Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Technology and Procurement

Policy, Committee on Government

Reform, House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

July 2002 ACQUISITION

WORKFORCE

Agencies Need to

Better Define and

Track the Training of

Their Employees

GAO-02-737
Page i GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

DOD Has a Broader Definition of Acquisition Workforce 5

Every Agency Has Established Training Requirements 8

Various Mechanisms Used to Ensure Training Requirements Met 9

Agencies Were Able to Fund Current Training Needs but Some

Cited Concerns 11

Conclusions 12

Recommendations for Executive Action 13

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13

Scope and Methodology 14

Appendix I Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement

Policy 16

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Energy 18

Appendix III Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration 20

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 22

Tables

Table 1: Key Acquisition Training Legislation and Administrative

Actions 4

Table 2: Personnel Included in Each Defined Acquisition

Workforce Position within the Selected Agencies

Reviewed 7

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Abbreviations

ACMIS Acquisition Career Management Information System

COR contracting officer representative

COTR contracting officer technical representative

DAU Defense Acquisition University

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

FAI Federal Acquisition Institute

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy

VA Department of Veterans Affairs
Page 1 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

July 29, 2002

The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Having the right people with the right skills is critical to ensuring the

government receives the best value for the $200 billion it spends each year

for goods and services. But achieving this has been difficult. Our work

continues to show that some of the government’s largest procurement

operations are not always run efficiently, either because requirements are

not clearly defined, because prices and alternatives are not fully

considered, or because contracts are not adequately overseen.1

 At the

same time, the ongoing technological revolution requires a workforce with

new knowledge, skills, and abilities. Moreover, the nature of acquisition is

changing from routine simple buys toward more complex acquisitions,

such as information technology services, and toward new business

practices, such as performance-based contracting and the use of purchase

cards.

To ensure an adequate professional acquisition workforce, the Congress

enacted a series of reforms in the 1990s, which required agencies to

establish policies and procedures for effective management and training of

their acquisition workforce, to include certain positions in the definition of

the acquisition workforce, and to establish qualification, educational, and

training requirements for positions identified as part of the acquisition

workforce. You asked us to assess agency progress in this regard.

Particularly, you asked us to determine whether agencies have

(1) definitions of their acquisition workforces that include all significant

acquisition-related functions as required by the Congress, (2) established

training requirements for these workforces, (3) a means for ensuring that

those requirements are met, and (4) allocated sufficient funding to provide

required training.

 1

 See U.S General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263,

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Our review focused on the Department of Defense (DOD); the

Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Departments of

Veterans Affairs (VA), Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS);

the General Services Administration (GSA); and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA). These agencies represented 87 percent

of total contract dollars obligated in fiscal year 2000 and employed 82

percent of the government’s contract specialists and purchasing agents,

which are the primary career fields in the acquisition workforce.

DOD and the military services have adopted multidisciplinary,

multifunctional definitions of their acquisition workforce.2

 The civilian

agencies have not. DOD and the military services’ definitions include

contracting officers,3

 contracting officer representatives, and contracting

officer technical representatives4

 along with other disciplines that play a

significant role in acquisitions, such as program managers, industrial

specialists, and financial administrators. Civilian agencies generally

include only contract and procurement specialists, contracting officers,

and contracting officer representatives in their acquisition workforce

definitions. Acquisition officials in two of the five civilian agencies we

reviewed explained that use of a broader definition would be difficult

given that they do not have the authority to establish and monitor training

for other functional areas. However, other agencies with similar concerns

have taken steps to address this issue. Also, in some cases, agencies

established training for certain acquisition-related positions even though

they were not formally included in their acquisition workforce definitions.

DOD and the civilian agencies have developed specific training

requirements for their acquisition workforce. They have also developed a

variety of mechanisms to track the training of acquisition personnel. Three

of the civilian agencies are awaiting implementation of a more

sophisticated Web-based governmentwide management information

system to help them track training, but the deployment of this system has

 2

 DOD officially refers to its acquisition workforce as the acquisition technology and

logistics workforce.

3

 Contracting officers are federal employees with the authority to bind the government by

signing a contract. This authority is delegated to them through “warrants” issued by the

head of their contracting activity.

