At the Q&A page of the Wifcon Forum, several persons have been carrying on a conversation about ratification of unauthorized commitments. One part of the conversation has highlighted the problems caused when program personnel direct a contractor.

The lead article in the June 2000 issue of NCMA's Contract Management magazine was "Contract Manager vs. Program Manager," a long-running theme in acquisition. The article pointed out that there can be "a great deal" of conflict between COs and PMs and analyzed the sources of that conflict.

Some people appear to believe that there should be a "separation of powers" between program management and contracting authority in order to ensure ethical conduct. Others think that the separation of program management and contract management deprives the program manager of the authority that should go with his or her responsibility.

Question: Assuming that they could be provided with the services of business and legal advisors, should program managers be given contracting authority, thereby eliminating the separation of program and contract management and providing PMs with the authority that goes with their responsibility?

By Randy Jones on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 12:16 pm:

I suggest the PM should have contracting authority, provided they have the appropriate qualifications, training, education, experience, etc. to obtain a Warrant.

Randy

By Peggy Richter on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 02:00 pm:

Presuming that a PM also has the extensive knowledge, experience and training to hold a warrant and not just the political "clout", regarding the idea of doing both sides, I'd like to suggest an analogy: pilots and engineers sometimes disagree. Sometimes they are "dual hatted" but the ability to do both well on the same project requires not only being able to see both sides of the coin but also to be dispassionate about the issues. An engineer can design an aircraft which can tolerate more g's than the human being - bad idea per the pilot, but most pilots also don't care for aircraft that can virtually fly & land themselves - a good idea for the space shuttle. As with medical issues - we all probably treat ourselves for minor things, but even an MD will usually go to someone else if they have a serious problem. A PM has, by definition, a vested interest in the project - the question is can they apply that in a dispassionate way so as to apply both the needed extensive knowledge of contracting that would be needed as well as the "i know my project" information?

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 02:38 pm:

Peggy:

Do you have to be a pilot to be an aeronautical engineer? I'm not asking if it would be useful to be a pilot; I'm asking if it should be a threshold requirement.

As to the extensive knowledge that you have to have to be a CO, we all know that there are a lot of COs who don't know what they should. There is no uniform standard of knowledge for CO appointment, even within certain categories of acquisition, and 1102s resist the idea of qualifying tests.

When I was at HQ Air Force Systems Command in the early 1980s, I sponsored a command contracting officer's conference. One of the issues that I put on the agenda was the idea of requiring CO candidates to pass a written or oral examination as a prerequisite to appointment. The greatest opposition came from COs.

So, what do you think? Do aeronautical engineers have to be pilots?

By joel hoffman on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 02:39 pm:

Since the PM is using someone elses financing (the long forgotten taxpayer) and based on my experience working with them, I vote not only no but HELL NO. I don't care how skilled the PM is in business practices, ethics, acquisition and contract law.

PM functions, performance evaluation criteria and other program success measures are usually distinct from that of contracting personnel. There are different influences and pressures. One of the primary standards of conduct for KO's, I was taught, is to be fair and neutral, in determining merit in a dispute. A PM has a constituency to champion.

If PM's were accountable to the taxpayer, I might change my mind. I have yet to see that, however. Happy Sails! Joel

By Scott on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 03:14 pm:

Why stop at contracting? Should a PM have to work through a personnel specialist to fill personnel vacancies? We could all function and do our jobs better if we get rid of a perceived roadblock.

I work with several PM's whom I would trust with contracting authority. So I would have no problem with delegating authority during contract administration for changes.

Scott

By bob antonio on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 03:50 pm:

I say no. For simplicity, I group program managers, project managers, and project officers into two groups: (1) progam/project managers for major systems and projects including weapons systems, space systems, or information technology systems, etc. and (2) program officers, project officers, etc on specific contracts.

Quite often a program manager for a major system or project is asked to field something that is the first of its kind. In doing this, the program manager deals with the system's future users, Congress, higher level management, contractors, independent testers, auditors, etc. Rarely are these stakeholders in agreement and they usually play the part of rock and/or hard place. The program manager should concentrate on leading the program office and managing the rocks and hard places. A successful program manager understands the role of the contracting officer.

