|
Steve, in Industry we have been experiencing the imnpact of this fear for at least two years. There is no question that IGs, ethics personnel, Congressmen and the GAO have done serious damage to the acquisition community. They have executed attack after attack armed with a socialist contempt for the private sector and the most restrictive possible interpretations of the ever-more-complicated crazy quilt of law and regulations. Consequently, every action in acquisition has more steps and takes longer. Dead and gone are the days of streamlining and acquisition reform. It gets worse. The agency-specific contract craze has boosted government demand for trained acquisition personnel. At the same time key agencies have decided contract officers and assistants need also to be certified project managers, and this is true even though they need a lawyer to make most decisions for them. Utter nonsense! The private sector needs more contracts personnel than ever to deal with the nutty new environment. Everyone hires from everyone else, and many feds who come into the private sector bolt when they see the workload and standards of output. In a nutshell there is less stability in the federal acquisition community than ever before. Prices climb, job satisfaction plummets, missions suffer, everyone loses, especially the taxpayer. This is not news. What will fix it? Leadership that comes in from the private sector who can stand up to the Congressmen Waxmans of the world and state, "But that does not serve the taxpayer; that does not match clearly the laws and regs; that is grossly inefficient." We could use some non-lawyers in Congress too. These lawyers simply know not what they do to the business of government.
Posted by Federal Enterprise Architect on April 16, 2008 - 07:44 AM
I want to leave contracting myself. The layers upon layer of approvals, more and more paperwork and the restrictions put on the computer programs needed to perform my job are downright unnecessary and overwhelming.
GSA is getting more and more restrictive.
Anonymous
Posted by jsmeditor on April 16, 2008 - 08:24 AM
Prof. Kelman, Your colleague's observations align with what I have also seen with NCMA meetings and conferences over 2+ decades. At certain times (characterized by demographics and stagnant Federal promotion opportunities) increases in Government attendance at NCMA events reflect an increase in government job seekers). The oft-mentioned baby-boomer retirement rush which has been stretched and delayed for a few years may well be entering its final surge now. Hence the Cincinnati observation.
Posted by 3rdCareer on April 17, 2008 - 08:01 AM
Prof. Kelman, Your colleague's observations align with what I have also seen with NCMA meetings and conferences over 2+ decades. At certain times (characterized by demographics and stagnant Federal promotion opportunities) increases in Government attendance at NCMA events reflect an increase in government job seekers). The oft-mentioned baby-boomer retirement rush which has been stretched and delayed for a few years may well be entering its final surge now. Hence the Cincinnati observation.
Posted by 3rdCareer on April 17, 2008 - 08:01 AM
I hope that some of the people who are driving the current dysfunctional trends in the world of government contracting read the posts in reaction to this and other blogs I've written on these topics. I believe the people promoting the current environment are well-intentioned, but their actions are having consequences the opposite of what they seek.
Steve Kelman
Posted by jsmeditor on April 17, 2008 - 09:13 AM
For years now, government contracting folks have left in droves, retiring in many cases or finding other jobs, producing prolonged and high turnover rates in some agencies. As some of the better ones have left, many of the folks left behind are only still there because can't find a job anywhere else because their skills are not as good. As a result, the quality of the federal workforce has deteriorated as a whole.
When industry tries to fill the gap by bringing back retirees as contractors to do acquisition support, they get beaten up on cost and beaten up because the retirees are perceived as doing "the government's duties." In some cases, you have retired contracting officers with 20 to 30 years of experience working as contractors supporting contract specialists with just a couple of years of experience, yet Congress believes in that instance that the decision-making should be left to the specialist. Not a good idea.
A good contracting person, government or contractor staff, will always pay for themselves many times over in the course of a year if they are properly assigned in relation to their skill sets.
Another phenomena comes into play here too. When contractors are brought in, some feds get jealous because of the salary of the contractor; they shouldn't, because the contractor is actually a "temp" even if its a five year contract, and they are getting paid as such, which the fed is getting a career salary and accumulating all the other retirement and associated benefits which the contractor is not. CO's have been known to assign a contractor with 20+ years of contracting experience to do nothing more meaningful than redaction of files for FOIA requests - a terrible misuse of that person's time and advanced contracting skills.
Posted by Former Govt Contracting Official on April 17, 2008 - 09:13 AM
For years now, government contracting folks have left in droves, retiring in many cases or finding other jobs, producing prolonged and high turnover rates in some agencies. As some of the better ones have left, many of the folks left behind are only still there because can't find a job anywhere else because their skills are not as good. As a result, the quality of the federal workforce has deteriorated as a whole.
When industry tries to fill the gap by bringing back retirees as contractors to do acquisition support, they get beaten up on cost and beaten up because the retirees are perceived as doing "the government's duties." In some cases, you have retired contracting officers with 20 to 30 years of experience working as contractors supporting contract specialists with just a couple of years of experience, yet Congress believes in that instance that the decision-making should be left to the specialist. Not a good idea.
A good contracting person, government or contractor staff, will always pay for themselves many times over in the course of a year if they are properly assigned in relation to their skill sets.
