidate and would be useful for those seeking positions other than climbing the local ladder.

Therefore, I'd make the testing and certification optional. Those aspiring to move up and willing to move to do it could take advantage of such opportunity.

Why do I say that one can be tested for sound business judgement? The professional engineer's examinations test an engineer's "engineering judgement." All problems are practical design exercises, not just answering a question with the right number. In fact, the correct answer is not as important as documenting the entire methodology and thought process used to obtain the answer.

I remember getting almost full credit on a problem to design a "three notch weir" for a waterway. I couldn't find the formula for a 3 notch weir to save my life - so I made one up. I admitted it and stated that all follow-on calculations were based on my formula. As it turned out, my formula was very close to correct and my design development was correct. I lost only one point out of 5 or 10 (can't remember - it was 23 years ago) on the problem!
Happy Sails! Joel

By joel hoffman on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 08:41 am:

Heck, it was a "V- Notch" weir! "Three Notch Road" is close by my house! Happy Sails!

By Charlie Dan on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 12:01 pm:

I really want to agree with the premise that common sense is a necessary quality for contracting officers. But that common sense must be accompanied by a strong stomach allowing the contracting officer to implement and at times defend nonsensical laws and regulations.

The regulations overflow with clauses and procedural requirements defying common sense. This forum, and the Water-Cooler that preceded it, are filled with postings from knowledgeable contracting personnel who cannot agree on a common-sense interpretation of FAR 15. Just try explaining to a reasonable businessman why, in the era of Kinko's and laser printers, the Government can only acquire printing services through the Government Printing Office. And, for those who remember the good old days, think about how many contracts included a mandatory FAR clause dictating a mandatory source for jewel bearings --I know that I incorporated that mandatory clause for years into contracts that had absolutely no possibility of ever encountering a need for a single jewel bearings (By the way, whatever happened to that clause?)...

My point is, common sense is necessary -- but it is just as important that the contracting officer be able to work well in a bureaucracy that frequently defies common sense! If you cannot tolerate insanity, don't work as a federal contracting officer. The best contracting officers are those who can recognize the nonsensical, maintain a sense of humor and perspective, and apply common-sense approaches to get things done despite the nonsense.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 12:19 pm:

What are the chances that we can agree on a definition of common sense?

By bob antonio on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 12:21 pm:

Vern:

Good point. It's hopeless.

By Kennedy How on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 01:11 pm:

Anon,

Ooops. Different type of analytical thought, I guess. I'll admit I flunked College math and got a low C/High D in HS Physics. Just couldn't think that way. I'd study all night, but drew blanks the next day. Can't explain it. Got way better grades in areas other than these, though.

Kennedy

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 01:16 pm:

All,

Let me give you Ottinger’s common sense interpretation of these issues.

-- The Boss is always right.
-- Congress is the Boss.
-- What do you do when the Boss doesn’t make sense?
-- Remind yourself that the Boss is always right.

As far as I can tell, all Bosses give dumb, arbitrary direction on occasion. Common sense includes knowing how to deal with such dumb, arbitrary direction.

It strikes me that nobody would laugh at Dilbert, if the private side was not capable of bureaucratic stupidities.

Seriously, it helps to know where the rule originates, if only to put things in perspective.

Vern & Bob,

Yes. We are an argumentive bunch. This is the flaw in many superficially attractive schemes for improvement.

Eric