4

 Contracting officer representatives (CORs) and contracting officer technical

representatives (COTRs) are federal employees designated by the contracting officer to

perform certain contract administration duties.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

been delayed considerably. Lastly, all agencies we reviewed said they had

sufficient funding to provide current required core training for their

acquisition workforce; however, some expressed concerns about funding

training for future requirements and career development, particularly

because of budget cuts made recently at the Defense Acquisition

University (DAU).5

We are making recommendations to the Administrator of the Office of

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) concerning identification of all

acquisition-related positions and development of a management

information system. In written comments on a draft of this report, the

Administrator of OFPP generally concurred with our recommendations.

We also received written comments from DOE, NASA, and VA and

comments by e-mail from DOD, HHS, and GSA. All agencies generally

agreed with our findings.

The Congress and others have been addressing the question of how to

strengthen the acquisition workforce since 1974 when the OFPP was

created to establish governmentwide procurement policies for executive

agencies. One of the primary responsibilities of this office and its Federal

Acquisition Institute (FAI)6

 is to strengthen acquisition workforce training.

The concern about the quality of the acquisition workforce deepened in

the 1990s, as it became clear that the government was experiencing

significant contracting failures partly because it lacked skilled personnel

to manage and oversee contracts. There was also concern that program

managers and other personnel integral to the success of the acquisition

process were only marginally involved with the contracts. Two of the most

significant steps taken in this regard were the passage of the Defense

Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act in 1990 and the Clinger-Cohen

Act in 1996. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, among

other things, provided specific guidance on DOD’s acquisition workforce

definition. The Clinger-Cohen Act required civilian agencies to establish

acquisition workforce definitions. Those definitions were to include

contract and procurement specialist positions7

 and other positions “in

 5

 The DAU is the primary provider of acquisition training for DOD and the military services

and, in some cases, provides training for civilian agencies.

6

 FAI, under OFPP’s direction, is charged with supporting and continuing the development

of a competent professional civilian acquisition workforce.

7

 Specifically, the act identified positions in the General Schedule Contracting series (GS1102) and in the General Schedule Purchasing series (GS-1105).

Background
Page 4 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

which significant acquisition-related functions are performed.” The

Clinger-Cohen Act also required civilian agencies to collect standardized

information on their acquisition workforce and establish education,

training, and experience requirements that are “comparable to those

established for the same or equivalent positions” in DOD and the military

services. Table 1 provides more details on this act and other legislation

and federal agency initiatives.

Table 1: Key Acquisition Training Legislation and Administrative Actions

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy

(OFPP) Act, P.L. 93-400, codified in 41

U.S.C. §401 et seq.

This act created OFPP within the Office of Management and Budget to provide

governmentwide leadership for agencies other than DOD in procurement matters. The

act was amended to establish FAI, which under the direction of OFPP, was to, among

other things, (1) promote the development of the acquisition workforce, (2) analyze

acquisition career fields to identify competencies for acquisition positions, and (3)

develop training courses.

The Defense Acquisition Workforce

Improvement Act, P.L. 101-510, codified in

10 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.

This act recognized acquisition as a multidisciplinary career field for DOD comprised of

11 functional areas – program management; systems planning, research,

development, engineering, and testing; procurement, including contracting; industrial

property management; logistics; quality control and assurance; manufacturing and

production; business, cost estimating, financial management, and auditing; education,

training, and career development; construction; and joint development and production

with other government agencies and foreign countries. The act also directed the

Secretary of Defense to establish minimum education, training, and experience

requirements, and a defense acquisition university structure.

OFPP Policy Letter 92-3 In implementing the acquisition workforce provisions of the OFPP Act, this guidance

established a standard set of contracting competencies and identified specific training

requirements for personnel in the contracting and purchasing occupational series and

contracting officers.

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, P.L. 104-

106, codified in 41 U.S.C. §433 et seq.

This act requires civilian agencies, in consultation with OFPP, to establish education,

training, and experience requirements for civilian agencies’ acquisition workforce and

to ensure uniform implementation of policies and procedures among components to the

maximum extent practicable. The act also requires OFPP to establish minimum

qualification requirements and to ensure that agencies collect and maintain

standardized information on the acquisition workforce.

OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 In implementing provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act, this guidance requires agencies

to (1) identify and publish model career paths and (2) establish education, core training,

and experience requirements for enumerated acquisition personnel. The letter defined

the “acquisition workforce” to include contracting and purchasing, contracting officers,

CORs, and COTRs; it also stated that the Administrator of OFPP would “consult with

the agencies in the identification of other acquisition related positions.” Furthermore

this policy letter delegated to FAI the responsibility for developing, with the agencies

and the Office of Personnel Management, a governmentwide management information

system that would allow agencies to collect and maintain acquisition workforce

information including the employees’ completion of all core training courses.

Source: GAO’s analysis.

OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 directs executive agencies to establish core

training for entry and advancement in the acquisition workforce. Agencies

normally establish specific core training required to meet the standards for
Page 5 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

certification in each career field in their acquisition workforce (e.g.,

contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs). For contracting officers, agencies

usually establish several warrant levels,8

 with specified contracting

authority for each level.9

 Agencies issue permanent warrants only to

contracting officers who have completed the core training required for

each warrant level and who have the necessary work experience and

formal education. Because contracting officers’ warrant levels generally

correspond to their grade levels, employees’ career development and

advancement is dependent on attending and passing required core training

courses. The OFPP policy letter also established continuing education

requirements for contract specialists and contracting officers.

DOD includes a wide variety of disciplines—ranging from contracting, to

technical, to financial, to program staff—in its acquisition workforce

definition, but civilian agencies have employed narrower definitions that

are largely limited to staff involved in awarding and administering

contracts. Having a broader definition is important because it is one

method to facilitate agencies’ efforts to ensure that training reaches all

staff integral to the success of a contract. While most civilian agencies

acknowledge that the acquisition process requires the efforts of multiple

functions and disciplines beyond those in traditional contracting offices,

few have broadened their definitions of the acquisition workforce to

include them. Officials at two agencies we reviewed said that they had not

broadened their definitions because officials responsible for managing the

acquisition workforce did not have management responsibility for or

control of the training of individuals in offices other than their own.

DOD is required by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act

to include, at a minimum, all acquisition-related positions in 11 specified

functional areas in its definition of its acquisition workforce. It is also

required to include acquisition-related positions in “management

headquarters activities and in management headquarters support

activities.” Therefore, DOD’s acquisition workforce includes contracting,

 8

 Warrants are the contracting officer’s certificate of authority to enter into, administer, or

terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings.

9

 Contracting authority is the dollar amount a contracting officer is authorized to obligate

the government for purchasing goods and services.

DOD Has a Broader

Definition of

Acquisition Workforce

DOD Has a Multifunctional

and Multidisciplinary

Definition of Acquisition

Workforce
Page 6 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

program, technical, budget, financial, logistics, scientific, and engineering

personnel.

DOD uses a methodology, known as the Refined Packard methodology,10

to identify its acquisition workforce personnel. Using the Refined Packard

methodology, DOD now includes personnel in its acquisition workforce

from three categories: (1) specific occupations that are presumed to be

performing acquisition-related work no matter what organization the

employee is in,11 (2) a combination of an employee’s occupational series

and the organization in which the employee works, and (3) specific

additions and deletions to the first two categories.12 DOD is currently

coding the positions and employees identified by the Refined Packard

methodology into its official personnel systems. DOD components and the

military services’ estimate that the number of personnel included in the

acquisition workforce will expand when the coding is completed in

October 2002.

All the civilian agencies we reviewed include personnel in the contract

specialist and purchasing agent job series as specified by the ClingerCohen Act. All agencies also include contracting officers and three include

CORs and COTRs as required in OFPP’s policy enumerating acquisitionrelated positions. Every civilian agency includes additional positions in

which contracting functions are performed, such as property disposal or

procurement clerks. However, only VA and DOE include positions in

which acquisition-related functions are performed (i.e., program

managers). Table 2 shows how the agencies defined their acquisition

workforces.

 10 The methodology was based on an earlier approach developed in 1986 for the President’s

Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, otherwise known as the Packard

Commission.