For the non-system project officer that takes a two-week contracting course before assuming the duties--never, never, never, never, never. Never!!

y Rob Bristow on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 04:42 pm:

Bob, thanks for keeping hope (I mean The Forum) alive. Vern, great topic! I read an interesting article in the DAU Acquisition Review Quarterly-Summer 2000. The author, Rob Lloyd, touches on the issue of contracting office vs. program management office along with a bunch of other stuff. Except he approached the subject from a new angle. He stated, "Contracting is not synonymous with program management, and contracting offices should not take on program management responsibilities." I couldn't find the article on the DAU web page. This is a must read even if you do not agree with the author. Rob

By stan livingstone on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 04:50 pm:

I'll add my two cents and this is from a different perspective. If an organization has major conflicts between Program Managers and CO's, the senior management is at fault and needs to make significant changes. Everyone involved in a project needs to be on the same team, have the same goals and objectives, and be supportive of each other. I don't mean they have to see eye to eye on all issues. But they need to have respect, trust, and be open to other views. Then they need to have a vehicle to work things out and get agreement on moving forward. In that environment, the CO understands technical, program, fiscal, and management issues. Likewise, the PM knows the key contracting issues. The PM relies on the CO (or anyone else that might be knowledgable) for expert contracting advise. The CO relies on the PM or engineer or whomever for their expertise as well. The key thing is everything is fully discussed and no one takes actions that are adverserial to the project goals unless there is agreement. This kind of relationship works. So when it's not there, it's senior management's job to make it that way.

I find that good PM's have as much interest in making sure all aspects of the project are successful, including maintaining the integrity of the procurement process. Good CO's should help ensure the project, and not just the contracxting process, is successful. In this light, I don't see a PM wanting or needing a CO warrant. Rather, they trust and respect their CO who is a valued member of their team. And if a good CO finds themselves in a situation different from this, they owe it to themselves and their management to help make it that way.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 06:08 pm:

Joel/Bob:

The contracting officer is using someone else's financing, too. Are you opposed to giving PMs contracting authority because you think it would violate some management principle of separation of powers, or is your opposition based on the perceived character flaws of PMs?

It sounds like both of think that one of the CO's responsibilities is to control ethically vulnerable PMs. Is that right?

By bob antonio on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 08:39 pm:

Rob:

I am happy to see that you found us. Please keep contributing.

Vern:

I don't think it is the responsibility of the contracting officer to control ethically vulnerable PMs. It is the responsibility of agency heads to make sure that ethically vulnerable individuals are not appointed program managers.

The program manager has an extremely difficult task as I pointed out in my earlier note. That includes fielding the program within the budget, schedule, and performance parameters. This takes special talent.

On the other hand, the contracting officer has a special task also. Among other things, the contracting officer must support the program, get a good deal for the taxpayer, provide opportunities for small, disadvantaged, women owned, and hubzone businesses. These may not always appear or be consistent with an efficient program operation. However, they need to be done.

Both the program manager and contracting officer need to understand each other's responsibilities and work towards their fulfillment. I think it is too much for one individual and I think separation of duties is also preferable.

By Ramon on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 09:13 pm:

As the long term proponent for "separation of powers" -- with a structure that fosters problem solving vice obstructionism and applicable mainly to large, complex efforts -- I will naturally say absolutely not. No more than we should be seeking a long term lawyer with service on Capitol Hill and time on the Supreme Court to be El Supremo and make those trains run on time!

Within a structure designed to limit obstructionism (the main objection I gather) the tension between requirer, manager, and contracting expert can bring about refined decisions vice those resulting from "I want" or parochial viewpoints. In general it seems to be fairly well accepted that a "prove it" or "convince me" with a realistic possibility of a stop upon failure tends to either bring about acceptance of a firmly based position or a more well reasoned result. Some of the greatest failures have been unopposed strong, unchecked views rammed through.

Just as our Legislative, Executive, and Judicial (very rough analogues to requirer, manager, contracting) system may be messy, even unworkable, at times I don't think many would disagree that in general it hammers ideas into better form than those that lump the two or more of these powers.

I believe a similar structure can apply to parts of contracting, particularly where complex requirements must be integrated into a program and successful outcome. I also think it is overkill for smaller and more straightforward "purchasing" of largely commercial items and services.

I once asked how such a system worked and why there was such serious attention to working the issues (and fast). I was told the consequences of repeated appeals to the only higher authority who could force universal acceptance were too dire to contemplate. Everyone knew nobody would "survive" intact. For example, even flag officers from the three services would not want to come too often to the attention of SECDEF in that manner. A new team who could solve the problem would be found and careers put on side tracks. I do believe such a sword over the head of the three powers is necessary (perhaps we could call it the electorate for fun).

By Joel Hoffman on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 10:25 pm:

Vern, Bob stated my position very well - albeit, much more positively. Happy Sails! Joel

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 11:28 pm:

One thought:

Making the PM a contracting officer doesn't mean that she has to be THE contracting officer.

One of the concerns of the folks in the ratification v. dispute Q&A session was unauthorized commitments arising from PM direction to a contractor. One way to eliminate that problem would be to delegate CO authority to a PM so that she could order necessary changes without having to stand by until a CO could get around to issuing a change order. If properly trained, the PM would know that she must make sure that funds are available and that the change is within the scope of the existing contract.

