Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board 

 

Review of Contracts and

Grants Workforce Staffing

and Qualifications in

Agencies Overseeing

Recovery Act Funds

 

Compiled and presented by the

Office of Inspector General,

Department of Commerce

March 2010 
Office of Inspector General

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

From the Inspector General

On behalf of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Department of 

Commerce Office of Inspector General is pleased to present the findings of the Board’s 

review of contracts and grants workforce staffing and qualifications. The goal of the survey 

was to review, as directed by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA), whether those offices awarding and administering ARRA‐funded contracts and 

grants have the proper staffing, qualifications, and training. 

A survey document was distributed to the 29 offices of Inspector General responsible for 

oversight of the Recovery Act. It was completed in coordination with agencies’ senior 

accountable officials for ARRA and acquisitions and grants officials. We received over 500 

responses from 26 agencies, completed by one or more contracts and grants offices within 

those agencies.  

This report summarizes the responses to the survey and provides an overview of the 

staffing, qualifications, and training of the acquisitions and grants workforce awarding and 

administering ARRA funds. This is our final report to the Board.

e appreciate this opportunity to serve the Board as it works to ensure transparency in 

ARRA funding.  

W

the use of 

Sincerely, 

T eneral 

D

odd J. Zinser, Inspector G

epartment of Commerce 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

RESULTS IN BRIEF

Staffing Sufficiency of Contracts and Grants Workforce

Additional Workload from the Recovery Act Has Put a Strain on a Significant Portion of

the Contract and Grants Workforce

Twenty‐nine federal agencies receiving Recovery Act funds were surveyed as to the 

adequacy of contracting and grants Recovery Act staffing. Responses indicated whether 

staffing was viewed as adequate, adequate but with impact on non­Recovery Act work,

or inadequate to award and administer Recovery Act funds. We divided our analysis into 

two groups: those from Large agencies (Department of Defense, Health and Human 

Services, and Department of the Interior, the three largest agencies based on the level of 

effort expended by its staff on the Recovery Act), and those from all Other responding 

agencies.   

Figure 1. Contracts and Grants Recovery Act Staffing 

Generally Viewed as Inadequate, Adequate, or 

Adequate But with Impact on Non-Recovery Act Work 

 

Note: Percentages do not always add to 100 due to rounding or the exclusion of 

minimal nonresponse rates. The two figures above represent the total responses 

from the contracts and grants workforces. 

As shown in Figure 1, the Large agency respondents reported that their staffing was 

inadequate at a much higher rate than respondents from the Other agencies. The overall 

staffing sufficiency of the acquisition and grants workforces at the Large agencies was  

2 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

3 

approximately 60 percent, while the Other agencies reported a 77‐percent staffing 

adequacy.  

Reported impacts on both Recovery Act and non‐Recovery Act work included (1) award 

delays, (2) decreased post‐award monitoring, (3) increased staff hours, and (4) use of 

supplemental staff. 

To ensure timely completion of Recovery Act work, agencies are prioritizing their Recovery 

Act workload, hiring additional personnel, and shifting and/or reassigning staff. Likewise, 

to meet the increased workload, agencies are devoting more full‐time equivalents (FTE) to 

Recovery Act contracts and grants. Such personnel are projected to increase by over 125 

percent from the summer of 2009 to the summer of 2010, growing from approximately 

1,800 to more than 4,100. 

Qualifications of Contracts and Grants Workforce

Compliance with Requirements Varies by Position for Contracting Workforce

Federal requirements exist in civilian agencies for the certification and training of 

contracting officers, contracting officer’s (technical) representatives (COTRs/CORs), and 

contract program managers (but not for contracting support personnel).  The Department 

of Defense has established certification programs for its contracting officers and contract 

program managers.1

Almost all (approximately 97 percent) of the contracting officers assigned to Recovery Act 

acquisitions at civilian agencies are certified; however, about 75 percent of COTRs/CORs 

are certified. Employees in these positions perform critical technical and acquisition 

functions, and their lack of certification is an area that agencies need to assess and, if 

necessary, take appropriate action to correct. 

For contract program managers at civilian agencies, certification requirements apply only 

to those working on major acquisitions2—about one‐third of this group of employees. 

Approximately one‐third of all civilian contract program managers are certified. However, 

given the diversity of program offices at the various agencies, agencies should determine 

whether those program managers working on major acquisitions under the Recovery Act 

are certified, and take corrective action as necessary.  

 

1 The requirements are established by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 

§ 1701‐1764, Pub. L. 101‐510, Div. A, Title XII, November 5, 1990, 104 STAT. 1638) and the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP) (for civilian agencies). 

2 A major acquisition is defined as a system requiring special management attention because of its 

importance to the mission, function of the agency, obligation of more than $500,000 annually, high executive 

visibility, or other similar elements. 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

4 

The Department of Defense also expects nearly all (94 percent) of its contracting officers 

assigned to Recovery Act contracts to be certified; however, it has no Department‐wide 

certification program for its COTRs/CORs, 800 of whom are assigned to manage Recovery 

Act contracts.3

No Government­wide Qualifications Requirements Exist for Grants Workforce

The grants workforce has no government‐wide qualification or training requirements, 

although some agency‐specific requirements exist.  Most employees work for agencies that 

do not have structured competency‐based requirements for developing their grants 

workforce. Only about 8 percent of the grants officers, 50 percent of grants program 

anagers, and 29 percent of grants specialists work in agencies that will have 

.  

m

implemented agency‐specific training and continuous learning requirements by June 2010

The Recovery Act will ultimately award approximately $275 billion in contract, grant, and 

loan funds,4 and this is but a fraction of the total contract and award funds that the federal 

government oversees. Without a common certification and continuous learning program—

which does exist for the acquisition workforce—it is difficult to determine whether the 

qualification requirements and training of the grants workforce are adequate. Establishing 

standard qualifications and training requirements similar to those of the acquisition 

workforce to ensure well‐trained grants personnel is a best practice that would strengthen 

uality controls and reduce risk in the award and administration of grants government‐

ide.  

q

w

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our survey results, we have formulated several specific recommendations. We 

recommend that agencies continue to closely monitor their staffing of both Recovery Act 

and non‐ARRA work, and make adjustments as necessary to ensure that all contracts and 

grants are properly awarded and monitored. 

We also recommend that agencies assess training and certification issues for their 

contracting personnel. In particular, agencies should: 

 

3 Defense components have various individual COTR/COR certification requirements. A Defense working 

oup has prepared a draft Defense‐wide instruction to set minimum qualifications requirements, which 

cies.  

gr

include training, experience, and general competen

   

4 See http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx. 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

5 

• Ensure that contracting officers meet continuous learning requirements to maintain 

their certifications,

• Identify COTRs/CORs working on Recovery Act contracts who lack certification and/or 

continuous learning requirements, and take corrective action, and 

• Determine whether program managers working on major acquisitions under the 

Recovery Act are certified, and take appropriate steps to certify those who are not.  

Further, absent government‐wide standards for grants management personnel, agencies 

have established their own requirements. We see this as a best practice.   
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

INTRODUCTION

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) directs the Recovery 

Accountability and Transparency Board to review (1) “whether there are sufficient 

qualified acquisition and grant personnel overseeing covered funds” and (2) “whether 

personnel whose duties involve acquisitions or grants made with covered funds receive 

adequate training.”5

At the request of, and in consultation with, the Board, the Department of Commerce Office 

of Inspector General (OIG) developed this survey. It divides the pertinent federal workforce 

into two components, one for contracts and the other for grants. The survey also attempts 

to capture projected workforce staffing and qualifications data through June 2010 as 

Recovery Act funds continue to be disbursed.

The survey was divided into seven discrete sections, each focusing on a specific segment of 

the contracts and grants workforce.6 See Appendix B, Objectives, Scope, and Methodology,

for our specific definitions of certain terms as used in this report, and for the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy’s (OFPP) definitions7 of the following four acquisition 

workforce positions: 

CONTRACTS

• Contracting Officer (CO)

• Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative/Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COTR/COR)

• Contract Program Manager/Contract Project Manager (CPM)

• Contracting Support Personnel (CSP)

 

5 Pub. L. 111‐5, § 1523(a)(2)(D) & (E), 123 STAT. 290.  

6 This review is distinct from recent projects undertaken by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and 

OFPP. OPM issued a survey in June 2009 “to better understand grants management work in the Federal 

Government,” and OFPP—working with the Department of Defense and the Federal Acquisition Institute—

last year completed and published, on October 27, 2009 (as mandated by the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 [Pub. L. No. 110‐417]), the Acquisition Workforce

Development Strategic Plan for Civilian Agencies for FY2010­2014, which can be found at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/procurement_workforce/AWF_Plan_10272009.pdf. Additionally, 

the Federal Acquisition Institute issues an annual demographic report on the federal acquisition workforce, 

which is separate from this review (e.g., FY2008 Annual Report on the Federal Acquisition Workforce, 

available at http://www.fai.gov/sturep.asp).  