11 Civilian personnel (General Schedule) positions in this category are: GS-246 Contractor

Industrial Relations, GS-340 Program Management, GS-1102 Contracting, GS-1103

Industrial Property, GS-1105 Purchasing Specialist, and GS-1150 Industrial Specialist.

12 In making its determinations, DOD looked at the function—such as planning, design,

production deployment, or logistics support—-and the duties involved—-such as

documenting mission needs, establishing performance goals, prioritizing resource

requirements, and planning and executing acquisition programs.

Civilian Agencies’

Acquisition Workforce

Definitions Generally

Limited to Contracting

Functions
Page 7 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Table 2: Personnel Included in Each Defined Acquisition Workforce Position within

the Selected Agencies Reviewed

Agency

Contract

specialists

(GS-1102)

Purchasing

specialists

(GS-1105)

Contracting

officers

COR/

COTR

Other acquisition

related positions

DOE Yes Yes Yes Yes Financial assistant

 specialists

Property managers

Program managers a

GSA Yes Yes Yes Yes Property disposal

Procurement clerks

HHS Yes Yes Yes b No c Procurement clerks

NASA Yes Yes Yes bNo cProcurement clerks

VA Yes Yes Yes dYes Program managers

Procurement clerks

a

 DOE commonly refers to program managers as project managers.

b

 All contracting officers are contract specialists (GS-1102) or purchasing specialists (GS-1105).

c

 COR and COTRs are not included in the acquisition workforce because they are not under the direct

supervision of officials responsible for the acquisition workforce.

d VA includes purchase cardholders with contract authority above the micropurchase threshold in its

Contracting Officer category.

Source: GAO’s analysis of agency provided data.

Agencies are aware of the need to expand their definitions to include all

positions in which “significant acquisition-related functions are

performed,” as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act. To assist agencies in

this effort, OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 identified acquisition workforce

positions, in addition to contracting and purchasing specialists, to include

contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs. Furthermore, OFPP Policy Letter

97-01 stated that the Administrator would “consult with the agencies in the

identification of other acquisition related positions.” All agencies include

positions other than those enumerated in the Clinger-Cohen Act and OFPP

policy, and GSA plans to do so. Specifically:

• VA includes program managers and procurement clerks in its definition.

• DOE includes program managers and property managers in its definition.

• HHS and NASA include procurement clerks in their definitions.

• GSA is identifying and including other acquisition-related positions in its

acquisition workforce and expects to include program managers and other

positions in the future, but GSA has not established a firm time frame.

NASA asserted that managing a much wider range of acquisition

personnel, including “other equivalent positions,” such as CORs and
Page 8 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

COTRs, would be much more difficult than current practice because

agency managers responsible for acquisition workforce training did not

have authority over personnel in offices other than theirs to require they

take specific training courses. However, HHS, which has CORs and COTRs

(which it refers to as project officers) not under control of the acquisition

office, established regulations requiring the head of each contracting

activity ensure their CORs and COTRs receive specified training. In

addition, DOE, which has similar oversight concerns, has established an

“umbrella” directive governing acquisition career development. Two

offices, the Acquisition Career Development Program office and the

Project Management Career Development Program office, monitor the

training of employees in their respective career fields.

Every agency we reviewed has established specific training requirements

for each position identified in their acquisition workforce. The Defense

Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act

established similar career management requirements, including education,

experience, and training requirements employees must meet to qualify for

each acquisition workforce position. These requirements are further

defined, for DOD, by DOD regulations and other guidance, and for the

civilian agencies by OFPP and the agencies’ own regulations. Two

agencies also established training requirements for acquisition-related

positions not formally included in their acquisition workforce definitions.

The DAU develops curricula, approved by the Under Secretary of Defense

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics), that include descriptions of the

education, experience, and core training required to meet the standards

for certification in each acquisition career field. In addition, DAU offers

assignment-specific training. Annually, advisors from each DOD career

field determine whether certification standards and assignment-specific

training requirements should be updated and whether training curricula

are current. Any changes must be approved by the Director of Acquisition

Education, Training, and Career Development before they are published in

the DAU catalog. The DAU curriculum includes courses identified by the

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) as

integral to the education and training of personnel in identified positions.