When I was a construction contracting officer with DOE, I delegated authority to issue field change orders to my chief inspectors. I personnally trained them in what to do. It worked well and greatly improved our project efficiency. The inspectors appreciated my trust in them and were very careful to act only within the scope of their authority. The contractor appreciated our ability to complete change order paperwork at the jobsite.

Never had a problem.

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 08:52 am:

Agree with your idea, Vern. That why COE Resident Engineers have been (A)CO's for decades. Happy Sails! Joel

By Peggy Richter on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 10:23 am:

Vern - no, I don't think that aeronautical engineers need to be pilots, although that doesn't mean that one might not be a BETTER aeronautical engineer if one also is a pilot. There are essentially two trends in "expertise" - the specialist and the generalist. Specialization is the current trend, largely because the body of knowledge required to be an "expert" in many fields is so large. On the other hand, a person who has what is sometimes termed a "renaissance" mind (after Leonardo da Vinci) can often make connections between bodies of knowledge that a specialist wouldn't have the data on. When does a reptile become something else? When someone with knowledge on birds looks at a dinosaur - in that case, the differing specialties are not so divergent, but many realms are. My point was that it isn't sufficient for a PM to have the necessary knowledge, skills, expertise to be a contracting officer - they must also be able to put their own desires to the side if what they want and what is the "right thing" differ. That's hard to do. As Ramon pointed out, one of the reasons for "separation of powers" is because doing the "right thing" when you hold ALL the authority is hard to do. Obviously, absolute monarchs have done this, and one or two have done it quite well - but history records a number of not so good results of putting all authority in one person's hands. CAN a PM be a CO- yes. I suspect it's been done, as I know of a couple of cases where a COTR (COR) has had CO authority on minor task orders (you can tell this is old, as the level of the Delivery orders they had authority for was $25K) - and this worked well enough, but we've also had more than one occasion where a technical advisor, COR or other "engineer" on a project has tried to direct the contractor in a way that isn't good for the overall project. So, like many things, it becomes a case where this works IF the authority is limited, or the individual is above reproach - and the Government system just isn't set up well to make approvals / disapprovals of a process based on an individual's standing.

The issue of if Contracting Officers are always as knowledgeable, skilled, and capable as they ought to be is another issue altogether - like doctors, sometimes you get a quack.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 12:48 pm:

Peggy:

Wow! That was quite a collection of analogies. Reptiles and dinosaurs and birds, Oh my!

The bottom line is that you are an adherent to the separation of powers doctrine of management, which apparently holds that PMs will be tempted to sacrifice contracting policy to the demands of program or project success. I base that on the following:

"My point was that it isn't sufficient for a PM to have the necessary knowledge, skills, expertise to be a contracting officer - they must also be able to put their own desires to the side if what they want and what is the 'right thing' differ. That's hard to do. As Ramon pointed out, one of the reasons for 'separation of powers' is because doing the 'right thing' when you hold ALL the authority is hard to do."

That helps clear things up for me, Peggy. Thanks.

Now a question for all of you "separation of powers" believers. Is that doctrine a conscious part of Federal policy? Is that why program management and contracting authority usually reside in different persons, because Federal policy makers don't trust the people who generate requirements and manage programs and projects to do the right thing. Or, is the development of a contracting officer specialization an historical accident?

Is the separation of powers doctrine a conscious part of Federal policy or an after-the-fact justification by contracting people, who have a vested interest in such a separation in order to hold on to power and prestige?

I'm asking a question, not taking a position.

By Ramon Jackson on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 12:51 pm:

I think this question goes to the heart of the acquisition system as we know it now. It has grown through years of patching solutions onto problems with a few underlying fundamentals that are more or less constant. As Vern pointed out in Why does the Government require FAR 52.222-42? there may be little real reasoning behind some of the way things are done. His comment deals with a minor glitch, "But out of carelessness, ignorance, or both, Congress has required a contract clause, undoubtedly for reasons lost to history." yet I think the entire system suffers from lack of consistent "engineering."

I'm sure it is my technical origins betraying me in this "human" area, but I find it incredible we don't apply engineering to this system that pumps so much money through our government economy With all the sound and fury sometimes surrounding taxes, government efficiency, and integrity issues I cannot understand why we neglect to apply engineering like problem solving to the overall issues.

One of the problems might be illustrated by two quotes:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Action]

If power corrupts, weakness in the seat of power, with its constant necessity of deals and bribes and compromising arrangements, corrupts even more. [Barbara Tuchman]

One is an argument for the "manager" having all the power necessary to get the job done being a danger. The other is an argument for giving someone more power. Either extreme is undesirable. I think middle ground can be engineered, not fumbled for, so that appropriate powers can act as checks-and-balances, idea refining processes, resolution prods and still be effective and even swift in execution.