6 

7 Developing and Managing the Acquisition Workforce, OFPP Policy Letter 05‐01, April 15, 2005. 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

7 

These four contracting positions reflect OFPP’s guidelines for the acquisition workforce; it 

has established three distinct certification and continuous learning programs for 

contracting officers, contracting officers’ (technical) representatives, and contract program 

(project) managers. Specific General Schedule (federal) job series exist for contracting 

officers and grants management specialists.  

GRANTS

Unlike the contracts workforce, there is no standardized structure for the grants 

workforce. As a result, the grants workforce is structured differently from agency to agency 

across the federal government. This survey attempts to provide comprehensive definitions 

in order to capture the authorizing management, policy, oversight, and support personnel 

ho award and administer grants.  See Appendix B, Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, for 

efinitions of the grants workforce.  

w

d

• Grants Officer (GO)

• Grants Program Manager/Grants Project Manager (GPM)

• Grants Specialist/Grants Support Personnel (GS)

METHODOLOGY

The survey was transmitted to the 29 agency OIGs responsible for oversight of the 

Recovery Act. The survey was designed to be a set of self‐administered questionnaires that 

captured information on the sufficiency of acquisition and grants personnel overseeing 

Recovery Act funds, and whether these personnel had received adequate training. The 

survey’s questions were to be answered at the contracting or grant‐making activity level of 

each agency.  Since there was limited opportunity for the OIG offices to validate those data, 

we structured the survey to assist the respondents in reporting valid and consistent 

information over three separate time frames. However, answers to the survey depended on 

the respondent’s honesty and ability to respond.   

To facilitate completion of the survey, Board Chairman Earl Devaney requested that the 

senior accountable Recovery Act official at each agency provide whatever assistance was 

requested by OIG.   

Twenty‐six agencies responded; these 26 agencies include 140 responding entities, which, 

for the purposes of this review, are called “subagencies.” This term captures a wide range 

of entities that reside within departments or other organizations that were the survey’s 

primary points of contact. Each subagency provided one or more responses to the survey  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

8 

based on how their organization uses staff to award and administer contracts and grants. 

Therefore, although 140 entities are represented, the actual total of individual responses 

was substantially higher—542 (317 responses to the contracts survey and 225 responses 

to the grants survey).  

More specifically, agencies packaged survey responses in various ways. Some sent one 

consolidated survey, while others sent separate responses by subagency. For example, the 

Department of State sent one survey response, while the Department of Transportation 

sent five, one each from the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the 

Maritime Administration. Further, not every subagency responded to all seven sections of 

the survey, presumably answering only relevant sections. Errors or distortions due to non‐

response may exist.  

The results of the completed surveys were used to create this consolidated report, which 

was distributed in draft form to OIGs. Comments to the draft were received from 11 of the 

26 agencies, along with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board staff and 

PP; changes have been made to the report, as appropriate, based on these comments.  A 

re complete discussion can be found in Appendix B.    

OF

o

   

m
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

9 

OBSERVATIONS

Recovery Act funding has substantially increased the workload of most agencies receiving 

these funds, as agencies were expected to make additional awards as quickly as possible 

while adhering to regulations and procedures that would ensure a fair and competitive 

process. Federal agencies receiving Recovery Act funds are also subject to the reporting 

requirements outlined in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to track and 

monitor all Recovery Act dollars in a manner that provides transparency and accountability 

for taxpayers. 

   

Agencies have devoted substantial resources to awarding Recovery Act contracts and 

grants, and will assign additional staff to this effort during FY 2010. The responses to this 

survey indicate, however, that the additional workload has put a strain on a significant 

portion of the contracts and grants workforce charged with making Recovery Act awards. 

Although agencies are prioritizing Recovery Act work and, in many instances, are hiring 

additional staff or realigning work to provide assistance, the added workload has exacted a 

price. The awarding of contracts and grants is being delayed—as is other work; employees 

are working overtime; and the oversight and monitoring of awards—especially non‐

Recovery Act contracts and grants—are expected to decline, as many agencies attempt to 

implement Recovery Act requirements while carrying out their ongoing programs and 

operations.  

As to qualifications, agencies are generally assigning a qualified acquisitions and grants 

workforce to the Recovery Act, but some concern exists that training may be delayed over 

the coming year as agencies continue to address their increased workloads. The 

compliance of the contracting workforce with the certification and training requirements 

established by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) varies considerably, 

although nearly all contracting officers—those charged with making Recovery Act 

awards—are certified. And, while no equivalent government‐wide standard exists for 

certification or training within the grants community, about one‐third of the subagencies 

esponding to the grants survey have established agency‐specific requirements for their 

rants workforce.  

r

g

The Recovery Act Workforce

As the results of the survey indicate, agencies government‐wide have been staffing up to 

meet the demands of the Recovery Act. Agencies receiving Recovery Act funding reported 

that from April through June8 2009, they assigned more than 22,000 professional staff to 

their Recovery Act contracts and grants work (out of a total of nearly 99,000 such 

personnel). Staffing levels in the acquisitions and grants workforce are expected to  

 

8 Throughout this report, April through June means April 1 through June 30. Likewise, January through June 

means January 1 through June 30, and July through December means July 1 through December 31.  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

ncrease to just under 25,000, and remain at that level through June 2010. A breakdown of 

taffin  levels among the contracts and grants positions follows: 

i

s g

Note: Tables containing underlying and additional data for the following figures can be

ound in Appendixes D and E.] 

[

f

Figure 2. Employees, by Position, Assigned to Recovery Act 

Contracts and Grants, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010a 

  

CO–Contracting Officer; COTR–Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative; 

CPM–Contract Program Manager; CSP–Contracting Support Personnel; GO–

Grants Officer; GPM–Grants Program Manager; GS–Grants Specialist 

a For Figures 2–4, the numbers of grants program managers (GPM) are significantly greater than 

for the other positions. Three subagencies (Interior’s Office of Indian Affairs, HHS’ Office of Community 

Services, and DOT’s Federal Highway Administration) account for over half of these positions. 

10 

Level of Effort on Recovery Act Contracts and Grants: Large and Other Agencies

The more than 22,000 contracts and grants professionals initially assigned to agencies’ 

Recovery Act workload devoted more than 3.7 million hours to this effort from April 

through June 2009. This equates to approximately 30 percent of the employees’ full‐time 

schedules, or over 1,800 annual FTEs expended during the 3‐month period.  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

11 

Agencies projected that the time worked on Recovery Act contracts and grants for the 

12‐month period from July 2009 through June 2010 would exceed 17.5 million hours. This 

level of effort represents nearly 8,600 FTEs.  

  

In order to provide additional perspective to the cumulative data reported by respondents 

for the acquisition and grants workforces, especially with respect to the level of effort their 

personnel are devoting to implementing the Recovery Act, agencies were categorized as 

Large and Other. Agencies reported the number of personnel assigned or expected to be 

assigned to the award and administration of Recovery Act contracts and grants and the 

percentage of time those employees would spend on Recovery Act‐related duties.  From 

these data, the number of hours and full‐time‐equivalent positions were determined for 

each agency, and agencies were categorized as Large or Other based on a statistical analysis 

of the information each provided. When responses for the combined Recovery Act 

contracts and grants workforce are totaled, three agencies are considered to be Large: the 

Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health and 

uman Services (HHS). For this analysis of the combined workforces, the remaining 23 

gencies are aggregated as Other. 

H

a

Large Agencies

The three large agencies administering Recovery Act contracts and grants within the 

combined acquisition and grants workforce, Defense, HHS, and Interior, assigned about 

1,100 full‐time‐equivalent acquisition and grants professionals to their agencies’ Recovery 

Act workload from April through June 2009. At the time the survey was administered, the 

arge agencies projected a total of just over 4,800 FTEs devoted to Recovery Act work for 

he 12 months ending June 2010. 

L

t

Other Agencies

In the remaining group of responding agencies, about 700 FTEs were assigned to Recovery 

ct work from April through June 2009. These agencies projected slightly fewer than 3,800 

TEs devoted to Recovery Act work for the 12 months ending June 2010. 

A

F
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Figure 3. Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Employees Assigned to Large Agency 

Recovery Act Contracts and Grants, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

Figure 4. Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Employees Assigned to Other Agency 

Recovery Act Contracts and Grants, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

CO–Contracting Officer; COTR–Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative; 

CPM–Contract Program Manager; CSP–Contracting Support Personnel 

12 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Sufficiency of Federal Contracts and Grants Workforce

Most contracts respondents said that the numbers of personnel on hand were sufficient to 

accomplish their Recovery Act work, but the sufficiency of staffing was viewed less 

consistently in the grants community. A respondent’s view of staffing sufficiency does not, 

however, provide a complete view of the Recovery Act’s impact on federal acquisition and 

grants operations. Many respondents in both the contracts and grants career fields who 

reported having sufficient staff for their Recovery Act work did indicate, however, that they 

are experiencing a number of impacts on their non‐Recovery Act workload.  