These courses are intended to provide unique acquisition knowledge for

specific assignments, jobs, or positions; maintain proficiency; and remain

current with legislation, regulation, and policy. They also cover topics

such as program management, systems acquisition, construction, and

advanced contract pricing.

Every Agency Has

Established Training

Requirements
Page 9 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

OFPP’s FAI develops training and career development programs for

civilian agency acquisition workforce personnel. Specifically, FAI

developed the contracting and procurement curriculum for the acquisition

workforce, worked closely with DAU in its course development, and

coordinated with colleges and universities to identify and develop

education programs for the acquisition workforce. In addition, FAI is

developing several Web-based courses for various acquisition personnel.

All DOD agencies follow the DAU curriculum. Some civilian agencies,

including NASA and DOE, also follow the DAU curriculum for the

contracting and purchasing functions. Other agencies, including GSA and

VA, have developed training programs and courses that follow the

curriculum established by FAI. While HHS has awarded contracts to teach

courses for its own acquisition workforce, the curriculum and course

contents are modeled on those developed by FAI.

The civilian agencies we reviewed all had policies describing the

education and training requirements for each member of their acquisition

workforce. Even when agencies do not include all positions that play a

role in their acquisition process in their acquisition workforce, they

established education and training requirements for those positions. For

instance, NASA and HHS, which do not include COTRs in their acquisition

workforce, established training requirements for that position.

To ensure training requirements are being met, DOD and the military

services use a centralized management information system that is

automatically updated with training and personnel data. The civilian

agencies use less sophisticated spreadsheet programs to collect and

maintain information on the education, training, and continuing education

received by their acquisition workforce. At least once a year, each agency

collects data from its regional offices and/or contracting components and

consolidates the data into its tracking system.

Although we obtained data from DOD and the civilian agencies to

determine the various elements collected, we did not assess the reliability

or adequacy of their systems. Our purpose was to ascertain that DOD and

the civilian agencies maintained data on the training received by their

acquisition workforce and not to validate the accuracy of that data. While

Various Mechanisms

Used to Ensure

Training

Requirements Met
Page 10 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

we have reported weaknesses in the data maintained by VA and GSA,13

those agencies are taking action to improve the reliability and

completeness of their tracking systems.

Civilian agencies said that they did not have centralized management

information systems because they were awaiting development and

implementation of OFPP’s proposed Web-based Acquisition Career

Management Information System (ACMIS), expected to be available in

September 2002. The civilian agencies, with the exception of VA, viewed

their systems as being interim. As a result of not having a centralized

management information system, these agencies must rely on the data

submitted periodically by training coordinators in their various locations

throughout their agencies. Also, this data is often maintained on unofficial

manual records or on various spreadsheets, making it difficult for the

responsible acquisition officer to verify its accuracy. Because of ACMIS

development delays, VA developed its own management information

system to alleviate these problems, and it is currently entering historical

employee training data into the database.

ACMIS is to be a federal Web-accessible database of records to track

acquisition workforce training and education. It is expected that the data

in ACMIS will be used in making budgeting, staffing, and training decisions

and monitoring the status of staff warrants. The baseline data for ACMIS

will come from the Office of Personnel Management’s Centralized Data

Personnel File and agency workforce databases. Those records will then

be supplemented with education, training, warrant, and certification data

provided by individuals in the acquisition workforce. In addition, the

system is to provide for computer-to-computer interfaces for bulk and

automated data transfers (i.e., updates from agency personnel files or

updates of multiple employee records with a common set of data, such as

the completion of a course).

The development of the new system, however, has experienced

considerable delays. Although OFPP tasked FAI to develop the system in

September 1997, it has not yet been implemented. In 2000, we reported

that delays in developing the system were largely attributable to

difficulties in obtaining agreement on the requirements for the system.

 13 See U.S. General Accounting Office. Acquisition Reform: GSA and VA Efforts to

Improve Training of Their Acquisition Workforces, GAO/GGD-00-66, (Washington, D.C.:

Feb. 18, 2000).
Page 11 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Since our report, FAI, under OFPP direction, has published functional

specifications and data requirements for the system. In December 2001,

FAI contracted for development of the system, and FAI officials said the

contractor was on track to meet the September 2002 implementation.