In the other thread I mentioned technology. Today there is no reason, other than laziness and custom, requiring lengthy process to do reasonable things. Within an idealized IPT type organization where each member has specific responsibilities and powers and is forced into parallel problem and issue resolution current communications can nearly completely cut through the red tape of old.

A memo can literally be worked upon by a contracting officer, PM, budget, legal in parallel. Software even allows this to be done from thousand mile distances. The PM could literally put technical estimates before the others using spread sheets all can see and even be granted authority to modify -- even if they don't have the particular software (MS NetMeeting is one package with this capability). The only real obstacle, other than overworked people, is custom, rules and willingness. Within an environment, without the current software and communication tools, I've seen large actions handled with incredible speed without sacrificing hard looks, position modification, and doing right. It may generate heat, but I've also seen the hot later admit a better solution than their initial proposal resulted.

I see no reason a PM shouldn't have more authority to make alterations within a contractual framework. While not lessening the need I see for reengineering the whole process, I also think much of the problem is with poorly engineered contracts. By custom too much is too minutely defined and too little reasonable flexibility is built into the basic framework (grass cutting and German contract issue for one). In many of the cases no fundamental change in the way things are structured need be contemplated -- only better execution using all the tools now provided.

A perfect system, even a great system, will probably never exist. We could do a lot better with a determined effort. It is interesting how we expend funds on all sorts of engineering to resolve systemic problems with relatively little spent on how we do it all. When we do, as in the last reform, we tend to disregard key issues as they don't fit our political or parochial models and risk rice bowls. Even when pushed by the top management it tends to be too little for too short a period. I'm reasonably sure it reflects a tendency to focus on the "hammer scandals" and ignore the systemic problems. It is perhaps more fun and less work -- and much more political profit is involved.

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 03:31 pm:

A program or project manager is results oriented - get the program or project on line - as quickly as possible.

This sometimes conflicts with other business decisions, the myriad of socioeconomic programs, mandatory federal requirements, the Competition in Contracting Act, and other Legislation, the oversight function, etc. that others have to concerned with. The acquisition team is there to support the program as best it can, within the framework and options available. Let the PM do PM and the topical experts do theirs, in support of the program.

Yes, I wish the PM could be more like a PM in industry. However, those PM's are often directly accountable against different measures - the bottom line, for example, and do not have to contend with as many social or other restraints as one in the Federal Government. Happy Sails!

By Peggy Richter on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 11:01 am:

Vern - Is that doctrine a conscious part of Federal policy? - i think so. I think it's part of the "don't risk problems" philosophy. We started the credit card system here at the Lake and at the time it was very hard to convince authorities higher up the food chain that the engineers wouldn't go "hog wild" with their credit cards. And note, while I state that it is HARD, I also state that dual-skills can be an advantage. In my non-Government life, I've seen the advantages of having a person have both authority & knowledge in more than one venue and in exactly that same area I've seen what happens when the "wrong" person is given that same authority. In some organizations, a means exists to remove that person. In the Government, the philosophy tends to be "don't risk it" - because it isn't the individual who suffers, it's the taxpayer. I've dealt with many many contractors whose president is also the chief engineer. Many of these do quite well. A few have problems.
the Government's response to a problem is to create a horde of new regulations to ensure that no one can ever make "that mistake" again - not to consider that the mistake (or abuse) was one out of say, 10,000, deal with the individual and go on.
I don't think it's Contracting people trying to preserve "turf". I think that, like any other specialty, there is enough "data" and expertise that is required that finding someone who can have expertise in both is hard. And it may not be the most efficent means to have one person "do it all" in most cases. As I said, if you have a person who can be truly objective and dispassionate about the tasks they have, a dual person can be very effective - absolute monarchs can cut thru a lot of the process time --- but again, the Government generally prefers to "miss out" on the opportunity to have an Elizabeth I in order to avoid having a "Bloody Mary"

Incidentally, i find the arguement by Ramon: "current communications can nearly completely cut through the red tape of old. " interesting. The OLDEST method was a verbal agreement & handshake. The Sumerians started writing because they needed the "red tape" of records and someone to keep them. The oldest known written records are business ones. Obviously, one can do things quite quickly using the telephone - one need not have any of the other technological tools if speed is the only criteria. The rest really IS all "red tape" - intended to ensure that what one party thinks is a contract is the same thing as the other party and that there is some means to ensure that this contract has some real authority. The trick is to lighten the process without losing the essence.