Further, where numbers of acquisition or grants personnel were judged to be insufficient, 

the major expected impact was not on Recovery Act work—which is receiving high 

priority—but on non‐Recovery Act work. Regardless of their views on the sufficiency of 

personnel, though, respondents in both the acquisitions and grants workforces reported 

rioritizing their Recovery Act workload, and shifting and/or reassigning staff to ensure 

ompletion of Recovery Act work in a timely manner. 

p

c

CONTRACTS

Sufficiency of Staff to Award and Administer Recovery Act Contracts

Overall, the acquisition workforce reported that they have sufficient staff to accomplish 

their Recovery Act work.  

As seen in Figure 5, 28 percent of all contracts respondents stated that the additional 

Recovery Act work was having little or no impact on their contracting operations, while  

47 percent reported that they have sufficient staff to accomplish their Recovery Act 

acquisitions but are experiencing impacts to their non‐Recovery Act work. The remaining 

25 percent of contracts respondents indicated that their staffing is not sufficient for their 

Recovery Act workload.  

Agencies were subsequently divided into subgroups in 

order to establish whether their views of the 

sufficiency of their staffing varied according to their 

ssessments of the level of effort required to address 

Figure 5: Contracts—

Sufficiency of ARRA Staffing 

a

13 

their Recovery Act workload.  

A total of 317 responses were received from the 

acquisition workforce, representing contracting 

officers, COTRs/CORs, contract program managers, and 

contracting support personnel at agencies overseeing 

Recovery Act contracts. Of these respondents, 33 are 

from Defense and Interior, the agencies that reported  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

devoting significantly greater level of effort to Recovery Act acquisitions.9 The remaining 

284 respondents constitute Other agencies, who reported fewer FTEs needed to complete 

their Recovery Act work.   

There is a noticeable difference in the assessment of the 

sufficiency of their workforces between the respondents 

from Large and Other agencies (see Figures 6 and 7). 

Fifty‐four percent of the Large agency respondents 

reported that they have adequate staff for their Recovery 

Act work with either little or no impact, or with impact 

only on their non‐ARRA workload. Nearly 46 percent of 

respondents from Large agencies stated that their 

staffing was inadequate for the Recovery Act workload.   

Slightly more than three‐quarters of the 284 respondents 

from the Other agencies stated that they have sufficient 

staff to award and administer Recovery Act contracts 

with little or no impact, or with impact only to their non‐

Recovery Act work. Of the 29 percent of these respondents who expect little or no impact 

on their non‐Recovery Act acquisition workload, some 

reported the Recovery Act workload to be minimal, while 

others indicated that Recovery Act funding was being 

applied to ongoing contracts or programs and did not 

significantly increase the respondent’s work.  Twenty‐two 

rcent of respondents from Other agencies reported that 

Figure 6: Contracts—Sufficiency of 

ARRA Staffing (Large Agencies) 

Figure 7: Contracts—Sufficiency of 

ARRA Staffing (Other Agencies) 

pe

they are not adequately staffed for their ARRA work.  

    

No one segment of the acquisition workforce reported 

being significantly more understaffed than any other. In 

both Large and Other agencies, staffing for Recovery Act 

work was considered to be sufficient or inadequate across 

 career fields in roughly the same 

eported overall. 

the four acquisition

proportion as was r

                                           

14 

 

9 The same statistical analysis that was conducted on the combined contracts and grants data was also 

applied separately to each set of data. The results differed for the contracting agencies. For the combined 

contracts and grants analysis, three agencies awarding ARRA funds were determined to be Large (Defense, 

HHS, and Interior). Only two of these, Defense and Interior, are categorized as Large when just the 

contracting data are analyzed, with the remaining 24 agencies being categorized as Other. Two agencies, 

HHS and Interior, are categorized as Large for the analysis of grants data.  Defense did not report any 

Recovery Act grants.
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Impact on Agencies Awarding and Administering Recovery Act Contracts     

Respondents in each of the acquisition career fields were asked to report on the impacts, if 

any, that they are experiencing or expect to experience as a result of the additional 

Recovery Act workload. Regardless of whether these respondents stated that they have or 

o not have sufficient staff to accomplish their Recovery Act work, the impacts they 

reported were noticeably similar.  

Across the acquisition workforce, delays to non‐ARRA work, including awarding and 

administering non‐ARRA contracts, was the most frequently predicted effect resulting from 

the added Recovery Act workload. Respondents indicated that acquisition delays will range 

from longer lead times in initiating awards and not completing projects on time, to 

rescheduling projects or even postponing them indefinitely. Additionally, several 

respondents reported that timely obligation of all fiscal year funds, policy development, 

and other programmatic initiatives, along with training, might not be completed over the 

next year.  Although many respondents reported that work and personnel were being 

realigned to prioritize Recovery Act acquisitions and reporting, the non‐Recovery Act 

work—including policy initiatives, reporting, and oversight, in addition to contracting—is 

expected to experience diminished quality and timeliness.   

The respondents who indicated they did not have sufficient 

personnel to address the additional Recovery Act workload 

also reported that they expect to experience delays to ARRA 

acquisitions.  Among this subset of respondents within the 

acquisition workforce, this impact was noted by most 

respondents in the Large agencies, but by fewer than half of 

those in the Other agencies. These respondents also 

expressed concern about their ability to adequately 

administer and monitor their ARRA acquisitions once the 

awards are made.   

Respondents in the acquisition workforce, especially those in Other agencies, reported that 

they are supplementing their staffs in a variety of ways in order to address the Recovery 

Act work in addition to their ongoing responsibilities. Contracts respondents report that 

they are taking one or more steps to augment their staff, ranging from hiring additional 

temporary, term,10 or permanent employees (including reemployed annuitants), procuring 

contract support staff from government contractors, cross‐training additional employees to 

ecome COTRs or contract program managers, to redirecting resources from other 

rograms and adjusting workloads within their offices or agencies. 

b

p

 

10 Under term employment, the employing agency hires the term appointee for a limited period of time, 

lasting for more than 1 year but not exceeding 4 years. 

d

CONTRACTS 

Most frequent impacts noted: 

• Delays in non-ARRA work 

• Necessity of supplemental 

staff 

• Increased staff hours and 

overtime 

• Decreased post-award 

monitoring of non-ARRA 

awards 

15 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Decreased attention to the administration and monitoring of non‐ARRA contracts is 

another significant impact that many respondents reported they expect to see as they focus 

on meeting Recovery Act milestones and deadlines. As several explained, without 

additional resources, their staffs will not be able to devote the same attention to processing 

modifications, updating contract management plans, monitoring contractor systems, or 

tracking deliverables for their non‐Recovery Act contracts. One respondent characterized 

this qualitative decrease in the oversight of non‐ARRA awards as “reactionary” contract 

administration.   

Finally, acquisition personnel are working longer hours, including overtime, credit hours, 

and compensatory time, to meet the requirements of the Recovery Act. Respondents 

expressed concern not only about the increased costs of these premium hours, in dollars 

and/or compensatory time off for critical personnel, but also of the toll that prolonged 

extended hours can have on employees, citing burnout and decreased morale and 

productivity. 

GRANTS      

  

Sufficiency of Staff to Award and Administer Recovery Act Grants                 

Most grants respondents said that the numbers of personnel on hand were sufficient to 

accomplish their Recovery Act work. As shown in Figure 8, 71 percent of all 225 

respondents indicated that the staffing for the Recovery Act was sufficient with minimal or 

no impact on Recovery Act awards, or with impact on other non‐

Recovery Act work. However, the remaining 28 percent said that 

their staffing was inadequate, similar to the results of the 

analysis of staffing sufficiency 

performed for contracts.11

We further analyzed the 

respondents by grouping 

them into two categories: 

respondents from Large

gencies and respondents 

rom Other agencies.  