Another phenomena comes into play here too. When contractors are brought in, some feds get jealous because of the salary of the contractor; they shouldn't, because the contractor is actually a "temp" even if its a five year contract, and they are getting paid as such, which the fed is getting a career salary and accumulating all the other retirement and associated benefits which the contractor is not. CO's have been known to assign a contractor with 20+ years of contracting experience to do nothing more meaningful than redaction of files for FOIA requests - a terrible misuse of that person's time and advanced contracting skills.
Posted by Former Govt Contracting Official on April 17, 2008 - 09:13 AM
For years now, government contracting folks have left in droves, retiring in many cases or finding other jobs, producing prolonged and high turnover rates in some agencies. As some of the better ones have left, many of the folks left behind are only still there because can't find a job anywhere else because their skills are not as good. As a result, the quality of the federal workforce has deteriorated as a whole.
When industry tries to fill the gap by bringing back retirees as contractors to do acquisition support, they get beaten up on cost and beaten up because the retirees are perceived as doing "the government's duties." In some cases, you have retired contracting officers with 20 to 30 years of experience working as contractors supporting contract specialists with just a couple of years of experience, yet Congress believes in that instance that the decision-making should be left to the specialist. Not a good idea.
A good contracting person, government or contractor staff, will always pay for themselves many times over in the course of a year if they are properly assigned in relation to their skill sets.
Another phenomena comes into play here too. When contractors are brought in, some feds get jealous because of the salary of the contractor; they shouldn't, because the contractor is actually a "temp" even if its a five year contract, and they are getting paid as such, which the fed is getting a career salary and accumulating all the other retirement and associated benefits which the contractor is not. CO's have been known to assign a contractor with 20+ years of contracting experience to do nothing more meaningful than redaction of files for FOIA requests - a terrible misuse of that person's time and advanced contracting skills.
Posted by Former Govt Contracting Official on April 17, 2008 - 09:13 AM
From the heartland perspective I would agree with Dr Kelman and the other bloggers - I am a CO with over 20 years experience and 30 years in Acquisition. I have seen the pendulum "swing" a few times over those 30 years but NEVER has the CO workforce been so discouraged and ready to "punch" i.e. retire if CSRS eligible or leave the federal sector if FERS - I suspect many of those attending the Cincinnati NCMA conference are hoping to connect with Dept of Energy (DOE) or industry partners who offer more $$ and less stress that DOD acquisition. I have been wondering if much of the rigidity we are seeing in acquisition is driven by continued implementation of the CFO Reform Act of 1990 and DOD e-Business initiatives which look at acquisition with an COTS mentality. Within the past months I have had to have my JAG involved in areas I NEVER had legal involvement - negotiating consideration, incremental funding of R&D, and a two-week No Cost Time Extension for an order. I believe the constrained fiscal environment we are in is aptly called "survival acquisition" and the decisions that both Program Mgrs and COs must make on a daily basis center around the quick obligation of funds - there is no time to resolve issues or plan acquisition. REALLY - DoD doesn't need COs - everyone else has an opinion and financial execution is the top concern - the CO is only expected to issue a document on schedule. I myself am sending my resume today to be considered for a lateral level position as a Prog Mgr. I am also actively looking on USA jobs and once I have age will "punch" to become a support Ktr where a lot less responsibility and stress would await me. The CO workforce is inordinately stressed by the complexity of ALL LEVELS OF ACQUISITION - especially services and the documentation required. DoD Leadership and Congressional failure to recognize this has fueled the desire to give up the CO warrant by many COs.
Posted by PK_30_years_in_acquisition on April 17, 2008 - 12:14 PM
I sympathize with the DoD procurement guys. Here at GSA, 1102s have long been under the same sort of pressure from the oversight community that has created chaos, lowered morale, complicated procurements and increased costs. But there is one big difference, we at least have a leader committed to trying to fix the problem and confronting the “fear industry”. While it is true that Mrs Doan hasn’t yet won this battle, she alone is willing to fight it. Can’t but help thinking that if other agency heads were willing to confront the problems with the same relentless determination, federal procurement policy would not be in such crisis.
Posted by anon on April 20, 2008 - 11:20 AM
I read your comments from the NCMA conference and you are right on. I wish you were in a position of leadership...we need your vision and recognition of what Congress and others are doing to us.
We receive data call after data call with sometimes a few hours to respond to. The Gansler report so accurately noted we are overworked and under resourced. That's why the new commands are being stood up.
The reality....I'm under a hiring freeze because my agency went beyond their allowed spaces. So, I have 4 vacancies with a known loss of at least 4 more in the short future. And, most of these are key GS 12's and 13's.
Clearly people are getting tired and retiring. I am losing 3 this summer that I know would have preferred to work longer, but their health can't take the stress anymore. I know I am eligible next August and I'm now seriously considering it. DoD and the Army have made this job so difficult, it's not fun like it used to be. And, as you will remember, I LOVED my job.
Keep up the good work and know from a "front line" perspective, you are right on!
Contracting Professional
Posted by jsmeditor on April 25, 2008 - 08:40 AM
|