By C MERCY on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 12:45 pm:

THIS ALWAYS PROVES TO BE AN INTERESTING LITTLE CORNER OF THE WEB. THE ANSWER IS OF COURSE NO. IN 22 YEARS OF CONTRACTING I FIND I STILL FEEL AS DIOGENES WHEN IT COMES TO PMS ETC. ESPECIALLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. (ANYONE REMEMBER ILL WIND-WERE THEY PMS OR KOS). IN THE LAST 4 YEARS I HAVE SPENT HALF OF THEM TDY . THE MISSION WAS TO SAVE THOSE CONTRACTING OFFICES THAT HAD SUCCUMBED TO THE PMS. AND HAD LOST THEIR WARRANTS. AT EACH OUTBRIEFING FOR THE SPE, THE ONE CONSTANT WAS AN INABILITY OF PMS TO ,LET US SAY, BE FULLY FORTHCOMING IN THEIR ASSERTIONS. IT WAS STUNNING. AND EACH WAS UNDONE BY CAREFUL QUESTIONING AND OFFERS OF ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE. THEY SIMPLY HAVE DIFFERENT AGENDAS. I KNEW AN 05 WHO WOULD COME TO MY DIRECTORATE OFTEN TO TRY TO GET US TO DO THINGS THAT WERE SIMPLY NOT PERMITTED. IN THE EVENING WHEN I MIGHT ENCOUNTER HIM AT THE O CLUB HE READILY APOLOGIZED FOR TROTTING OUT THE COMPANY LINE AND TOGETHER WE WOULD WORK OUT SOLUTIONS. BUT NOT DURING WORK HOURS. GO FIGURE.

By Kennedy How on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 12:54 pm:

Well, for one thing, civilian PMs aren't even in the same Job Series as the standard CO positions here at my activity. Military PMs, while having some other branch, may or may not have any acquisition background; I don't know. Military types do not seem to have enough staying power in their tours to learn the Acquisition portion prior to moving on into some other job type; for me, as a civilian, it took me at least 6 years before I could even qualify for a CO position.

I suppose a case could be made that acquisition oriented military officers could get a CO warrant (and, it's been done many times), but to have that person be moved into a promotion slot as a LTC and up in charge of a PM shop, that's a bit more farfetched.

We see a number of assumption of position ceremonies here at my activity, and not many of the incoming types have any obvious contracting experience based on their last duty stations. At least, any kind of experience I can tell from their biographies.

Seems to me that this "separation" evolved into where we are today.

Personal opinion here. I believe that a military PM has a different responsibility and reports to a different constituency than a Contracting Officer does. This "conflict", if you will, is difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, you are tasked to bring your program to a successful conclusion, on time, and on budget. Unfortunately, somebody didn't give you enough money to do the job. On the other hand, as a CO, you are entrusted with the public funds, and are obliged to follow all the rules and regulations pertaining to contracting. You have "the power" to enter into contractual agreements on behalf of the United States of America.

When it all comes to pass, and you are being evaluated on your fitness; who are you going to follow? Here, our COs are evaluated at least partially by the PARC. The PMs are not, and I would say that a lot of it comes from whoever their program is responsible to. He, in essence, is serving two masters. Putting a person in an impossible position does nobody any good.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 01:17 pm:

C Mercy:

You are casting an awfully large net. I am a former contracting officer (from nuts and bolts to major systems) who has known many PMs, including military PMs, and who has also been a PM. They are no more uniformly dishonest than contracting officers are uniformly ignorant and incompetent. I could lead Diogenes to many, many honest PMs who have occasionally gotten lost in the byzantine world of contracting rules.

It is a mistake to disparage such a large population on the basis of your personal experiences.

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 01:27 pm:

I want to add that when I started in this business it was as a contract negotiator in an Air Force weapon systems organization. In those days the COs worked for the PMs and received their performance appraisals from them.

I have known many military PMs, majors, lt.cols., colonels, and generals. One of them, Bernard Randolph, was a lt.col. when we met. He ultimately became the four-star commander of the Air Force Systems Command. Another, Ralph Tourino, became the two-star B-2 program manager. He started out in program control on the NAVSTAR program, became chief of a contracting office, and then a PM. They are just two of many.

In all my years in a weapons program environment, I was never, not once, asked to do anything illegal or otherwise improper by a PM, military or civilian. No PM ever even suggested that I do such a thing.

I am a old contracting type, and I will not hesitate to say that I have known many more incompetent and blockheaded COs than I have dishonest PMs.

By Stan Livingstone on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 01:53 pm:

Vern,

I agree with you last statement. I found that most PMs are competent, largely because they had to earn the position they occupy. Too many of the older COs from the 70s and 80's got to a CO warrant position without proper training, experience, or education. Faced with having to make a tough decision, they resorted with the old "no" and "hell no", and rarely were forced to come up with a solution. They didn't have to do much in the way of producing results, and promotions came by being in the jon the longest. Fortunately, this situation is gradually changing but it takes a long time to overcome.