Figure 8: Grants—

Sufficiency of ARRA Staffing 

a

f

Figure 9: Grants—Sufficiency of 

ARRA Staffing (Large Agencies) 

16 

 

11 Percentages do not always add to 100 due to rounding or the exclusion of minimal nonresponse rates. 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

The 225 

categories 

res

officer, the 

o

p

g

f personnel responsi

onses described the sufficiency of the Recovery Act workforce for the three 

belong to HHS and Interior—the tw

rants program mana

ble for the 

ger, and the 

aw

grants spec

ard and ad

ialist.

minist

 O

r

f these respondents, 47 

ation of grants: the grants 

remaining, Other agencies.    

o agencies considered Large—and 178 belong to the 

responses 

Figures 9 and 10 highlight the 

are tabulated by Large

difference in th  staffing su

Large agency respondents called st

 and Oth

affing a

er a

deq

gency r

e

uate, with minimal

espondent

fficiency p

s. 

ercentages when the 

Act work or with impact on non‐Recovery Act work. About 38 perc

 or no impact on Recovery 

Sixty‐two percent of the 

staffing to be inadequate.  

ent indicated their 

For Large a

officers to address their Recover

gencies, over 80 percent of those 

y Act financial assistance 

responding reporte

workload. However, o

d having enough grants 

ver one‐

specialists.  

third said that they did not have sufficient grants program managers, while almost two‐

thirds said that they did not have sufficient staffing of gra

For the Other ag

staffing was adequate,

encies,

wit

almost 75 percent 

h minimal or no impact on 

felt that 

nts 

Recovery Act work or impac

non‐Recovery Act work. Approximately 25 percent 

t that primarily affected 

indicated 

in this Other agency cat

that their staffing was inadequate. However, 

y, the personnel grouping 

manager. O

in the greatest need of staff is the 

egor

ver one‐third of the res

g

pondents s

rants program 

with one‐fifth reporting that they needed additional 

they did not have sufficient grants program manag

aid that 

ers, 

  

grants officers and grant specialists.    

Impacts on Agencies Awarding and

Figure 10: Grants—Sufficiency of

ARRA Staffing (Other Agencies) 

awards 

• Increased staff hours and 

overtime 

As with con

Administering Recovery Act Grants               

work. Respondents consistently s

tracting, grants respon

tated that the Recover

dents expected a sign

y Act wor

ificant impact

k is a priority resulting in 

 on non‐Recovery Act 

GRANTS 

Most frequent impacts noted: 

non‐Recovery Act awards being d

• Delays in non-ARRA work 

postponed indefinitely. 

who are focused on Recovery Ac

Additionall

elayed, r

y, many res

escheduled, or 

pondents 

• Necessity of supplemental 

staff 

t activities do not have 

• Decreased post-award 

sufficient time to spend on the oversight of non‐ARRA 

monitoring of non-ARRA 

awards, without additional staff or the payment of 

17 

overtime.    

  

The impact

respondents said that they did

s noted were very much the same, whether th

 not have sufficient staff to 

e 

award and administer Recovery Act grants, or that they  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

18 

did but provided the impacts that Recovery Act workload is having on the agency. Both 

groups indicated that the additional workload is being accommodated, in part, by 

streamlining work processes and realigning priorities. 

The Recovery Act has resulted in non‐Recovery Act work being delayed. Agency officials 

said that the non‐Recovery Act awards are being postponed and in some instances the 

funding and workload are being carried over to subsequent fiscal years. Further, these 

delays include the performance of routine grants management tasks such as the review of 

applications in discretionary grants competitions, resolution of audit findings, and delays in 

the closeout of non‐ARRA awards.  

The priority being placed on the Recovery Act work also affects the grants staffs’ ability to 

spend adequate time on the post‐award monitoring of non‐ARRA projects. Respondents 

reported that they face the likelihood of not being able to provide adequate monitoring and 

oversight of non‐Recovery Act awards. Specifically, respondents said that they will have 

less time to respond to recipient inquiries and review reports, along with the likelihood 

that the quality of the data reviews performed would be reduced.   

In order to meet the requirements of the Recovery Act, respondents noted that their grants 

staff is working overtime and earning compensatory time to absorb the additional 

workload. In addition, agencies are delaying annual leave and training for employees. 

However, several respondents questioned whether these compensatory actions exacerbate 

the workload problems in the near future and affect the administration of Recovery Act 

wards as well.  As grants staff begin to use their leave and take needed training, fewer 

s.   

a

personnel will be available to manage both non‐Recovery Act and Recovery Act award

Finally, many agencies are hiring or trying to hire additional qualified staff, including 

interns, temporary employees, and, to a lesser degree, contractors. In addition, agencies 

reported that they were trying to mitigate some of the negative impacts caused by the 

dditional Recovery Act responsibilities by workload sharing across offices and redirecting 

esources to help with the additional post‐award monitoring. 

a

r
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Qualifications and Training of Contracts and Grants Workforce

rofessional development within the acquisition workforce differs from that in the grants 

orkforce, with more structured requirements for contracts personnel. 

P

w 12

CONTRACTS

Certification and Training

Developing, managing and overseeing successful acquisitions is a cooperative endeavor 

requiring a well‐qualified and trained workforce, including contracting officers, 

COTRs/CORs, contract program managers, and contracting support personnel. Toward this 

end, qualification standards have been developed to professionalize the acquisition career 

fields in both the Department of Defense and civilian agencies.Pursuant to the Defense 

Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990, as amended (DAWIA), Defense created 

separate certification programs for contracting officers and contract program managers.  

Modeled after DAWIA’s education, training, and experience requirements, OFPP 

established three certification programs for the civilian agencies—one each for contracting 

officers, contract program managers, and COTRs/CORs.13 OFPP cedes administration to 

individual agencies, including authority to supplement or waive requirements. Due to the 

distinct certification requirements for acquisition professionals at Defense and civilian 

agencies, the following discussion segregates the contracting workforce accordingly.     

The OFPP certification programs, instituted in 2006 and 2007 for civilian agencies, differ by 

career field as to required education, training levels, experience, and continuous learning. 

Table 1, following, details these requirements:  

   

 

2 The reported data on certification and training focuses on the number of employees who are subject  1 to 

  competency‐based requirements.  Consequently, agencies were not categorized by Large and Other. 

13 In 2005, OFPP tasked the Federal Acquisition Institute and Chief Acquisition Officers Council with creating 

a certification program for contracting professionals in civilian agencies; these programs are the result of 

those efforts. 

19 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Table 1. Acquisition Personnel Certification Requirementsa (Civilian) 

Education Training Experience 

Continuous 

Learning (2-

year cycles) 

CO 24 semester 

hours of 

businessrelated 

education or 

a baccalaureate 

degree (for 

levels I&II); 

both (for level 

III) 

Level l: 5 defined 

business courses and 1 

elective 

Level l: 1 year 80 hours of 

continuous 

learning 

Level ll: Level l plus 3 

defined 200-level courses 

and 2 electives

Level ll: 2 years 

Level lll: Level ll plus 

Advanced Business 

Solutions for Mission 

Support and 2 electives 

Level lll: 4 years 

COTR/COR No specific 

requirements 

40 hours minimum None 40 hours of 

continuous 

learning 

CPM No specific 

requirements 

Entry Level: 112 hours Entry Level: 1 

year

80 hours of 

continuous 

learning Mid-Level/Journeyman: 

88 hours 

MidLevel/Journeyman: 

2 years 

Expert Level: 112 hours Senior/Expert: 4 

years a

An agency procurement executive may waive certification requirements on a case-by-case basis if he or 

she determines that doing so is in the best interest of the agency.

Sources: Developing and Managing the Acquisition Workforce, OFPP Policy Letter 05-01 (April 15, 2005); 

OFPP Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting Program (January 20, 2006); OFPP Federal 

Acquisition Certification for Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (November 26, 2007); OFPP 

Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and Project Managers (April 25, 2007). 

CO–Contracting Officer; COTR–Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative; 

CPM–Contract Program Manager 

Program managers assigned to a major acquisition for the first time have 12 months to 

complete all requirements for certification, while COTRs/CORs are given 6 months from 

their first assignment to a contract to become certified. Among the three acquisition career 

fields that require certification in civilian agencies, the certification rates vary. While a very 

high percentage of contracting officers are certified, the certification rates are significantly 

lower for COTRs/CORs and contract program managers, even though they perform critical 

technical and acquisition functions. (See Figure 11.) Contract program managers only 

require certification if they are assigned to major acquisitions.  

20 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

21 

Figure 11. Certification of Employees Assigned to Recovery Act Contracts in 

Civilian Agencies, by Career Field, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 (%) 

 

Note: Contracting support personnel are not required by OFPP to be certified. 

• Contracting Officers

Defense and civilian subagencies reported that they have overwhelmingly assigned 

certified contracting officers to Recovery Act acquisitions.  Civilian agencies reported that 

they will assign over 2,300 contracting officers to Recovery Act contracts for the period 

January through June 2010. The certification rate for these contracting officers was 

expected to be 97 percent.  Defense, with nearly 600 contracting officers to be assigned to 

the Recovery Act through the same period, reported a certification rate of 94 percent for 

these professionals.   