While DOD and the agencies we reviewed had varying degrees of funding

available, all reported that they managed to meet their acquisition

workforces’ current required training needs. However, we did not review

or validate acquisition workforce training budget and obligation data.

Officials explained that knowing what training courses employees will

need, determining the courses that will be provided to meet training needs,

and knowing the costs of providing each course, including related travel

costs, allowed them to establish the funding required for needed training.

DOD employs a centralized approach in determining its funding

requirements for acquisition workforce training for its services and

components.14 Using its management information system and estimated

costs, DOD and the military services and components go through the

iterative process of reconciling course needs, class size, instructor

availability, and other costs, such as travel. DAU funds (1) the cost of

developing and presenting the courses and (2) the travel expenses for

DOD employees attending the courses. The civilian agencies we reviewed

employ similar procedures relying on the data available to them in their

interim systems comprised of spreadsheets and unofficial manual records.

DOD, the military services, and civilian agencies stated they had sufficient

funds to meet their current minimum core training requirements. NASA

and HHS reported making acquisition workforce training a priority and

earmarking sufficient funds for it. Other agencies–GSA and VA—said that

because they use revolving funds to pay for their training, they also had

sufficient funds earmarked for their acquisition workforce training.

However, DOE, which reported having limited funds for training, often

relied on DOD and NASA courses provided free of charge, on a space

available basis, for much of its acquisition training.

Although they could fund current core training, DOD, the military services,

and DOE–because they rely on DAU for much of their training–expressed

 14 The term “DOD components” refers to agencies not within the military services, such as

the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and the

Defense Logistics Agency.

Agencies Were Able to

Fund Current Training

Needs but Some Cited

Concerns
Page 12 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

concerns with their ability to meet future required training and career

development needs of their employees, since DAU faces budget

reductions.15 A DOD official noted that fiscal year 2001 budget reductions

combined with 2 years of “straight-line” budgets have precluded DAU from

providing all the courses requested by the DOD components. Also, while

all employees received core training for their current positions and grades,

they were often unable to receive core training needed to obtain warrants

at the next higher level to allow them to work on larger contracts and to

be competitive for promotion to a higher grade. Army and Navy officials

cited similar concerns regarding DAU’s budget reductions. Air Force

officials stated that anticipated increases in the acquisition workforce,

because of the implementation of the Refined Packard methodology, the

replacement of retirees, and its planned increases in cross training

between acquisition specialties to meet strategic objectives, would require

additional funding for core training in the future.

A DOE official said that DAU’s budget cuts also potentially affect DOE’s

ability to meet its future training requirements because of its reliance on

DAU-provided courses. The official also noted that DOE’s limited training

funds have curtailed funding tuitions for college courses, intern programs,

continuing education, as well as management and leadership development

programs, which could have an impact on the acquisition workforce’s

career development. Other agencies reviewed did not indicate concerns

about future training and career development.

DOD and the military services have a more broadly defined acquisition

workforce, including functions beyond the traditional contracting

function. Civilian agencies’ definitions are narrower. Regardless of

whether or not an agency determines to include a particular position in its

acquisition workforce, each agency needs to take active steps to identify

all those positions that have a role in the acquisition process important

enough to warrant specific training. This knowledge can be fed into the

agencies’ strategic planning efforts and increases their ability to provide

human capital strategies to meet their current and future programmatic

needs. The challenge for civilian agencies ensuring their acquisition

workforce is receiving the proper training has been made more difficult by

 15 Congress reduced DAU’s fiscal year 2002 budget of $100 million by $5 million. The Office

of the Secretary of Defense cut another $5 million. The Under Secretary of Defense

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) plans to supplement DAU’s budget by $3.5 million.

Conclusions
Page 13 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

OFPP’s slow progress in implementing ACMIS. Continued delays in

implementing this system will increase the time in which agencies have to

use less sophisticated tools for tracking acquisition workforce training.

In an effort to ensure agencies succeed in defining a multifunctional and

multidimensional acquisition workforce, we recommend that the

Administrator of OFPP work with all the agencies to determine the

appropriateness of further refining the definition of the acquisition

workforce and to determine which positions, though not formally included

in the acquisition workforce, nonetheless require certain training to ensure

their role in the acquisition process is performed efficiently and

effectively.