By C MERCY on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 03:14 pm:

I DO NOT THINK I SAID DISHONEST--JUST LESS THAN FULLY FORTHCOMING. AND I ALSO KNEW AN 09 WHO GOT THERE BECAUSE HE KNEW THE RULES,AS WELL AS ALL THE EXCEPTIONS. NONETHELESS I DO KNOW OF WHAT I SPEAK. MAYBE I AM JUST NOT AS LUCKY. OF THIS I AM SURE....WHEN CONGRESS GIVES US MONEY TO CARRY OUT MISIOONS THAT ALSO ASK THAT WE DO IT WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE FAR (AND OTHER RULES). IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT MANY (CERTAINLY NOT EVERYBODY)OUTSIDE THE 1102 FIELD THINKS THESE RULES ONLY APPLY TO US. THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THAT THEY ARE BOUND AS WELL. MAYBE ITS OUR FAULT....THE EDUCATED CONSUMER AND ALL.

By bob antonio on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 03:58 pm:

I believe I am missing the problem here. We are the only country to reach the moon, we have the only Space Shuttle, the best Air Force equipment and systems, the best Navy ships and systems, the best Army equipment and systems, the best Marines, the leading scientific accelerators in the world, etc. These have been developed and fielded by our government and contractor program managers. Obviously, these individuals are enlightened.

So why are the program managers unable to deal with their business managers--the contracting officers?

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 07:42 pm:

C Mercy:

It often is our fault, because: (1) too many of us do not know the rules ourselves, (2) those of us who do know the rules sometimes fail to explain them clearly, (3) some of us use the rules as an excuse when we fail to deliver competent and timely contracting services to our customers, and (4) some of us use the rules as an excuse for rejecting ideas that we do not like instead of making cogent arguments against them.

And although you didn't use the word dishonest, you meant it, a la your reference to Diogenes, who is said to have wandered the streets of Athens looking for an honest man.

Bob:

In my experience, most PMs have dealt with their contracting officers quite well.

By Eric Ottinger on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 08:48 pm:

All,

I agree with everybody up to a point, but mostly with Bob.

Some of you have led sheltered lives. I guess that is a blessing.

There are agencies where I would not wish to work, because I can be fairly certain that I would be asked to do improper or illegal things.

Gordon Rule gave a talk at our Baltimore NCMA meeting once. The talk made the second page of the Washington Post. The conflict between Admiral Rickover and Gordon Rule was an epic conflict between a program manager and a contracting officer. (Don’t assume that it was the CO who wanted to take the hard line with the contractors and the PM who wanted to cut a deal. In this case, it was the other way around.)

I know of one SES Director of Contracts who was bounced out of his job after he argued with a flag officer one time too many.

Just as I find it irritating when lawyers take it upon themselves to give me ethical advice as though I wouldn’t understand ethics without their help, I am sure that many of our technical customers find it irritating when we suggest that we are somehow naturally more ethical than they are.

Generally, the more bureaucratic and obtuse the contracting office, the more they come across as holier than thou.

To some degree, our customers view our rules as arbitrary and bureaucratic, because we don’t do a good job of explaining the common sense principles that underlie the rules. On the other hand, some of us can’t tell the difference.

Sometime back in the eighties the AF had the bright idea of making the PM the contracting officer and demoting the 1102 to the role of a contract specialist. This blew over/ went away in some fashion.

I have two theories. Perhaps, some PMs got carried away with the sudden power and did things that were rash and imprudent. My second theory, which I think is closer to the truth, is more subtle. I think once PMs had the warrant in their hands, they realized that they were walking in a minefield, and they didn’t really have the background and experience to know where all the booby-traps might be. At that point, it didn’t look like such a bad idea to let an experienced 1102 sign the documents, “answer the mail” and take the responsibility.

There is no reason, that I know of, that the PM and the 1102 can’t both have warrants. Sometimes, high level managers have warrants by virtue of their positions.

I think it is interesting and indicative that Vern’s question so quickly degenerated into a debate about who can be trusted to be more ethical than who. I think the real issues are quite different.

Peggy,

I like your figurative language. I would suggest, in the interest of being ecumenical and fair to our really high church friends that you could substitute Cromwell for Bloody Mary in your example.

C,

The COs involved in Ill Wind were civilians. Approximately, 1980 a PCO was caught using inside information and fired. His replacement and protege kept meeting this guy regularly for lunch and went on to commit some of the Ill Wind crimes. Go figure.

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 09:26 pm:

Eric:

Here's a well-deserved round of applause -- APPLAUSE.

Vern

By Ramon Jackson on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 10:44 pm:

Vern's August 31 01:27pm & 07:42 pm comments ring true to me. I'm sure there are a few rotten apples out there. I don't see that as the problem. I saw the problem in very dedicated, honest, well meaning people. In fact, the more dedicated the greater the problem may be. Checking them with power balance is as reasonable to me as not allowing prosecution, defense, judge and jury to be the single most upstanding, honest, dedicated, intelligent member of the community.

The requirements people know their job and need. They don't know program management or contracting, but should be briefed well on the major points and issues of each. They may not even know the technology that is required to meet their need. For example, the geologist may know the data, not the hardware and software best suited to handle the data. Requirements from this perspective may be unreasonable (search 5 tb in .0001 second -- within my budget). They should be capable of providing technical answers to the PMO quickly and with precision.

The PMO should know program management, something about the technical end and have considerable knowledge in contracting. They are highly unlikely to have enough time in the midst of their legitimate task to become fully capable "geologists" or contracting officers. They should be very good at asking hard questions and forcing good answers -- on schedule.

The contracting officer may know nothing about geology, only basic program management, but should be expert at those pesky FAR things and how business reacts to governemnt. They should also be very good at finding ways to accomplish desired result within the rules.

I don't think there are enough individuals alive willing to accept government pay and restrictions who will be master of (even do very well in) all three areas. Even if there were, the idea is still bad because even the noblest when given too much power will too often begin to forget where one interest stops and another begins. It is one reason even a good child should not be the sole guardian of a wealthy parent's estate -- without ill will whose interest is served tends to blur.

For reasons I've explained previously the best product seems to come (in more fields than contracting!) from the sometimes heated interplay of these areas of expertise where power is reasonably balanced yet deadlock has serious group consequences. It tends to check the enthused "draw sabers and charge over the hill into the pit" tendency. "No, we will not do that, but we can go around the hill." It results in such things as "What is your real time requirement to search that data? You have two days to answer any question? We will work the requirement into a realistic one based on your real needs, current technology and your budget."

I think many of us have seen that pattern working to the benefit of all, including the taxpayer. We've probably more often seen power used to ram the thing through into the contract documents and perhaps more money than perhaps five average taxpayers make in a year (or more) spent proving "you really can't afford this."

Peggy, not that far back! We can have a good solid record, not based on my memory of just what that handshake included, with speed just not available a few years ago.

Bob, yes, the finest at very deep pocket costs. All those folks are struggling on a diet, some of which is reasonable, some not.

By bob antonio on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 05:37 am:

Eric:

I was in between Gordon and the other fellow during the contest over the DLGN 41 class frigate which grew to become a CGN 41 cruiser--I think it was the Virginia class. In the end, the Courts sided with Gordon. Ah, modification 33.

About 15 years after the contest, an industry fellow came to work with the organization that employs me on some intern program. I found out that he was from Newport News. I mentioned the CGN 41 and he quickly noted that he was in charge of contract management for the program.

When he returned to industry, he gave me a mug as a remembrance. It has the photo of the CGN 41 sailing the sea and is one of my few prized possessions from work.

By bob antonio on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 05:53 am:

Ramon:

Program managers are at their worst on a diet. Often we ask the impossible from them and provide them with crumbs to do the job. Then some hack second-guesser who cannot distinguish a contract file from a personnel file critiques the program and blames the wrong person.

By bob antonio on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 09:03 am:

All:

Several of us either are or have been lecturers or instructors in the acquisition and contracts field. Several years ago, I ended my career as an instructor in the government. However, in my final presentation, I decided to try something new. In attempting to instruct auditors, one must explain the correct process and then the abuses. With any luck, maybe they remember something. One area of my three-day presentation covered systems acquisition.

This time, I presented the basic A-109 process and used the sketches from the pamphlet that went with the circular. We covered the various phases and then the decision points. Finally, we covered the various abuses one encounters during the process. Then it was time to try something new. I wrote a fictional half-page script describing a system. The script explained that during the course of the exercise new information would be added.

The class was split into several groups each forming a program office. The program managers were appointed and told to develop and provide me with their budget. I was the fictional agency head and my second, General Bullmoose, served as my enforcer. Several class members were told to wait outside the classroom--they were the operational testers.

At the start of the exercise, I praised the program managers and told them how important to the American people their program was. The American public not only needed it, they wanted it. Then it was time for the budget presentation from the program managers. After the presentation, I got Bullmoose aside and let her know that we needed some work on the budgets. They were all too high. Then we had a second presentation. Now the program managers had reduced budgets but some misgivings. I met with Bulmoose to discuss the misgivings and told her I did not want to hear about them again. If she and the program managers could not toe the line, there were other generals and program managers. Bullmoose got the picture.

After the program managers submitted their budget, it was necessary for me to tell them that they did not get all the money they requested. Of course, this required a pep talk. I now began to pace back and forth in the front of the class. My voice, which in the beginning was calm, now took on the early sounds of a preacher. The program managers were told to work with their team and get the program moving.

After some time, I met once again with the program managers. This time they were told their systems had fatal flaws and no matter what they did it could not be corrected. Of course they needed a pep talk. By now, I was agitated and in full preaching mode. I identified opponents to the system and questioned their patriotism. The term retrofit was introduced. The program managers agreed to field the systems and fix them in the field. Next I told them the operational testers were coming. Bullmoose took the program managers aside and showed them how to deal with the testers.

Then it was time for me to walk outside of the classroom and meet with the testers. I told them the program managers were producing junk and that it could not pass the tests. The testers walked into the classroom where they encountered Bullmoose before they could sit down. By now, Bullmoose was nearly as good a preacher as I. She told the testers that the system met all the important aspects needed for fielding. Then they were introduced to their program offices. The program managers went right to work.

By now, I was preaching at full speed and wiping the foam from my mouth. Bullmoose did the same. We took turns sitting with the programs and testers. Finally, I moved to the front of the class and asked for reports from each of the program. One by one, each program explained their systems were ready for fielding. Of course, I was delighted. We were all jubilant. In a very short time we fielded systems. Of course they did not work as intended. I had corrupted my entire class.

Then I became quiet. I then took the class back to the beginning of the exercise. That is when I told them that the process is important. However, the fact that the players are human is more important than the process. I quietly pleaded with them to study the environment in which the program existed and then ask what they would do within that environment. Then I took them back to the exercise and asked a simple question. That was: What have we become? There was complete silence. I gave them one final instruction: Remember this.

For this reason, I believe it is useful for keeping contracting officer authority with the contracting officer and not the program manager.

By Vern Edwards on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 10:29 am:

Bob:

You know what the most interesting thing was about your long story? You said that in your classroom exercise you played the agency head. Well, agency heads are the source of all contracting authority (see FAR 1.601(a)). It was you, the head contracting officer for your agency, who corrupted the program managers.

Should an independent citizens committee select and appoint contracting officers? Should agency heads be deprived of that authority? Should all contracting officers be assigned to one big independent agency, so that they can exercise control over agency heads?

By bob antonio on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 12:06 pm:

Vern:

You caught me. Yes, I appointed those blockhead contracting officers and they signed the production contract on my system.

However, it was that citizens committee that elected my fictional boss who made me a fictional agency head. So they don't know anything either.

I don't know, do you think God is a blockhead contracting officer or a corrupt program manager?

By Ramon Jackson on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 12:17 pm:

Vern and Bob,

Ahhhh! The Acquisition Corps -- extended. I believe separation of powers should also be separation of agencies for exactly this reason. Admittedly, at some point there is merger as long as all functions are in the Executive Branch. Since contracting officers supposedly get a bit of their power as agents of the Legislative, why not break that chain? I'm not sure it is necessary, but interesting idea.

I don't particularly like the "control over agency heads." Change that to "be able to effectively say 'no' to agency heads" and thus force that search for alternatives I've mentioned and it becomes an interesting idea. With that qualification my answers would be (in order):

- Interesting idea, worth considering and hammering upon. "Citizens committee" in my view should be a select panel to select perhaps the head and senior management of the contracting officers' organization. They would then select the working levels.

- Yes (with a qualification)

- Yes, and I'd include program offices in the consideration. Within the contracting organization? Separate (my preference)?

My general qualification, for the entire discussion, is that this degree of check and balance applies to large and complex acquisitions. It would seem to me absolutely ridiculous to apply this to a $5 million replacement desktop computer buy or base maintenance contract.

I think such a system becomes worth considering for large weapon systems, large IT developmental contracts or where fundamental agency processes are involved (converting to or merging large digital data holdings for example), very large construction projects (Tenn-Tom waterway type) and similar developmental, large dollar programs. I think its application in what are essentially large commercial buys of goods or services is limited at best. Its application to IRS, FAA, and other agency computer systems might have avoided many dollars poured into marginally effective systems and delayed programs.

By bob antonio on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 12:30 pm:

Ramon:

Vern has helped me with this. We are at the deity level now. What do we do about it/him/her?

By Vern Edwards on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 04:40 pm:

Bob:

I only have nice things to say about the Diety. Whatever It/He/She wants to do is okay by me.

Vern

By bob antonio on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 05:52 pm:

Vern:

Amen.

By Ramon Jackson on Friday, September 01, 2000 - 10:29 pm:

I'm afraid this particular problem is the responsibility of a multi-demigod (or is that demagogue?) system and they are almost all to be elected shortly. May real Deity (It/He/She) help us!