The percentage of contracting officers at Defense and civilian agencies current on their

2‐year continuous learning requirements is not as high. Eighty‐five percent of Defense 

contracting officers assigned to Recovery Act contracts are in full compliance with 

continuous learning requirements, while 62 percent of contracting officers at civilian 

agencies are current.  Although the high certification rate is positive, the continuous 

learning necessary for contracting officers to retain these certifications is likewise 

mportant. Agencies must therefore ensure that these personnel stay current with their 

quired hours of continuous learning.  

i

re

  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

• Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives/Contracting Officer’s

Representatives   

Civilian subagencies reported that just over 4700 COTRs/CORs would be assigned to 

Recovery Act contracts for the period ending June 2010. Of these, 75 percent were to be 

certified as of this date. The lower certification rate, compared with that of contracting 

officers, is explained in part by one subagency with a substantial number of the personnel 

in this category—30 percent of the total—reporting that it had not yet implemented the 

COTR/COR certification program at the time of the survey; however, it stated that its 

COTRs had completed appropriate training.  As previously noted, Defense has not 

established certification standards for COTRs/CORs. Its individual components do, 

however, have various COTR/COR certification requirements, and a Defense working group 

has prepared draft qualifications requirements, which include training, experience, and 

general competencies. Further, Defense reported that it expected to assign 800 

COTRs/CORs to Recovery Act contracts from January through June 2010.  

Civilian subagencies also reported that 62 percent of the COTRs/CORs working on 

Recovery Act acquisitions have met their continuous learning requirements.  This 

compliance rate increases to 88 percent if the one subagency that has not implemented the 

certification program is excluded.  Given the significance of agency contracting, it is 

ssential that COTRs/CORs be certified and stay current with necessary educational 

equirements. 

e

r

• Contract Program Managers     

Certification programs for contract program managers have been established for both 

Defense and civilian agencies. The separate programs are similar in that their requirements 

apply only to contract program managers assigned to major acquisitions.  Within the 

civilian subagencies, over 900 program managers were to be assigned to Recovery Act 

contracts from January through June 2010, with almost 300 of them working on major 

acquisitions. For this period, 33 percent of the contract program managers assigned to 

Recovery Act contracts will be certified and 22 percent will satisfy their continuous 

learning requirements. It will be important for agencies to determine which of their 

acquisitions are considered major, and ensure that contract program managers doing this 

important work are certified and enhancing their knowledge and skills through continuous 

learning. 

Defense reported that Recovery Act funds were not committed to major defense acquisition 

rograms; as such, the program managers assigned to Recovery Act contracts are not 

ubject to DAWIA’s program manager certification requirements. 

p

s

22 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

• Contracting Support Personnel

For the purpose of this review, “contracting support personnel” refers to a variety of 

positions within an agency, other than contracting officers, COTRs/CORs, and contract 

program managers, that support the acquisition function. No certification program applies 

specifically to individuals in these positions, yet some civilian subagencies reported that 

they require their contracting support personnel to pursue certification in an established 

acquisition career field, while a small number specifically stated that certification is not 

required. Civilian agencies expected to assign 950 contracting support personnel to the 

Recovery Act from January to June 2010, and reported that 61 percent will be certified. For 

e same period, Defense reported that 89 percent of its 833 contracting support personnel 

ssigned to Recovery Act acquisitions will be certified.

th

a

GRANTS    

Certification and Training

Managing Recovery Act grants is a cooperative effort involving three groups of employees: 

grants officers, grants program/project managers, and grants support specialists. Unlike 

the acquisition workforce that has specific certification and continuous learning 

requirements, there is no government‐wide standard for the grants workforce. Without a 

common standard, a comparative analysis across agencies was not possible. However, in 

the absence of specific certification and continuous learning requirements, subagencies 

ave developed their own requirements and methods by which to determine needed 

ompetencies.  

h

c

23 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Figure 12. Grants Personnel Working on Recovery Act Awards in Agencies 

T

A

hat Do Not Have Agency-Specific Requirements, Actual and Projected, 

pril 2009–June 2010 (%) 

Agency­specific Requirements  

As shown in Figure 12, most employees work for agencies that do not have structured 

competency‐based requirements for developing their grants workforce. Approximately 8 

percent of the grants officers, 50 percent of grants program managers, and 29 percent of 

grants specialists work in agencies that will have implemented agency‐specific training and 

continuous learning requirements as of June 2010. 

• Grants Officers

The overwhelming majority of grants officers—92 percent—are not subject to certification 

requirements. Twenty‐five of 70 subagency respondents reported that they have some 

combination of experience, specific education, training, and continuous learning 

equirements for their grants officers. These 25 subagencies account for the 8 percent of 

he grants officers responsible for awarding and administering Recovery Act funds.  

r

t

24 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

25 

Respondents reported that grants officers must have years of working experience in the 

financial assistance area, with some equating a grade level of General Schedule 15 or Senior 

Executive Service to the grants officer position. Educational requirements are being met by 

several different training venues, including private certification programs, the National 

Grants Management Association’s training sessions and conferences, and online training 

courses in core competencies identified by the individual respondents. Additionally, a few 

respondents require that once such coursework is completed, grants officers must be 

recertified every 3 years. Several respondents commented that grants officers must have 

sound business and legal judgment; strong communications skills (both written and oral); 

excellent organizational skills; leadership skills; and a clear understanding of pertinent 

laws (including appropriations law), regulations (OMB Circulars), and agency‐specific 

policies. 

While almost two‐thirds of respondents indicated that they have no specific requirements 

for their grants officers, many did comment that grants officers are senior agency officials 

who are responsible for and actively involved in the day‐to‐day management of grants 

programs and development of financial assistance policies. They also reported that 

xperience in grants management and programmatic and analytical skills are essential to 

hese positions.  

e

t

• Grants Program Managers

One‐half of the grants program manager workforce are not subject to agency‐specific 

requirements. Twenty‐seven of 82 subagency respondents reported having specific 

certification or continuous learning requirements. These 27 subagencies account for half of 

the grants program managers overseeing Recovery Act awards. 

Frequently, subagencies require that their grants program managers take training to 

develop a set of core competencies established by the agencies or subagencies themselves. 

These competencies include knowledge of competition, cost and budget reviews, and post‐

award monitoring. Additionally, due to the technical nature of the grants program 

manager’s position, several respondents indicated that their specific training addresses 

both the specialized nature of the work and training in grants administration. Many of the 

subagencies that have implemented specific requirements also have recertification 

requirements (every 3–5 years) for their grants program managers.  

Of the 55 respondents reporting having no specific requirements for these personnel, many 

cited the extensive experience required for them to be hired into these highly specialized 

positions (such as engineers, scientists, and health specialists). This experience includes 

inimum educational requirements, degrees in specific scientific fields, and related work 

xperience.  

m

e
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

26 

• Grants Specialists   

Almost three‐quarters of grants specialists—71 percent—are not subject to agency‐specific 

certification or continuous learning requirements. Thirty‐one of 73 subagency respondents 

reported having some combination of experience, training, or continuous learning 

requirements for their grants specialists. These 31 subagencies account for the 29 percent 

of grants specialists responsible for administering Recovery Act funds. 

As with grant program managers, requirements for grant specialists are frequently based 

on core competencies identified by the agencies or subagencies. The coursework to certify 

grants specialists is often tied to the grade level of the employee. Among the 42 

subagencies that do not presently have specific requirements for their grants specialists, 

grants’ training has been encouraged—and paid for. Several respondents reported that 

they pay for their staff to take a grants management certificate program from a private 

company. Others indicated that they use a mentoring or on‐the‐job training program, with 

oversight by more senior personnel. 

Respondents reporting that their subagencies had specific requirements for grants 

workforce positions indicated a relatively high level of compliance with specific education, 

raining, and continuous learning requirements. Figure 13 shows the rate of compliance 

ith those requirements for each position in the grants workforce.  

t

w

Figure 13. Grants Personnel Working on Recovery Act Awards Who Have 

Satisfied or Are Expected to Satisfy Agency-Specific Requirements, 

Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 (%) 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of our survey work, we have formulated the following recommendations: 

We recommend that agencies continue to closely monitor their staffing of both Recovery 

Act and non‐ARRA work, and make adjustments as necessary to ensure that all contracts 

and grants are properly awarded and monitored. 

We also recommend that agencies assess training and certification issues for their 

contracting personnel. In particular, agencies should: 

• Ensure that contracting officers meet continuous learning requirements to maintain 

their certifications,

• Identify COTRs/CORs working on Recovery Act contracts who lack certification and/or 

continuous learning requirements, and take corrective action, and 

• Determine whether program managers working on major acquisitions under the 

Recovery Act are certified, and take appropriate steps to certify those who are not.  

Further, absent government‐wide standards for grants management personnel, agencies 

have established their own requirements. We see this as a best practice.   

27 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

APPENDIX A: AGENCIES/SUBAGENCIES REPRESENTED IN THIS REPORT14  

Corporation for National and Community Service

Field Financial Management Center

Office of Grants Management

Office of the Inspector General

Office of Procurement Services

Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Commodity Procurement  

Agricultural Research Service

Departmental Management, Procurement Operations Division

Farm Service Agency, Commodity and Non­Commodity Offices

Food and Nutrition Service

Forest Service

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Office of the Inspector General  

Rural Development

Department of Commerce

Census Bureau

Economic Development Agency

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of the Secretary

Department of Defense

Department of Education

Federal Student Aid

Institute of Education Sciences

Office of the Chief Financial Officer  

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Office of Innovation and Improvement

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services

 

14 Only 26 agencies are represented in this report. One agency did not respond; one lacked material data; and 

one recalled its surveys. 

 

28 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Department of Energy

Golden Field Office

Idaho Operations Office

National Energy Technology Laboratory

National Nuclear Security Administration

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Office of Environmental Management

Consolidated Business Center

Office of River Protection

Richland Operations Office

Savannah River Operations Office

Office of Headquarters, Procurement Services

Office of Science

Headquarters

Chicago Office

Oak Ridge Office

Western Area Power Administration

Department of Health and Human Services

Administration on Aging

Office of Administrative and Technology Services

Administration for Children and Families

Child Care Bureau

Office of Community Service

Office of Grants Management

Office of Head Start

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Child Care Bureau  

Health Resources and Services Administration

Indian Health Service

National Institutes of Health

Office of Community Service

Office of Grants Management

Office of Head Start

Office of Public Health and Science

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Resources and Technology

Program Support Center

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Grant Programs Directorate

Assistance to Firefighter Grants

Emergency Food and Shelter Grants

29 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

   

Operations

Program Management Office

Transit Security Grant Program

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Office of the Undersecretary for Management

Transportation Security Administration

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation  

Central Utah Project Completion Act

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Business Center

National Park Service

Office of the Inspector General

US Geological Service

Department of Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Justice Management Division, Procurement Services Staff

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Office of Justice Programs

Office on Violence Against Women

Department of Labor

Department of State

  

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Railroad Administration  

Federal Transit Administration

Maritime Administration

Department of the Treasury

Bureau of the Public Debt

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Financial Management Service

Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary

Office of the Procurement Executive

Procurement Services Division

30 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Department of Veterans Affairs

National Cemetery Administration  

   Centralized Contracting Division

   Construction Support Division

   Memorial Service Networks I–V

Veterans Health Administration

Veterans Health Administration Geriatrics and Extended Care Service

Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati Procurement Operations Division

Office of Acquisition Management, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division  

Office of Acquisition Management, Immediate Office  

Office of Acquisition and Resource Management, Office of Grants and Debarment

Office of Acquisition Management; Policy, Training, and Oversight Division

Office of Acquisition Management, Superfund Regional Procurement Operations  

Office of Air and Radiation  

Office of Administration and Resources Management  

Office of Grants and Debarment

      Grants and Interagency Agreements Management  

   National Policy, Training, and Compliance Division  

Office of Human Resources, Senior Environmental Employment Program

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response  

Office of Water  

Regions 1­10

  

General Services Administration

Federal Acquisition Service  

Public Buildings Service

National Aeronautics and Space Administration  

National Endowment for the Arts  

  

National Science Foundation

Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management  

Office of the Inspector General

Railroad Retirement Board

  

Small Business Administration  

31 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Smithsonian Institution

  

Social Security Administration

  

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration  

U.S. Agency for International Development

   

32 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

APPENDIX B: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

The Recovery Act charged the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to review 

the sufficiency, qualifications, and training of contracts and grants staff overseeing 

Recovery Act funds. In May 2009, the Board asked the Department of Commerce OIG to 

develop a survey to obtain a snapshot of the Recovery Act acquisitions and grants 

workforce during the initial implementation of the Act. The survey document created is 

divided into seven discrete sections, each of which correlates to a specific segment of the 

acquisitions and grants workforce as set forth below. 

A word about terminology: While the language of this report will generally be familiar to 

all readers, certain particular terms are unavoidably used—some with specific meanings 

related to how the survey was conducted and its results reported. These are explained in 

the following definitions: 

TERM REPORT USAGE

Acquisition  Synonymous with “contract.”

Agency One of the federal departments or independent agencies, such 

as the Department of Labor or the Small Business 

Administration.

Contract  A mutually binding legal agreement obligating the seller to 

furnish supplies or services and the buyer to pay for them. For

example, the government purchases satellite components 

through a contract.

FTEs (full‐time 

equivalents) 

The total number of regular hours worked by employees, 

divided by the number of compensable hours applicable to each 

fiscal year. All approved leave categories are considered hours

worked.

Grant (financial 

assistance)  

A distinct legal instrument used by the federal government to 

provide funding to nonfederal recipients to carry out a public 

purpose authorized by federal law. An example would be a 

grant to a school system to hire teachers.

Personnel  Individual employees.

Position  The seven categories of employees in the contracts and grants 

workforce. 

Respondent  The particular entity (usually a subagency) answering the 

survey questions, by position, such as the response for grants 

specialists at the National Institutes of Health within the 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

Subagency An institutional entity within an agency, such as the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) within the Department of 

Transportation. In most instances, responses to survey 

questions were submitted by subagencies, responding in terms 

of numbers of positions within their control.  

n accordance with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), the following 

efinitions of the positions that constitute the contracting workforce were used: 

I

d

33 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

• Contracting Officer (CO): A government employee authorized to enter into, modify, or 

terminate contracts on behalf of the federal government. Their responsibilities include 

acquisition planning, managing the evaluation of offers, and ensuring performance of 

the contract. 

• Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative

(COTR/COR): A government employee authorized to perform administrative and/or 

technical functions associated with contract performance by virtue of a delegation of 

authority from the contracting officer.  

• Contract Program Manager/Contract Project Manager (CPM): A government employee 

who manages the program or project that a particular contract is supporting. 

• Contracting Support Personnel (CSP): All other government employees whose primary 

responsibilities involve government contracting, from contracting specialists without 

warrants (authority to award contracts), to agency policy and procurement executives 

and their staffs.  

Unlike the contracts workforce, there is no standardized structure for the grants 

workforce. As a result, the grants workforce is structured differently from agency to agency 

across the federal government. This survey attempts to provide comprehensive definitions 

n order to capture the authorizing management, policy, oversight, and support personnel 

ho award and admini

i

w ster grants as described below.  

• Grants Officer (GO): A government employee with authority to approve awards and 

amendments that obligate or deobligate funds and to oversee the business management 

and administrative aspects of grants or cooperative agreements.  

• Grants Program Manager/Grants Project Manager (GPM): Government employees who 

manage the programmatic aspects of grants or cooperative agreements, including 

tracking the recipient’s progress and comparing actual accomplishments with goals and 

objectives established in the award.  

• Grants Specialist/Grants Support Personnel (GS): The government employees who 

support the Grants Officer in the business management of grants and cooperative 

agreements, including oversight personnel who create policy and guidance. 

34 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Through the Board’s committee and working group structure,15 the survey was provided to 

the 29 OIG offices responsible for the oversight of the Recovery Act16 for review and 

comment during June 2009. The survey was revised, as appropriate, based on input 

received from this vetting process. The survey instrument was then tested in July by four 

OIG offices and their agencies, each of which were with provided with a set of instructions, 

definitions, and assumptions for implementing the survey. The results of this test allowed 

us to make improvements to the survey instrument, providing additional structure and a 

more detailed set of instructions to assist the respondents in providing accurate 

information.  

The survey was transmitted to the 29 OIGs on July 24, 2009. It was left to the discretion of 

the OIG of each agency to determine the method for completing the survey, taking into 

consideration recent or ongoing audit work of the acquisitions and grants workforce and 

the agency’s handling of Recovery Act funds for contracts and grants. The surveys were 

designed to be a set of self‐administered questionnaires that captured information on the 

sufficiency of acquisitions and grants personnel overseeing Recovery Act funds, whether 

they were certified according to standards established by OFPP, and whether they are 

receiving adequate training.  

On the basis of discussions with the OIG community during preparation of the survey, it 

was anticipated that the survey would, in most instances, be completed at the contracting 

or grant‐making activity level of each agency. Since there was limited opportunity for the 

OIG offices to validate those data, we structured the survey to assist the respondent in 

reporting valid and consistent information over three separate timeframes. If a 

methodology other than a self‐administered questionnaire was used by any of the OIGs, 

they were instructed to provide an explanation of the steps taken with the agency to 

complete the questionnaire. We were not advised of any other methodologies used.  

To facilitate completion of the survey, the Board’s Chairman requested that each agency’s 

senior accountable Recovery Act official provide whatever assistance was requested by 

OIG, including, if required, that he or she oversee completion of the survey by agency 

procurement and grants officials.  

Agencies packaged survey responses in various ways. Some sent one consolidated survey, 

while others sent separate responses by subagency. For example, the Department of State 

sent one survey response, while the Department of Transportation sent five, one each from 

the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad 

dministration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Maritime Administration. Further, 

ot every subagency responded to all seven sections of the survey, presumably answering  

A

n

 

5 The Recovery Funds Working Group Committee oversaw this review and the survey was vetted by the  1

35 

Committee’s Recovery Spending Working Group of which all 29 OIGs are members. 

16 Only 26 agencies are represented in this report. One agency did not respond; one lacked material data; and 

one recalled its surveys.  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

36 

only relevant sections. Some agencies or subagencies enter into contracts, but do not award 

grants. A complete list of agencies and subagencies appears in Appendix A.  

The organization of the survey and certain questions directed to the acquisitions workforce 

are based on requirements in the following memoranda from OFPP, and they can be found 

at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_index_workforce/: 

• Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting Program (FAC‐C) (January 20, 2006) 

• Federal Acquisition Certification for Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives           

(FAC‐COTR) (November 26, 2007) 

• Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and Project Managers (FAC‐P/PM) 

(April 25, 2007) 

• OFPP Policy Letter 05‐01 (April 15, 2005) 

Since there were no corresponding requirements for the grants workforce, the surveys and 

certain questions directed to them are similar in design to the acquisitions workforce but 

the questions about training and specific certifications are not based on requirements from 

any oversight body.  

Completed surveys were returned electronically to Commerce OIG in September 2009. The 

completed surveys were quality checked through an analysis of outliers, and minor edits 

were made to insure consistency amongst the responses. Additionally, in a few instances 

when there was questionable data found in the responses, we contacted the respondent to 

clarify the data where the inconsistency would have a material impact on the survey 

results. In these circumstances, the data were revised, as appropriate, based on discussions 

with the respondents.  

Agencies reported the number of personnel assigned or expected to be assigned to the 

award and administration of Recovery Act contracts and grants and the percentage of time 

those employees would spend on Recovery Act‐related duties.  From these data, the 

number of hours and full‐time‐equivalent positions were determined for each agency, and 

agencies were categorized as Large or Other based on a statistical analysis of the 

information each provided. When responses for the combined Recovery Act contracts and 

grants workforce are totaled, three agencies are considered to be Large: the Department of 

Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). For this review, the remaining 23 agencies are aggregated as Other. 

In this analysis, we measured a positively skewed distribution, meaning that a few cases 

present a very large proportion of the total for a characteristic. In order to provide a more 

meaningful analysis, we segmented our universes into two categories: Large and Other 

agencies. We calculated these segments by selecting all cases with characteristic values  
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

37 

greater than one standard deviation from the mean on the positive side of the distribution 

and identified them as Large.  

The results of the completed surveys were used to create this consolidated report, which 

was distributed in draft form to OIGs. We received comments to the draft from 11 of the 26 

agencies, along with the Recovery Act Transparency Board staff and the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy. We have made changes to the report as appropriate based on these 

comments. 

We conducted the survey at the request of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency 

Board. We performed this review in response to a statutory requirement in the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that directs the Board to review the sufficiency 

and qualifications of the acquisition and grants personnel working on the Recovery Act. 

This work does not constitute an audit under generally accepted government auditing 

standards.   
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

APPENDIX C. SURVEY DISCLAIMERS

• The survey was dependent on the Inspectors General of the 29 recipient agencies to 

distribute and oversee in their respective agencies.  

• Errors or distortions due to non‐response may exist. There was no defined list of 

potential respondents.

• Answers to the survey depended on respondents’ honesty, and ability to respond. 

• Critical survey questions required yes/no answers, restricting respondent choice in 

answering.

• Some answers are not supported by or are inconsistent with accompanying comments. 

• ome survey questions required respondents to conduct research in order to answer. 

his can lower response rates and introduce error. 

S

T

   

38 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

APPENDIX D. TABLES RELATING TO FIGURES IN THE REPORT TEXT

Table for Figure 1. Contracts and Grants Recovery Act Staffing Generally Viewed as 

Inadequate, Adequate, or Adequate But with Impact on Non-Recovery Act Work 

Large Agencies 

Contracts 

Responses 

Grants 

Responses

Total 

Responses Percentages

Staffing adequate, no impact 6 5 11 14%

Staffing adequate, but impact 

on non-Recovery Act work 12 24 36 45%

Staffing inadequate 15 18 33 41%

Total 33 47 80 100%

Other Agencies 

Contracts 

Responses 

Grants 

Responses

Total 

Responses Percentages

Staffing adequate, no impact 82 28 110 24%

Staffing adequate, but impact 

on non-Recovery Act work 137 102 239 52%

Staffing inadequate 63 44 107 23%

No response 2 4 6 1%

Total 284 178 462 100%

Table for Figure 2. Employees, by Position, Assigned to Recovery Act Contracts and 

Grants, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

April-June 2009 July-December 2009 January-June 2010

CO 2,686 2,837 2,881

COTR 3,763 4,890 5,520

CPM 2,498 2,544 1,910

CSP 1,580 1,785 1,783

Total 10,527 12,056 12,094

GO 2,112 2,183 2,171

GPM 7,383 8,092 8,086

GS 2,405 2,662 2,579

Total 11,900 12,937 12,836

Grand Total 22,427 24,993 24,930

39 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Table for Figure 3. Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Employees Assigned to Large Agency 

Recovery Act Contracts and Grants, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

April-June 2009 July-December 2009 January-June 2010

CO 135 287 284

COTR 112 421 496

CPM 209 447 299

CSP 118 245 251

Total 574 1,400 1,330

GO 26 65 58

GPM 462 908 854

GS 43 109 87

Total 531 1,082 999

Grand Total 1,105 2,482 2,329

 

Table for Figure 4. Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) Employees Assigned to Other Agency 

Recovery Act Contracts and Grants, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

April-June 2009 July-December 2009 January-June 2010

CO 133 358 382

COTR 87 345 412

CPM 43 159 138

CSP 36 91 88

 Total 299 953 1,020

GO 52 115 106

GPM 208 557 552

GS 182 289 170

Total 442 961 828

Grand Total 741 1,914 1,848

40 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Table for Figures 5, 6, and 7. Contracts—Sufficiency of ARRA Staffing Overall, for 

Large Agencies, and for Other Agencies 

Large Other Total 

Response Percentage Response Percentage Response Percentage

Staffing adequate, 

little/no impact 6 18% 82 29% 88 28%

Staffing adequate, 

but impact on nonRecovery Act work 12 36% 137 48% 149 47%

Staffing inadequate 15 46% 63 22% 78 25%

No Response 0 — 2 1% 2 1%

Total 33 100% 284 100% 317 101% a

a Percentages do not always add to 100 due to rounding or the exclusion of minimal non-response rates.

Table for Figures 8, 9, and 10. Grants—Sufficiency of ARRA Staffing Overall, for 

Large Agencies, and for Other Agencies 

Large Other Total 

Response Percentage Response Percentage Response Percentage

Staffing adequate, 

little/no impact 5 11% 28 16% 33 15%

Staffing adequate, 

but impact on nonRecovery Act work 24 51% 102 57% 126 56%

Staffing inadequate 18 38% 44 25% 62 28%

No Response 0 — 4 2% 4 2%

Total 47 100% 178 100% 225 101%a

a Percentages do not always add to 100 due to rounding or the exclusion of minimal non-response rates.

41 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Tables A–D for Figure 11. Certification of Employees Assigned to Recovery Act 

Contracts, by Position, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 (%) 

A. Certification of Contracting Officers Assigned to Recovery Act Contracts, 

Department of Defense and Civilian Agencies 

April–June 2009 July–December 2009 January–June 2010

Civilian 

Agencies 

Department 

of Defense

Civilian

Agencies

Department 

of Defense

Civilian 

Agencies 

Department 

of Defense

Total Assigned 1,913 773 2,223 614 2,319 562

Total Certifieda 1,862 766 2,096 578 2,238 526

Percentage 

Certified 97% 99% 94% 94% 97% 94% a Includes waivers 

B. Certification of COTRs/CORs Assigned to Recovery Act Contracts at Civilian 

Agenciesa 

April–June 2009 July–December 2009 January–June 2010

Total Assigned 3,161 4,140 4,719

Total Certifiedb 1,610 2,870 3,521

Percentage 

Certified 51% 69% 75% a Department of Defense has not established a certification program for its COTRs/CORs. b Includes waivers 

C. Certification of Contract Program Managers Assigned to Recovery Act Contracts 

at Civilian Agenciesa

 

April–June 2009 July–December 2009 January–June 2010

Total Assigned 719 816 904

Total Certifiedb 202 255 297

Percentage 

Certified 28% 31% 33% a Department of Defense reported that none of its Recovery Act contracts are major acquisitions; 

therefore, CPM certification is not required. b Includes waivers 

42 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

D. Certification of Contracting Support Personnel Assigned to Recovery Act 

Contracts, Department of Defense and Civilian Agencies 

April–June 2009 July–December 2009 January–June 2010

Civilian 

Agencies 

Department 

of Defense

Civilian

Agencies

Department 

of Defense

Civilian 

Agencies 

Department 

of Defense

Total Assigned 741 839 928 857 950 833

Total Certified 398 742 555 760 583 745

Percentage 

Certified 54% 88% 60% 89% 61% 89%

Table for Figure 12. Grants Personnel Working on Recovery Act Awards in Agencies 

that Do/Do Not Have Agency-Specific Requirements, April 2009–June 2010 

April–June 2009 July–December 2009 January–June 2010

No 

Agencyspecific 

Requirements 

Agencies 

Have Requirements

No Agencyspecific 

Requirements

Agencies 

Have Requirements

No 

Agencyspecific 

Requirements

Agencies 

Have 

Requirements

Grants 

Officers 1,959 153 2,003 181 1,991 181

Grants 

Program 

Managers 3,549 3,834 4,026 4,066 4,025 4,061

Grants 

Specialists 1,721 685 1,844 819 1,832 747

 Total 7,229 4,672 7,873 5,066 7,848 4,989

43 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Table for Figure 13. Grants Personnel Working on Recovery Act Awards Who Have 

Satisfied or are Expected to Satisfy Agency-Specific Requirements, April 2009–June 

2010 

April–June 2009 July–December 2009 January–June 2010

Satisfied 

or 

Expected 

to Satisfy 

Agencies 

Have 

Requirements

Satisfied 

or 

Expected 

to Satisfy

Agencies 

Have 

Requirements

Satisfied 

or 

Expected 

to Satisfy 

Agencies 

Have 

Requirements

Grants 

Officers 133 153 152 181 157 181

Grants 

Program 

Managers 3,790 3,834 3,943 4,066 4,039 4,061

Grants 

Specialists 526 685 617 819 564 747

 Total 4,449 4,672 4,712 5,066 4,760 4,989

44 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

APPENDIX E. TABLES CONTAINING ADDITIONAL DETAIL

ON DATA COLLECTED

Table E-1. Contracts and Grants Employees, by Position, Working at Subagencies that 

Received Recovery Act Funds, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

April-June 2009 July-December 2009 January-June 2010

CO 10,924 11,252 11,624

COTR 38,908 39,253 40,424

CPM 11,503 11,734 12,128

CSP 10,567 11,269 11,482

Total 71,909 73,508 75,658

GO 2,456 2,489 2,499

GPM 20,841 21,509 21,699

GS 3,519 3,703 3,727

Total 26,816 27,701 27,925

Grand 

Total 98,725 101,209 103,583

Table E-2. Total Hours Available for Employees, by Position, Assigned to Recovery Act 

Contracts and Grants, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010a

April-June 2009 July-December 2009 January-June 2010

CO 1,396,720 2,950,480 2,996,240

COTR 1,956,760 5,085,600 5,740,800

CPM 1,298,960 2,645,760 1,986,400

CSP 821,600 1,856,400 1,854,320

Total 5,474,040 12,538,240 12,577,760

GO 1,098,240 2,270,320 2,257,840

GPM 3,839,160 8,415,680 8,409,440

GS 1,250,600 2,768,480 2,682,160

Total 6,188,000 13,454,480 13,349,440

Grand 

Total 11,662,040 25,992,720 25,927,200 a Agencies reported on the number of employees assigned and percentage of time worked or expected 

to work on Recovery Act acquisitions and grants for each of the three time periods from April 2009 

through June 2010. These percentages were converted to FTEs and hours using the standard 

measurement of 2,080 hours per calendar year for 1 FTE. Thus, to calculate the number of hours in 

employees’ full time schedules for the 3-month period April-June 2009, the total number of employees 

assigned to the Recovery Act for that period was multiplied by 520 hours (25 percent of 2,080 hours). 

For the 6-month periods, the number of employees assigned to Recovery Act work was multiplied by 

1,040 to determine full-time schedules. A further calculation (see table E–3) was computed using the 

percentages reported to determine the number of hours that each responding entity was devoting to 

the Recovery Act during each period. 

45 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Table E-3. Hours Reported Worked by Employees on Recovery Act Contracts and 

Grants, by Position, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

April-June 2009 July-December 2009 January-June 2010

CO 556,542 1,338,389 1,381,837

COTR 412,764 1,592,397 1,889,597

CPM 628,031 1,259,034 1,014,166

CSP 331,650 698,476 696,529

 Total 1,928,986 4,888,296 4,982,129

GO 162,449 375,821 341,744

GPM 1,394,684 3,041,826 2,917,677

GS 260,464 619,333 535,444

Total 1,817,597 4,036,980 3,794,865

Grand Total 3,746,583 8,925,276 8,776,994

Table E-4. Impacts Reported on Acquisition Workforce as a Result of Recovery Act 

Workload, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010.

Insufficient Staff for 

ARRA Work 

Sufficient Staff, but with 

Impact on Non-ARRA Worka

TOTAL

Large 

Agencies Other 

Large 

Agencies Other 

on Recovery Act Work: 

Delaysb 14 24 38

Decreased 

post-award 

monitoring 6 23 29

Increased 

staff time 2 7 9

Supplemental 

staff 2 26 28

on Non-Recovery Act Work

Delays 13 43 11 76 143

Decreased 

post-award 

monitoring 7 31 6 21 65

Increased 

staff time 2 8 7 42 59

Supplemental 

staff 2 7 2 53 64 a

 Respondents who had indicated they had sufficient staff for Recovery Act work were asked to specify 

only whether there had been any impact on their non-Recovery Act work. 

b

 With regard to Recovery Act work, “delays” refers primarily to awards. 

46 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

Table E-5. Impacts Reported on Grants Workforce as a Result of Recovery Act 

Workload, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010

Insufficient Staff for 

ARRA Work 

Sufficient Staff, but with 

Impact on Non-ARRA Worka

TOTAL

Large 

Agencies Other 

Large 

Agencies Other 

on Recovery Act Work: 

Delaysb 9 20 29

Decreased 

post-award 

monitoring 4 24 28

Increased 

staff time 0 13 13

Supplemental 

staff 13 6 19

on Non-Recovery Act Work

Delays 7 25 20 56 108

Decreased 

post-award 

monitoring 2 25 11 22 60

Increased 

staff time 0 5 11 42 58

Supplemental 

staff 6 2 7 66 81 a

 Respondents who had indicated they had sufficient staff for Recovery Act work were asked to specify 

only whether there had been any impact on their non-Recovery Act work. 

b

 With regard to Recovery Act work, “delays” refers primarily to awards. 

Table E–6. Numbers of Subagencies Reporting Sufficient Contracts and Grants 

Personnel to Award and Administer Recovery Act Contracts and Grants 

Subagencies 

YES NO No answer Responses

CO 70 19 1 89

COTR 70 23 0 93

CPM 41 13 1 54

CSP 56 23 0 79

GO 58 12 0 70

GPM 53 29 0 82

GS 48 21 4 69

47 
Contracts and Grants Workforce Staffing and Qualifications Review

48 

Table E-7. Compliance by Employees Assigned to Recovery Act Contracts, by Position, 

with Continuous Learning Requirements, Actual and Projected, April 2009–June 2010 

Current on 

Continuous 

Learning 

Requirements Assigneda

Percentage Current

on Continuous 

Learning 

Requirements

Civilian 

Contract 

Officers 1,427 2,319 62%

Defense 

Contract 

Officers 653 773 85%

Civilian 

COTRs/CORsb 2,934 4,719 62%

Contract 

Program 

Managersc 196 904 22% a Civilian agency information is for the period ending June 2010. Information from the Department of 

Defense is for the 3-month period ending June 2009. 

b One agency representing 30% of all COTRs/CORs assigned to the Recovery Act has not implemented 

certification requirements for its COTRs/CORs and thus did not report any staff current on continuous 

learning requirements. By removing this agency’s data from the calculation, the resulting percentage of 

COTRs/CORs working on Recovery Act contracts that are current on the continuous learning 

requirements is 88%. 

c Defense reported that it has not assigned any CPMs to Recovery Act acquisitions that require 

certification. 

Table E–8. Grants Respondents Working on the Recovery Act That Have Specific 

Education/Training Requirements

Position Yes

Respondents 

Reporting 

Percentage of 

Respondents 

Having 

Specific 

Requirements

Grants Officer 25 70 36%

Grants Program Manager 27 82 33%

Grants Specialist 31 73 42%