We also recommend that the Administrator of OFPP continue to monitor

the ACMIS contract milestones to ensure that the contractor and FAI

complete and implement the proposed governmentwide system on

schedule.

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the

Administrator of OFPP. She generally concurred with our

recommendations and made observations about OFPP’s efforts regarding

the acquisition workforce (see appendix I). However, the Administrator

took issue with our conclusion that delays in implementing the ACMIS

system caused difficulties in ensuring the civilian agencies acquisition

workforce is trained. The Administrator noted that, despite the absence of

a centralized system, the agencies are responsible for managing the

training of their workforce. Our recommendations are intended to help

ensure that all staff integral to the success of agencies’ acquisition efforts

receive appropriate training. Also, as we noted in the report, the civilian

agencies said they had not developed centralized management information

systems because they were awaiting the implementation of OFPP’s

proposed governmentwide system that OFPP originally tasked FAI to

develop in September 1997.

We also received written comments from DOE, NASA, and VA and

comments via e-mail from DOD, HHS, and GSA as discussed below. All

agencies generally agreed with our findings.

DOE concurred with our findings and offered additional technical

comments regarding the inclusion of financial assistant specialists in its

acquisition workforce and the status of certification and training

Recommendations for

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 14 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

requirements for personnel in its acquisition workforce. We incorporated

these comments where appropriate. DOE’s comments appear in

appendix II.

NASA noted that it included procurement clerks in its acquisition

workforce. We changed the report to reflect this. NASA also provided

additional specific information regarding the training required of those

acquisition personnel not included in its acquisition workforce definition.

NASA’s comments appear in appendix III.

VA concurred with our findings and noted the release of its Procurement

Reform Task Force Report, which addresses the need for acquisition

workforce enhancements. VA’s comments appear in appendix IV.

DOD provided several technical comments and suggestions to clarify our

draft report. We incorporated these comments and suggestions where

appropriate.

HHS concurred with our findings and provided technical comments. HHS

noted that although certain acquisition personnel are not under the control

of its acquisition office, that office has established regulations to ensure

they receive required training. We believe our report adequately reflects

their concerns.

GSA stated it had reviewed our report and had no comments.

To accomplish the objectives, we reviewed policies and procedures,

examined records, and interviewed acquisition personnel, training, and

budget officials at DOD, Army, Navy, Air Force; VA, DOE, HHS, GSA, and

NASA. However, we did not attempt to determine the adequacy or

timeliness of the training these agencies provided their employees. These

agencies are the largest in terms of their annual expenditures and among

the largest in terms of the number of people in their acquisition workforce.

In fiscal year 2000, their acquisition workforce included almost 25,000

contract specialists and purchasing agents (the primary career fields in the

acquisition workforce), who were responsible for nearly $200 billion in

federal obligations for goods and services.

To obtain information on the oversight and guidance provided to federal

agencies, we reviewed legislation, regulations, directives, and policies and

interviewed officials at OFPP and FAI.

Scope and

Methodology
Page 15 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

We conducted our review between October 2001 and June 2002 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from

the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to other interested

congressional committees, the secretaries of Defense, Army, Air Force,

Navy, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs; and the

administrators of General Services Administration and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office of Federal

Procurement Policy. We will also make copies available to others upon

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4125 or Hilary Sullivan at (214) 777-5652 if

you have any questions regarding this report. Major contributors to this

report were Thom Barger, Cristina Chaplain, Susan Ragland, Sylvia Schatz,

and Tanisha Stewart.

Sincerely yours,

David E. Cooper

Director

Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Page 16 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Appendix I: Comments from the Office of

Federal Procurement Policy
Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Page 17 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce
Appendix II: Comments from the Department

of Energy

Page 18 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Appendix II: Comments from the Department

of Energy
Appendix II: Comments from the Department

of Energy

Page 19 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce
Appendix III: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Page 20 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Appendix III: Comments from the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appendix III: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Page 21 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department

of Veterans Affairs

Page 22 GAO-02-737 Acquisition Workforce

Appendix IV: Comments from the

Department of Veterans Affairs

(120085)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs