U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–963 PDF 2012

ON THE FRONT LINES IN THE ACQUISITION

WORKFORCE’S BATTLE AGAINST TAXPAYER

WASTE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION

POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND

PROCUREMENT REFORM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 16, 2011

Serial No. 112–95

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform
(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT REFORM

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking

Minority Member

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JACKIE SPEIER, California
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on November 16, 2011 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Gordon, Daniel I., Administrator, Federal Procurement Policy, Office of

Management and Budget ............................................................................. 9

Hutton, John P., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S.

Government Accountability Office; Roger Jordan, vice president of government relations, Professional Services Council; Donna M. Jenkins,

Director, Federal Acquisition Institute, U.S. General Services Administration; and Katrina G. McFarland, president, Defense Acquisition University, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense ............................................. 24

Hutton, John P. ......................................................................................... 24

Jenkins, Donna M. .................................................................................... 46

Jordan, Roger ............................................................................................. 38

McFarland, Katrina G. ............................................................................. 53

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Virginia, prepared statement of .............................................................. 8

Gordon, Daniel I., Administrator, Federal Procurement Policy, Office of

Management and Budget, prepared statement of ...................................... 12

Hutton, John P., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S.

Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ....................... 27

Jenkins, Donna M., Director, Federal Acquisition Institute, U.S. General

Services Administration, prepared statement of ........................................ 48

Jordan, Roger, vice president of government relations, Professional Services Council, prepared statement of ............................................................ 40

Lankford, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Oklahoma, prepared statement of ........................................................... 4

McFarland, Katrina G., president, Defense Acquisition University, Office

of the Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense, prepared statement of ................................. 56

(1)

ON THE FRONT LINES IN THE ACQUISITION

WORKFORCE’S BATTLE AGAINST TAXPAYER

WASTE

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT

REFORM,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Lankford (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Lankford, Labrador, and Connolly.

Staff present: Richard A. Beutel, senior counsel; Molly Boyl, parliamentarian; Sharon Casey, senior assistant clerk; Mark D. Marin,

director of oversight; Devon Hill, minority staff assistant; Rory

Sheehan, minority new media press secretary; Cecelia Thomas, minority counsel.

Mr. LANKFORD. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have the right to know the money Washington takes from

them is well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty in the Oversight

and Government Committee is to protect these rights.

Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable to

taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get

from their government. We will work tirelessly and in partnership

with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people

and secure genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the

mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I will make a brief opening statement. In addition to the nature

of the workload, let me back up, the people who plan and prepare

and issue Government contracts play a vital role in protecting the

interests of the American taxpayer. We are all familiar with stories

about $16 muffins and $600 hammers being bought by the government. But these stories often turn out to be more complicated than

the sound bite would suggest.

But they do reflect an underlying reality. The Government must

have capable people overseeing these complex acquisitions in order

to properly steward the taxpayers’ money. It is essential to have

skilled, capable people acquiring the goods and services necessary

to run the government and to serve the American people. Our Fed-
2

eral Government is the single largest customer in the world. And

its acquisition work force is grappling with a huge increase in volume. Between fiscal year 2000 and 2008, acquisition spending by

the Federal Government expended by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $539 billion. Today, procurement spending is approaching

$700 billion.

In addition to the nature of what that workload has become increasingly complex. Government procurement increasingly reflects

complex services rather than just simple goods. It is a lot harder

to acquire a complex engineering and technical expertise than to

buy office supplies. Services, not supplies, now account for 70 percent of the Federal Government’s spending.

Many experts note the need for proper training of acquisition officers concerning the complex and frequently changing Federal contracting environment. While seismic shifts are occurring in the

landscape of Federal acquisitions, the skills and tools of the Federal acquisitions work force has remained largely stagnant. This

further places agency missions and taxpayer funds at risk. Improving the skills of the Federal acquisition work force is in the best

interest of everyone involved: the Federal acquisition work force,

the contractors, the government, and all taxpayers.

Two broad reforms are being required. First, how do we improve

Government-wide leadership in the coordination and development

of the Federal acquisition professionals? Defense Acquisition University and the Federal Acquisition Institute play central roles in

the training and shaping of the acquisition work force. But why

does the Government has so many training centers? Who is coordinating the curriculum between the civilian and military acquisition

work force to allow for work force mobility and advancement?

Should the Government break training centers into centers of excellence, each focusing upon a specific speciality, such as creating

an i.d. cadre? I just want to ask the question and let’s find out.

Second, beyond leadership and coordination, we must focus on

the Government’s use of tools and advanced capabilities to equip

qualified acquisition work force professionals. Why isn’t there a

standardized contract writing tool across the whole Government?

Why is the tracking and reporting data on the Federal procurement

data base unreliable at times and sometime deficient?

We know there are several new initiatives underway to improve

the acquisition work force. Some of these initiatives include such

programs as mentoring and intern programs, the use of flexible hiring authority, increase college recruitment efforts and improvements within the acquisition work force career track. We are going

to ask what else, and is it enough and how is it going.

I look forward to hearing more about these efforts today and

working with the ranking member on the common ground that we

do have on this very important issue. We spent a significant

amount of time talking to people that have Government contracts

and trying to chat on what are the solutions that they see, what

are the things that they identify. And a lot of this conversation

today will focus on the low-hanging fruit, what can we get accomplished, where should we be going, and how are we doing in the

progress that we are making at this point.
3

So with that, in perfect timing, I would like to recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Connolly, for his opening statement. You missed my fabulous opening statement, Mr. Connolly.

[The prepared statement of Hon. James Lankford follows:]
4
5
6

Mr. CONNOLLY. I will get a tape.

Mr. LANKFORD. I am sure you will.

Mr. CONNOLLY. And tonight, when I get home.

Mr. LANKFORD. That would be a terrific date night.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I will watch it.

I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing to review the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act

and other acquisition personnel issues. I appreciate your attention

to the issue which is of critical importance to Federal employees,

contractors and taxpayers.

As you know, Senator Collins and I introduced companion bills

to strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, and that legislation

has been included in the House National Defense Authorization

Act. I appreciate the administration’s support for our efforts and

believe this bill will support Donna Jenkins’ efforts to strengthen

FAI. I look forward to discussing the bill with both panels of witnesses.

In addition to strengthening the FAI, it is appropriate that we

would consider other acquisition work force policies that can improve Federal efficiency and the delivery of services. Chief among

these are personnel policies with respect to recruitment, retention

and compensation, which are all related, obviously. As the thoughtful staff memorandum for this hearing noted, the acquisition work

force is experiencing a silver tsunami, in which 25 percent of employees could retire within the next several years. The shortage

would only be exacerbated by mindless attempts to slash the Federal work force through attrition or layoffs.

Federal agencies need to be recruiting the next generation of acquisition staff right now, while training existing personnel to adapt

to a changing procurement environment which is more focused on

services and technology. In order to recruit new staff and retain existing staff, it is imperative that we maintain competitive compensation packages in the Federal work force. While Federal employees may never be paid as much as their private sector counterparts, and indeed, we recently had a study that shows we have actually had deterioration in that ratio, we cannot allow that gap to

widen so much that we lose our best acquisition personnel to the

private sector.

Fortunately, many individuals and agencies are leading the way

to improve the acquisition work force. The administration’s 25

point plan for IT reform, for example, calls for the creation of acquisition career paths focused on technology in which OMB and

FAI are in fact collaborating.

DOD is hiring 10,000 new acquisition personnel over the next 4

years. Donna Jenkins has expanded the FAI staff from six to nine,

a 50 percent increase, to meet the growing agency demands. But

I hardly think that is adequate. And it is partnering with a diverse

set of agencies to maximize the impact of a very small team of experts.

The Veterans Affairs Administration has opened an outstanding

acquisition training academy in the national capital region. These

are all laudable efforts, and I hope we will learn today how best

we can support them, including but not limited to passing the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act.
7

In a recent hearing, we learned about one appalling consequence

of a lack of contracting oversight, widespread human trafficking

among overseas subcontractors. And again, I congratulate you, Mr.

Chairman, for holding those delicate but very important hearings.

We must maintain a focus on this issue, because whether it is

human trafficking or the failure to hold down contract costs, our

acquisition personnel are in the front lines on behalf of our constituents, the taxpayers.

Thank you again for holding this important hearing, and I look

forward to our continued collaboration on acquisition work force

issues.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly follows:]
8
9

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Other Members may

have 7 days to submit opening statements or extraneous materials

for the record.

We will now welcome our first panel, the Honorable Dan Gordon.

He is the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

for a little while longer. Dan has been a forceful advocate on behalf

of the acquisition work force for many years. In his role as OFPP

Administrator, he has been a tireless proponent for the men and

women who steward our taxpayer dollars. And we appreciate that.

Recently, Dan announced his intent to leave Federal service to

join the distinguished faculty at George Washington University

Law School as an associate dean. It seems fitting to have Dan here

today to discuss one of his passions, the acquisition work force,

which was the centerpiece for his Senate confirmation hearing 2

years ago. I do thank you for your distinguished service, congratulate you on your new position and look forward to continuing to

pick your brain in the days to come on the things that you see as

deficiencies and ways we can go after this and be able to solve

some of the problems.

Pursuant to committee rules, witnesses will be sworn in before

they testify. I would ask you, Mr. Gordon, if you would please rise

and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. LANKFORD. Let the record reflect the witness answered in

the affirmative. You may be seated.

In order to allow time for discussion, you know the drill here

very well, you have been here before, we would ask you to limit

your testimony to 5 to 10 minutes, then we are going to pepper you

with questions after that. Your entire written statement will be

made part of the record, so feel free to be able to make oral statements that are above and beyond your written statement as well.

We now recognize you for 5 minute for an opening statement,

Mr. Gordon.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL I. GORDON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT

AND BUDGET

Mr. GORDON. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly,

other members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here

today. There is nothing that I care about more in the acquisition

system than strengthening our acquisition work force. It is my top

priority, it is our top priority. And I’d like to talk about a number

of points in this brief opening statement.

I do want to broaden the scope a bit wider, and you will see what

I mean in a moment, because I think it is helpful to have somewhat more context. As you said, Mr. Chairman, the Federal acquisition system spends in buying goods and services more than half

a trillion dollars a year. That number was going up very fast between 2000 and 2009. I am happy to report that in fact, we have

slowed that down so that in 2010, the number actually went down.

And while we don’t have final numbers for 2011, it appears that

they will be roughly at that lower level of 2010.

The Federal acquisition work force, as you said, Mr. Chairman,

handles that half a trillion dollars a year, and it is very important
10

that they be in a position to protect the integrity of the Federal

procurement process. That is why Congressman Connolly’s comments resonate so much with us in terms of protecting and

strengthening the Federal acquisition work force.

When I talked about broadening the scope, I want to make clear

that when we say the acquisition work force, we mean more than

our contracting officers and contract specialists, what we in the

personnel system call our 1102s. It also includes our contracting officer’s representatives [CORs]. In some agencies, they are called

COTARs, contracting officer’s technical reps. They play a key role

in contract management, contract oversight. And that is a role that

has been much neglected, frankly, over the last quarter of a century. I want to talk a little bit about strengthening that COR role.

In addition, we have project and program managers who are part

of the acquisition work force but are often disconnected from the

actual contracting shops.

One of the things that we have tried to do in this administration

is look at that entire acquisition work force and be sure that we

are strengthening that entire work force. We in OMB have been at

the forefront of efforts to strengthen the work force. As I am sure

you know, the President’s budget for 2011 and 2012 requested significant dollar investments in the Federal acquisition work force.

And while Congress did not appropriate all the money that we requested, we did have some success in strengthening the acquisition

work force at a good number of agencies.

But when I talk about broadening the scope, I want to talk about

it in a different dimension as well. Because for much of the last

quarter of a century, when we talked about acquisition, we really

talked about who got the contract, the award of the contract was

usually our focus. And in this administration, we have tried to

broaden that scope as well, so that we spend much more time and

energy focused on acquisition planning. Because frankly, whether

it is a large IT project or any other large project, when we screw

up, often it is because we didn’t do good acquisition planning.

And then after the award of the contract, we need to do a much

better job of contract management, to be sure that we hold contractors to the promises they made. They did, after all, sign a contract.

And we need to be sure that they deliver on schedule, on cost and

with the performance level that they promised us.

Let me in the brief time that I have highlight a couple of the

ways in which we have tried to improve acquisition planning in the

work force. Number one, our mythbusters memo that we put out

in February of this year talks about the need for our acquisition

work force to listen to industry, to talk to industry, to have better

communication with industry. We can’t do our job properly if we

are not talking to and listening to industry.

Second, as Congressman Connolly pointed out, we are focused on

strengthening specialized acquisition cadres for IT, for services and

for others, so that the acquisition cadre can do a better job of planning our acquisitions and carrying them out.

In terms of contract management, because of shortage of time, let

me just mention that we have raised the bar for the standards to

be a contracting officer’s representative. We now have a three-tier

certification process, so that the COR, or the contracting officer’s
11

representative, overseeing a very large contract, is someone that

has the experience, that has the training to oversee that very large

contract.

In the area of training, you are going to have the benefit in the

next panel of hearing from both Donna Jenkins at the Federal Acquisition Institute and Katrina McFarland at the Defense Acquisition University. I will only tell you that we have worked closely

with both and done our best to strengthen their efforts and to see

to it that they are working together, as they are, so that our taxpayer funds are being well spent.

The fact is, as the stewards of the taxpayer dollars, we need to

be sure that we doing everything that we can to avoid fraud, waste

and abuse, and also to spend the money in an intelligent way. Our

acquisition work force, if treated properly, if trained properly, if

compensated properly, can be the best protection for the acquisition

process. And we appreciate this committee’s commitment to improving the acquisition work force.

I am happy to answer any questions that committee members

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.

Let me recognize myself initially for a first round of questions.

You obviously walked into this whole thing in motion. You inherited issues, you worked at it significantly for a couple of years and

now you are leaving for other things.

What is the next person coming in, what should be the first thing

they take on? You would say, this is the low-hanging fruit, this is

the big project that must be done right now?

Mr. GORDON. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, my response is going

to be related to a point that Congressman Connolly made. I am

very concerned, very concerned that the progress we have made

over the past 2 years is at risk. Budgetary pressures risks slashing

the Federal acquisition work force, whether it is a matter of cutting

salaries, cutting benefits, showing disrespect for our Federal work

force, cutting the numbers of our people, cutting the training that

they are getting. We cannot protect the Federal acquisition process

without a good Federal acquisition work force. And I am very concerned that budgetary pressures are going to unroll much of the

progress that we have had.

Mr. LANKFORD. And the task that the next person has coming in

as far as midstream to the projects that you have, I understand

that, because that is true of every agency, everything that we do

in every part of America and every company currently. Not every,

but many companies in America are dealing with that same issue.

The next director that walks in, what is the project that needs to

be first on their desk?

Mr. GORDON. I think the priorities are going to remain the same

priorities. My priority number one has been, strengthen the Federal acquisition work force. That means look for opportunities for

training, it means do outreach. The second priority is fiscal responsibility. We need to buy less, we need to buy smarter. One of the

benefits of buying smarter is that it reduces the burden on the Federal acquisition work force. Strategic sourcing, by having vehicles

in place governmentwide means that individual contracting officers

don’t need to run competitions for contracts. That reduces their

workload and is helpful.

Rebalancing our relationship with contractors, whether it is improving the communication, part of mythbusters, or seeing to it

that we are doing better contract oversight. We need to be sure

that we have a good balance in our relationship with contractors.

I don’t think that can change.

Mr. LANKFORD. Can I ask a quick question? As you are listening

to contractors, what is the primary thing that is rising to the top?

What are they saying the most? You say it is a major priority.

Mr. GORDON. Several things. And I do spend a lot of my time on

the road. Listening is something that I learned from my mother as

a very important skill. I try to listen a lot, whether it is to contractors or Federal officials or others.

Companies are very worried about the uncertainty of what is

about to happen. They are very worried about the budget and how

it is going to impact their own companies and their own company’s

work. They are very worried about unjustified regulation, which is

why I and my colleagues have been so committed to being sure that

we do a sensible cost benefit analysis before we impose new re-
20

quirements. They are concerned about excessive reporting requirements, both coming from the Congress and coming from us in the

executive branch.

I think those may be the three. But I should mention in connection with mythbusters, because I hear this from vendors all the

time. They are worried about communication being shut down. We

need more communication and the companies tell me they are worried that in fact, too often they don’t have enough communication.

Mr. LANKFORD. Do you feel like more contractors are trying to

get involved in the process now or fewer? Do you feel like we are

increasing competition, more small, medium, large businesses are

engaging in this?

Mr. GORDON. We are certainly trying, sir.

Mr. LANKFORD. I am trying to get a feel for it. Do you think that

is occurring? I understand there is outreach that is happening. Do

you think we are getting more people in the pipeline that are bidding?

Mr. GORDON. When I look at the data, it looks like we do have

an increase in competition and a decrease in sole source contracts.

When I look at the number of dollars going to small businesses, I

see increases. But boy, we have a lot more work to do.

Mr. LANKFORD. That is a common theme that I hear with a lot

of the folks that are in my district that are trying to get engaged.

It is still, the hurdles and the paperwork requirements and the

processing, it seems to be significant for them. Both trying to discover what is out there or that the rules for acquiring a contract

seem to be written specifically for a company and they don’t fit that

criteria. So trying to get involved in that. So trying to find ways

to allow more people to compete obviously drives the cost down and

raises up the next generation of large companies that we are going

to need to take on these big issues.

Mr. GORDON. Absolutely. I will tell you that SBA has been working diligently, and we have been working with them, to try to reduce the barriers to entry. It is so tough to get into the Federal

contracting arena. Typically for companies, the first contract is the

toughest one to get. Once they have gotten one and they get a feel

for how the system works, they can often compete and get further

contracts. But breaking down the barriers to entry is tough. SBA

is trying to simplify the process and to get materials online to help

companies. But that is an ongoing challenge.

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, thank you. I yield questioning to Mr.

Connolly.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back,

Mr. Gordon. It is good to see you again.

As you know, I introduced H.R. 1424, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act, and Senator Collins introduced a companion bill in

the Senate, bipartisan legislation. I would like your views on the

legislation. Will it be helpful in terms of the mission of your organization and work force training?

Mr. GORDON. I will tell you, Congressman Connolly, that for us

it is a breath of fresh air to have commitment like you have shown

to improving training for our Federal acquisition work force. It is

extremely important, and it is also good to see action up on the Hill

that is bipartisan. It is also a good sign.
21

I will tell you that over the years, as you know, the Federal acquisition is often a bipartisan issue. And that is a healthy thing for

our work force.

There are provisions in the bill that are clearly helpful. There

has been some nervousness, frankly, on the part of people in my

office that the bill’s language would appear to make it look like the

Office of Federal Procurement Policy would actually be running

FAI. I don’t think that was the intent, and we need to be sure,

when the bill, if the bill is enacted, we need to be sure that we are

able to keep having GSA in the important role that it has shown.

But with that caveat, I do think that the bill sends a very strong

signal of improving and strengthening the Federal Acquisition Institute.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, just on that last point, the bill explicitly allows OFPP to delegate management of FAI to GSA. You would prefer we explicitly just have GSA manage it without the delegation?

I guess from our point of view in drafting the bill, we thought you

have overall management responsibility and therefore we didn’t

want to in any way denigrate that responsibility. We actually

thought we were being helpful. But we obviously could rewrite it

to just put it in GSA.

Mr. GORDON. From our point of view, it makes more sense to

keep FAI within GSA, which is the current placement. It seems to

me that you still can get the benefits of the bill even leaving FAI

in GSA. Because the real message of the bill is support for FAI.

And that is very important to us.

Mr. CONNOLLY. None of use want to grow bureaucracy. But when

I look, and we are going to hear in the next panel, but the comparison of how it is done in the defense world and how it is done for

the rest of the civilian work force is so unbalanced in terms of resources committed to this mission and training, what is your sense

about that? My understanding is, by default as a result, a lot of

people who are in the civilian work force who get training end up

having to go to the Defense Acquisition University because we simply don’t have the wherewithal on the civilian side under FAI to

do the training. Or at least the initial training.

Mr. GORDON. It is a very important issue. I should tell you, I am

not sure you know, sir, I used to be a high school teacher. I care

a lot about teaching, I care a lot about training. We need our training to be useful. It doesn’t help to give training at a time where

it is not going to help or in a way that is not going to help.

Online training is one of the ways to overcome the challenge you

are talking about. And DAU, as you will hear from the next panel,

DAU is working with FAI and others to share their resources in

a very helpful way.

It is true that when we have civilians go to DAU courses, they

sometimes feel like it is not beneficial because it is so oriented toward DOD. But the more those two institutions talk together and

share resources together, the further our taxpayer dollars are going

to go. So I am pretty optimistic about that.

Mr. CONNOLLY. That may be a good solution for a certain base

level of training, presumably, because a contract is a contract at a

certain level. But once you get into the specialization of that contract, I am dealing with pharmaceutical agents and how to manage
22

a contract on very delicate clinical trials and tests and outcomes

and pricing or whatever, that has nothing to do with the mission

of the Pentagon, presumably. And so at that level, I need a different level of training in order to make sure I know what I am

doing and I am protecting the public’s interest.

Where is that specialized training, where do you think that belongs on the civilian side?

Mr. GORDON. Well, every agency does some specialized training.

Some of them do quite a bit. VA, mentioned earlier, VA has a terrific acquisition academy up in Frederick. Some of their training is

VA-specific. I have been up there, I have listened to the interns

that are there, I have talked to the faculty. They do a very good

job. Other agencies also have agency-specific training. But just to

be sure, I don’t want anybody to be surprised by the facts, much

of the training that we get is in fact from contractors. And those

contractors often teach at all the different agencies’ training. So it

is the very same teachers in many of the courses.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would the chairman indulge just one more question? I am assuming we don’t have a second round?

Mr. LANKFORD. Yes, that is correct. I would yield another

minute.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair. While we have you, I just

want to ask your opinion, two things concern me about procurement and acquisition management in the Federal Government. One

is level of expertise, and not meaning anything disparaging at all.

But as contracts grow more and more complex technologically and

get larger and have all kinds of feelers associated with them, do

we have the right people in place who have the training and expertise to keep up with the contractors we have just hired to manage

it?

Second, I am worried about internal personnel policies. There is

terrible turnover, so there is a lack of continuity in the management of the contract. You could have many, many, many contract

managers during the life of the contract. Even a brief life of a contract. I am concerned that with the best of intentions, that has a

degrading effect on the quality of acquisition.

Mr. GORDON. I couldn’t agree more. That is why in the 25 point

plan that you alluded to earlier to improve IT acquisition, we committed to having a cross-disciplinary team that would be with the

Acquisition with as little turnover as possible from the beginning

of the acquisition planning all the way through contract management, so we would be sharing information between contracting people and IT people, and we would have continuity. We can’t have situations where we have this imbalance between us and the contractors. The contractors know way more about it than us.

I have to tell you, I was at a session with companies a few

months ago. One of the fellows said to me, you know, Dan, I am

getting so tired of training my contracting officer’s representative

how to do their job. We need to strengthen our people to be sure

that we have a balanced relationship. The contractors are incredibly important. But they are supporting us. And we need to be

knowledgeable enough to do that.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your

indulgence.
23

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Mr. Labrador.

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. LANKFORD. Let me make just a quick comment, then, and we

are going to close out this panel. Thank you again for your service

and all you have done. Your comment there, I need to reiterate as

well. I have multiple contractors that I have spoken to around the

central Oklahoma area that have said the same thing to me, that

they are training the person that they are working with, that they

are very familiar with the processes and procedures, and that the

contracting officers and individuals they are dealing with seem to

be very risk averse. They are constantly taking the safest route,

and they are having to show them, no, this is how it is done, and

they go back and run it down and they come back.

The second issue we deal with is obviously something you alluded to as well, is retainment. They start a process with one person, in the middle of it they are with another one, and they end

it with another person. The continuity of the decisions and the interpretation seems to move around. So those are not new ideas to

you. Obviously those are issues that we will have to resolve in the

days to come to be able to provide some sort of consistency in the

process.

Do you want to make a comment on that?

Mr. GORDON. Just one brief comment if I could. First of all, I

want to thank the committee for the hearing. It is a very important

topic.

But I also want to say, when I meet with the front line acquisition professionals, we have a group that we call the front line

forum. We bring in about three dozen contracting officers and contract specialists from across the government, defense and civilian.

We happen to have them coming in tomorrow. They come in every

3 months to the White House complex. I ask them, what does it

look like from your point of view? What are your perspectives? It

is incredibly important that we be listening to them and that we

be taking steps to strengthen them. I believe in the Federal acquisition work force that they in fact, if you unleash their innovation,

their willingness to try things, you will get good results. I know

that GAO issued a report yesterday about our contract savings effort. And in that report, you will see 10 pages, GAO pages, so a

lot of text, page after page of all the innovations, the good innovations that our people are doing. Whether it is electronic reverse

auction, strategic sourcing, better acquisition planning, our people

can do the work if they are only allowed to do it and given the tools

to do it. Thank you.

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. With that, we will take

a short break and transition to the second panel.

[Recess.]

Mr. LANKFORD. We welcome our second panel of witnesses, Mr.

John Hutton, Director of the Acquisition and Sourcing Management of the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Roger Jordan, vice president for government relations, Professional Services

Council; Ms. Donna Jenkins, the Director of the Federal Acquisition Institute of the General Services Administration; and Ms.

Katrina McFarland, Director of the Defense Acquisition University.
24

All of you have very busy days and I appreciate very much your

being here and the time that you put in on both your written statements and being here for oral statements and allowing us to be

able to ask questions. I hope you understand this will be a dialog,

we want to have a chance to get as much information as we can.

Pursuant to all committee rules, witnesses are sworn in before

they testify. If you would please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Let the record reflect the witnesses

have answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.

In order to allow time for discussion, the same rules will apply.

We will ask you to limit your testimony to five or so minutes. I will

be a little bit gracious with the timing on that, so we can hear your

entire statement. Your entire written statement, of course, will be

made part of the record on that.

I would like to recognize Mr. Hutton for an opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN P. HUTTON, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION

AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ROGER JORDAN, VICE PRESIDENT

OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

COUNCIL; DONNA M. JENKINS, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL ACQUISITION INSTITUTE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND KATRINA G. McFARLAND, PRESIDENT, DEFENSE

ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. HUTTON

Mr. HUTTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly and members of

the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent work on acquisition work force issues at the Department of

Defense, the government’s largest buying entity.

The Federal Government’s current budget and long-term fiscal

pressures underscore the importance of a highly capable work

force. Our work has found that a lack of an adequate number of

trained acquisition and contract oversight personnel has placed

DOD at times at risk of potentially paying more than necessary.

My remarks will focus on two topics based on our recent work.

First, I will discuss DOD’s progress in rebuilding the capacity of its

acquisition work force. Second, I will offer specific insights into the

Defense Contract Management Agency’s efforts to rebuild its work

force as an illustration of the overall challenges the Department

faces.

Our work shows that DOD has made some progress in rebuilding

the capacity of its civilian acquisition work force. DOD has established a goal of increasing this work force by 20,000 by fiscal year

2015, and DOD plans to reach its goal in two key ways: hiring personnel using the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund

and in-sourcing functions that were being performed by contractor

personnel.

Using these two methods, DOD reports that it hired about 5,900

individuals in fiscal year 2010. However, the Department’s plans
25

for continued acquisition work force growth are uncertain. DOD announced that it has halted the in-sourcing initiative, except on a

case by case basis, and announced a hiring freeze for the civilian

work force due to anticipated budget constraints. DOD has indicated that initiatives using Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, including hiring for the acquisition work force, will

continue.

But just as important as increasing the size of the work force is

building the work force skills and expertise. We found that DOD

has continued to make progress in completing the competency assessments which identify the skills and capabilities of the work

force and help identify areas needing further attention. DOD reports that it has used these competency assessments in part to

help revise the training curriculum for its contracting career field.

While these actions are focused on what is considered the traditional acquisition work force, we have also reported that DOD

needs to identify the other personnel outside this traditional work

force who have a role in acquisition, such as those who help set the

requirements, or serve as a contracting officer’s representative to

manage and oversee contractor performance. These are functions

that are key to sound acquisition outcomes. DOD notes that identifying this population is challenging in part because it is spread

across many organizations. Also, the acquisition duties these people

perform are often done as a secondary duty. Nonetheless, DOD

agreed with several of our recommendations to help it get a better

handle on who these people are and the skills they need to perform

their roles in the acquisition process.

I will now briefly touch on our work-related DCMA. By the early

2000’s, DCMA had experienced significant erosion of expertise,

such that it could not fulfill all of its oversight functions. Since

2008, however, DCMA has been rebuilding its work force, making

increasing use of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development

Fund to do so. For example, in fiscal year 2011, DCMA hired a little over 1,200 new employees under this authority.

DCMA has also taken steps to rebuild their skill sets. For example, by the late 1990’s, DCMA had lost the majority of its contract

cost price analysts. As a result, DCMA reported that DOD’s acquisitions were subject to unacceptable levels of cost risks. Over the

past 2 years, DCMA has hired almost 280 new contract cost price

analysts and cost monitors.

One challenge facing DCMA is its large percentage of retirementeligible employees, making the agency vulnerable to the loss of valuable technical expertise and organizational knowledge. In part,

DCMA plans to mitigate this risk to aggressive recruiting and

bringing back retired annuitants to help raise the skill levels of the

newer employees.

In closing, DOD has made some progress in terms of growing the

acquisition work force and identifying the skills and competency it

needs. However, more needs to be done. The fiscal and budget challenges facing this Nation and DOD underscore the need for DOD

to strategically manage its work force so that it has the right skills,

capabilities and training to effectively manage the billions of dollars it spends on goods and services each year.
26

Whether DOD achieves its planned growth and unrelated work

force improvement initiatives remains uncertain. But what its certain is that DOD can ill afford not to succeed in preparing its work

force to meet its future needs. I would be happy to respond to any

questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutton follows:]
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Hutton.

Mr. Jordan.

STATEMENT OF ROGER JORDAN

Mr. JORDAN. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly and

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today

to provide an industry perspective on the acquisition work force.

I will begin by highlighting why the Federal contracting community believes in the need for a highly skilled, well-trained and adequately staffed acquisition work force. Savvy businesses understand that the best customer is a well-informed, educated customer. As a business, when you have a client that accurately defines its needs, communicates openly and clearly and recognizes

the fundamental elements of the risks being adopted by your company through the partnership, then you have a customer you can

work with best to deliver real capabilities and enhancements to

meet their mission needs.

But these important understandings are not always inherent. As

the critical cog between government and the private sector, it is important that the acquisition work force contain the expertise, training, continuing education and commitment to collaboration that

fosters successful interfaces with the private sector. The acquisition

work force suffered as a result of numerous factors dating back to

the mid-1990’s and appropriately, this work force has garnered

much-needed attention in recent years.

As a result, there are signs of improvement that considerable

threats to the acquisition work force remain and industry has a

number of observations and recommendations. First, the biggest

challenge facing the acquisition work force is how the government

will address pending budget reductions. As work force reductions

related to the budget scenario continue to be debated, PSC recommends that Federal departments engage in thorough human

capital planning based on evaluated mission needs. Inclusion of the

acquisition work force should be a critical component of such planning, and as a result, PSC believes agencies will discover that the

acquisition work force should not be slashed. This certainly has

been the finding of DOD, and as a result, their efforts have exempted cuts to the acquisition work force.

Also, as budget pressures persist, Federal contracting will share

in the burden. Savings may be achieved as government makes difficult decisions about what it is buying, but of greater significance

will be decisions about how the government buys. For example, the

administration has pushed for greater use of firm fixed price contracts. In conveying such guidance, the administration also acknowledged that the use of such contracts is only encouraged

where suitable to the nature of the acquisition. However, the latter

message has not effectively filtered down to the field, resulting in

the use of firm fixed price contracts where inappropriate, and thus

creating inordinate risk to contractors and high cost to government.

In addition, industry has witnessed a dramatic increase in the

use of lowest price technically acceptable awards. While LPTA is

an important component of the acquisition tool box, its

misapplication can lead to reduced quality in mission capabilities

for the Government, where a focus on value may have produced
39

greater benefits and long-term cost savings. To avoid

misapplication of these approaches, PSC recommends training of

the acquisition work force to foster critical thinking and strategic

decisionmaking, rather than simply teaching strict adherence to

procedures and avoiding any Government risk.

In addition, for more complex procurements, those involving

cyber security, for example, the work force must be encouraged to

avoid over-reliance on the cheapest proposals and instead, being

encouraged and supported when they apply appropriate costs and

technical tradeoffs, that is, best value considerations.

Communication and collaboration between the acquisition work

force and the private sector also diminished in recent years. And

in order to foster meaningful partnerships, such communication

must not be permitted to deteriorate further. OFPP’s initiation of

a mythbusters campaign, part of OMB’s broader 25 point IT management improvement plan, seeks to encourage and clarify how industry and government can appropriately engage with one another

during the acquisition process. This is a positive development. Yet

it is not readily apparent the message has been adopted by rank

and file acquisition personnel. Hence, PSC recommends that OFPP

take additional steps to buildupon the mythbusters campaign.

Additionally, PSC encourages the examination of individual department efforts to increase the capabilities of their acquisition

work force. Gains have been made on this front as departments

have established successful internship or training programs. DHS

and VA are two examples.

PSC believes that Congress can take steps to enhance such initiatives. The Federal Acquisition Improvement Act, for example,

would buildupon these initiatives by clarifying the role of FAI and

governmentwide acquisition work force training and would increase

FAI responsibilities to include collaboration among existing civilian

agency acquisition work force training initiatives.

Last, I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of consistent funding for the various acquisition work force training initiatives. Comprehensive acquisition skills are not developed overnight. And the efforts that have been initiated in recent years are

not likely to yield immediate results. Hence, it is important that

funding, staffing levels and education and training for the acquisition work force remain a priority. As a result, we strongly believe

that long-term savings associated with the investment in the acquisition work force will pay future dividends that far outweigh any

short-term savings being touted as a result of acquisition work

force cuts. And the Government will truly establish itself as the

private sector’s best customer.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan follows:]
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Ms. Jenkins.

STATEMENT OF DONNA JENKINS

Ms. JENKINS. Good afternoon, Chairman Lankford, Ranking

Member Connolly, members of the committee. As you are aware, I

am Donna Jenkins, the Director of the Federal Acquisition Institute. I am pleased to be here today to tell you about the progress

FAI has made over the last 8 months since I have assumed the position.

Taxpayers rely on the work force to make critical business decisions. They impact the lives of every American, from protecting the

homeland to supporting the small businesses that fuel our economy. This demands an agile work force, with diverse and sophisticated sets of skills to define requirements, make complicated tradeoff decisions among competing alternative and manage complex

projects with tight budget and schedule constraints.

Agencies have shifted from buying products requiring a processbased procurement approach to ensure the right product is delivered on time to now an acquisition of complex services and technologies, the success of which depends on a knowledge-based life

cycle management approach. Our professionals must navigate an

evolving commercial marketplace driven by rapid advances in technology, global supply chains and emerging security concerns. Keeping the work force’s skills is imperative to our success.

Improvements have been realized but we still face three fundamental challenges. The first, as mentioned by everybody else, is the

demographics of the acquisition work force. We do have a younger,

more educated work force, but they still require the necessary technical training to be successful. We also need to ensure that the seasoned half of the work force, expected to retire over the next 10

years, transfers their knowledge to the new and less experienced

members.

The second challenge is to make smart investments that result

in shared work force management tools and use technology to

eliminate inefficient duplication across the government. The third

challenge is to continue to improve collaboration across the acquisition community. We can no longer afford for each agency to solve

its own human capital challenges. We need to collectively develop

tools, training and share leading practices to improve standardization, reduce redundancy and cost and cultivate a mobile work force.

FAI has been working with key stakeholders and collaborating

on these challenges. We are partnering with OFPP and the Office

of Personnel Management to establish the first ever acquisition

track in the Presidential Management Fellows Program for fiscal

year 2012. We are reaching a broader base of acquisition professionals and have added new training on critical topics such as price

analysis and human trafficking.

For the first time, FAI is training program managers and contracting officer’s representatives, positions critical to responsibly

defining the government’s requirement and managing the contracts

after award. We are investing in technology that pays off. This

month, FAI trained 5,600 acquisition work force members in a sin-
47

gle session through an online Webinar. Class enrollment for FAIsponsored courses increased by 30 percent in fiscal year 2011.

FAI is using a risk-based approach to improve the certification

programs. Now, the highest level of certification for the contracting

officer’s representative combines additional training and experience

requirements to optimize the taxpayers’ return on investment. In

partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, FAI has

launched the Federal Acquisition Institute Training Application

System, or FAITAS. It is a robust work force management tool.

FAITAS will eliminate the need for stand alone, stovepiped systems across government by providing agencies with a way to manage their work force, certifications, warrants and training delivery

programs. Soon, agencies will be able to use the system’s business

intelligence tools to analyze the demographics of the work force,

supporting more effective human capital planning.

FAI has also worked to re-energize its many interagency committees which helps shapes the initiatives, program and training, so

that the government only has to invest in these items only once.

In conclusion, with the support and leadership of GSA and

OFPP, FAI has delivered innovative solutions which demonstrate

the value of cross-agency collaboration.

I appreciate the committee’s attention to this critical issue, and

Ranking Member Connolly’s proposed legislation that would support smart investments in the acquisition work force.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and I am happy

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenkins follows:]
48
49
50
51
52
53

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you.

Ms. McFarland.

STATEMENT OF KATRINA G. McFARLAND

Ms. MCFARLAND. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member

Connolly, distinguished members of the committee, my name is

Katrina McFarland, and I am the president of the Defense Acquisition University. I am really thankful for this opportunity to testify

and I also appreciate your support to this very critical area. And

also to the panel members, because they are right on target.

So my testimony will be brief and focused strictly on what the

Defense Acquisition University has seen and has developed on.

The best way to ensure our warfighters get what they need and

that our taxpayers get their money’s worth and that we combat

fraud, waste and abuse, is a well-trained and fully qualified acquisition work force. The defense acquisition work force is comprised

of individuals from a broad spectrum of technical expertise, program and business skills and institutional memory. The work force

is approximately 150,000 strong, the standing army of the Potomac, and it spans 15 career fields, program Management, systems

engineering, logistics, contracting.

With the draw-down in the 1990’s as referenced, we left our acquisition work force and organizations in a significant reduction in

capacity and capability, especially in critical areas like contracting,

auditing, pricing, engineering. Still with us, this ‘‘bathtub effect’’ as

has been discussed means that many people are leaving us with

that critical expertise and leaving behind less experience.

In the 1991 Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act,

DAWIA, DOD established a statutorily mandated career Development program for people who are formally identified in the Acquisition work force. This certification program consists of three pieces:

education, experience and training. DAU provides the training

piece of this program, which has grown through our 40 years of experience serving the acquisition community.

DOD began a rebuild of its defense acquisition work force in approximately April 2009. With the help of the Defense Acquisition

Workforce Development Fund, DAWDF, established by Congress in

the fiscal year 2008 NDAA, we increased our work force capacity

and began addressing our work force capacity concerns. But while

work force size is important and skill mix is important, quality is

paramount.

Today we offer about 100 courses, both classroom and online.

Entry level training is predominantly provided online as is continuous learning.

We have a lot of online training that is self-paced. It provides

knowledge management, communities of practice and is open to the

public. Our IT infrastructure is critical in our ability to reach that

work force 24/7 around the world.

As a result of the funds from DAWDF, in addition to being able

to expand our Web-based learning, DAU has been able to hire additional faculty and additional infrastructure for training and classrooms for what is our advanced defense acquisition training. Our

faculty provide, in addition to training in classroom, consulting,

targeted training, rapid deployment training and all of this to the
54

acquisition organizations throughout the department and at call. A

combined total of our Web and faculty service is tallied this year

at 11 million learning hours.

We stay responsive to current DOD concerns. In addition to having recognized that Services are a larger part of what our spend

is, we have recognized the need to provide our work force services

acquisition training, we have developed a services acquisition

model online. We have developed automated services requirements

developments tool, so that you stress on what is important on what

you want before you issue forth a solicitation, and deliver Services

acquisition workshops across the department.

We have worked this past year with the DOD inspector general’s

office and the defense and Services audit agencies to identify acquisition training requirements for the auditor community and have

signed an agreement to that. We have also signed a memorandum

with the Defense Contract Management Agency, Charlie Williams,

to establish a new DAU college, the College of Contract Management, for onsite management of major weapons systems, contract

and in-theater contract operations.

We are increasing our training for these DOD employees that are

not included in the statutorily mandated defense acquisition work

force, but whose role is critical for their successful acquisition outcomes to be had. For example, in response to the 2007 NDAA, we

now train those DOD employees responsible for generating requirements for major defense acquisition programs. We have also increased training for deployed contracting officers and contracting

officer representatives.

We are not alone in our training role. As you see beside us, we

cooperate in training initiative with the Federal Acquisition Institute, the VA Academy, NASA, Department of Homeland Security,

many others. We are currently working to achieve efficiencies in

that area by sharing our curriculum, our IT infrastructure, governance, facilities in some cases, and a great number of cross agency

recognition of work force credentials so our work force can be transitory. Our contracting courses are a great example of this. Specifically tailored for the civilian use, a process that we are expanding.

Because DAU is a provider of practitioner training, what we

teach particularly in classrooms is focused on what our people need

to do on their jobs. With that, and the fact that we have trained

and grown over the 40 years in our own learning, we have expanded and taken a look at how we can improve what we do and

how we teach. We are engineering right now our next steps to develop a qualified acquisition professional. The department’s most

recent effort toward a fully qualified acquisition work force is this

qualification initiative. Our goal is to have a work force which is

both certified, which is formal classroom and the associated sundry

testing that comes with it, but also to take it into the workplace

environment and qualify those folks on the job to effectively perform their duties as acquisition professionals.

We will ensure that the work force both understands the job

when they leave the classroom and also can effectively perform it

successfully. This qualification initiative, I might add, responds to

a statutory mandate, Section 1723(c) of the Title 10 U.S.C.
55

Acquisition is inherently a responsibility of the government. And

successful acquisition outcomes are critical to our national security.

We must increase our buying power and deliver efficiently and

affordably, and responsible stewards, to do the taxpayers’ resources

the justice it deserves. We must always ensure that our

warfighters have products and Services they need to win. To do

this, we need a fully qualified acquisition work force. The Honorable Frank Kendall has said, ‘‘Our legacy is to leave behind a

stronger work force, a more capable work force than we inherited.’’

I promise you, we will do that.

And I thank you for this opportunity again, and welcome your

questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McFarland follows:]
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, and thanks to all of you as well.

We will probably do several rounds of questions back and forth,

so this will be an ongoing conversation, to be able to pull out what

we can on it.

You gave an overall concern for me, and this is not something

that you can solve. In the 1990’s, with that wonderful peace dividend, we dialed back a lot of things, including this contracting

work force. So we dialed that back, and just to get it dialed back

and reduce our numbers in time for September 11th, when we dramatically increased the number of contracts that are out there. So

we spent 10 years trying to catch up on personnel and training,

about the time that we now start to slow down our purchasing

again.

How do we hit a balance on this so that we do not overreact in

the same way, that we suddenly dramatically increase our numbers

and our training and all the investment into it, overdo that, if that

is imaginable right now, and get out of balance again? Any quick

ideas on that, on how we manage that in the days to come? Because I would hate to see us 10 years from now go through a cut

and go through the same cycle again.

Mr. Hutton.

Mr. HUTTON. Mr. Chairman, the way I would frame that question is, to make an intelligent decision, one needs to know at each

agency what you are buying, what your current capability is in

terms of an acquisition work force, and what are your needs to assure yourself you are going to get good outcomes for what you need

to buy. The extent to which you have gaps, I think you need to

identify those.

Mr. LANKFORD. Who is the best person to track that? Is that the

agency head in each area? Or who can best determine that?

Mr. HUTTON. I think it starts at the agency. I think the procurement officials, I think other stakeholders such as human capital

people, people from the CFO shop, I think it takes a team like that

to put it at a high enough level in an organization to have a good

understanding of what the condition is right now.

Also you need to look at the demographics. If you have a lot of

senior people in the organization, and as it has been discussed here

before, bringing in a lot of new people, they can get the initial

training, but they need that experience. They need that mentoring.

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. That comes up consistently in a lot of the

conversations that I have with contractors. It is the, we understand

the process better than the person that is actually working through

our contract. And it is because they are occasionally getting someone new. And as they work through that system, it is frustrating

for them, because they are saying, no, this is how it is done. It is

frustrating because they know there is flexibility in contracting vehicles, and they get frustrated, Mr. Jordan, I think you mentioned

the fixed price vehicle as being preferential.

So all that challenge is something you have to work through with

training and age and experience and all those things that you all

live and breathe every single day to be able to work through. It is

getting that down to every single person in the organization. Tell

me how you feel like progress is being made in that. I am hearing
67

some optimism in that, and obviously you are very aware of this.

I am not the first to bring it up, by far.

Mr. Jordan, do you want to mention that real quick? You had already brought it up.

Mr. JORDAN. Chairman, I will start with the mythbusting campaign. There was a significant deterioration in the communication

between industry and government dating back several years. And

the mythbusting campaign has really started to turn that around.

I still think it needs to be an additional focus. Like I said, the direction from leadership has been right. But how that message has

permeated down through the field has been, it has been a little

slower. I think that Mr. Gordon has recognized that, and recognized that that needs to be an additional area of focus.

So I would start with that and I think that with the drive toward

more firm fixed price contracts, again, it is not necessarily the

guidance from leadership has been wrong. They have said, we want

you to focus more on firm fixed price but use it where it is appropriate.

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, yes, what I have heard back from contractors is, I am glad to do it firm fixed price, but it is going to cost

more, because I don’t know what the risk is involved. Whereas another vehicle may be, and I understand this is a reaction in the

other direction, but I can’t tell you how many times I have heard

that. I am glad to do it, but I am going to always charge more for

this, because I am assuming all the risk.

Mr. JORDAN. That is true. So it comes back to the guidance from

leadership about using it where it is appropriate. And that guidance has been right. But again, the full message is not filtering all

the way down to the people that it needs to filter down to.

Mr. LANKFORD. Ms. Jenkins, Ms. McFarland, either one, how do

we work through that? Because obviously that has to be someone

with clairvoyance to be able to determine which one is going to be

cheaper and which one is going to be better for the taxpayer at the

end of the it. So I understand there is not going to be a perfect way

to be able to determine that. What is your suggestion on how to

process through that?

Ms. MCFARLAND. Well, I am going to start, if I could, back on the

original premise, which is, how do we get there. How do we get,

in the midst of this economic decline, attention to the detail that

you brought to the attention of the work force’s competency. And

I think one of the things the Department of Defense has done,

under the guidance of Dr. Carter and Mr. Kendall, has, with the

recognition of the outfall of a lot of the better buying power initiatives, was this sudden recognition that the work force wasn’t up to

the par to be able to perform the duties that this policy, which was

accurately written, was intended to outcome wise.

So one of the things they did was, with the university, to step

up that. And another thing is, the services themselves are taking

a very, very conscious and disciplined approach to take a look at

their Workforce and where their needs are. What can you do to improve it? Well, fixed price, for example, you need to explain to people where they get the resources to help them understand, which

is related to why you would go into a fixed price arena, cost and

price certainty. You have to have a good understanding of the con-
68

figuration of the item before you try to engage in a fixed price situation. And unfortunately, people, just as Mr. Jordan said, engaged

in the act of compliance by act of understanding. That critical

thinking is one of our challenges.

Mr. LANKFORD. I am going to defer to Mr. Connolly for a series

of questions, then I will come back and we will finish this up.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before you start the

clock, just for a second, this whole conversation reminds me of the

story John Glenn used to tell. I used to work with John Glenn in

the Senate. When he was sent into space, he was in a capsule on

top of a rocket with hundreds of thousands of pounds of thrust,

comforted in the knowledge that both had been won by the lowest

Federal bidder. So contracting was even on his mind way back

then.

I want to thank our panel for being here. Let me just ask this

first question, if I may. Ms. McFarland, I am listening to your statistics, which are very impressive, 100 courses, 11 million learning

hours. How many people trained this last year?

Ms. MCFARLAND. This year, 57,000 seats went through.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Fifty-seven thousand. Wow. And I want to thank

Mr. Jordan and Ms. Jenkins for their kind remarks with respect

to the FAI Improvement Act. Do you have any view on how that

might make your job easier, harder? Or you don’t care?

Ms. MCFARLAND. Personally, I think it is an excellent opportunity for improvement. Working with Donna and particularly, I

am sorely disappointed Dan is going, because he has been a bright

light. And the support that you all have been providing for this

area has certainly moved us forward. And it needs to continue to

move forward.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Ms. MCFARLAND. And H.R. 1424 has the right emphasis and it

excludes the DOD appropriately. So it looks for, in my personal

view, excellent support.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. And Ms. Jenkins, you

gave a wonderful example of an online training program with 5,600

people in one session, very impressive. How many were totally

trained this year, would you venture to guess?

Ms. JENKINS. So we did 7,000 actual seat classes. And then the

civilian work force has continued to benefit from the FAI-DAU

partnership, completing 87,000 online course modules at Defense.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is it your impression that if you, I am not trying

to set it up, but if you had augmented resources, that you might

be able to meet a much larger population, I mean, DAU is doing

57,000 a year. Is there a demand that is unmet, is what I am getting at?

Ms. JENKINS. We do appreciate the support that you provide the

work force. I think we all want the same thing, a competent and

efficient acquisition work force to be good stewards of the taxpayer

dollars. FAI has a slightly different role, in that we don’t do organic teaching, we don’t teach the classes ourselves. We hire our

vendor support. So in collaboration with a number of the other Federal agencies, we assist them by setting the standards that they

must all meet, which is a little bit different role than, for instance,
69

the VA Academy or the large training program that exists at DHS

and NASA, just to name a few of the other agencies.

So I think as long as we are all training to the same set of standards that we work collaboratively together, we can meet our need.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would it be fair to say that, for example, an online class, like the one you cited, and I have taken those myself

when I was in the private sector, a lot of that, either entry level

or continuing learning kinds of classes, but sometimes there is no

substitute for in the classroom technical training to make sure I

am mastering what I need to master? Would that be a fair observation from your point of view?

Ms. JENKINS. I think general, yes, you are absolutely correct.

Mr. CONNOLLY. And would it also be true that virtually every

Federal agency, despite the wonderful work of DAU and FAI, still

needs to have its own specialized training, because the VA mission

is different from FDA?

Ms. JENKINS. Yes, I would agree with that. And I see the role of

FAI there as being a collaborative. Because there is still even a

baseline portion of the training program that would be consistent

across all the Federal agencies. So I am very excited to actually say

that the chief acquisition officer’s counsel just approved us to do

what we call a training collaboration board, or to establish a training collaboration board. What that would do would be allow us to

discuss any developmental items, any courses we are going to develop, and we would be able to, say, come up with an 80 percent

solution once and then leave the room for agencies to add, if there

are specific mission requirements in the remaining portion. I think

that is a good role for FAI.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Mr. Jordan, you heard Mr. Gordon actually observe that in his

conversations with many contractors, he has heard frequently how

tired they are of having to train Federal contract officers on the

contracts they are managing. Is that something you also hear at

the Professional Services Council in terms of the members you represent? And any other observation you have about that?

Mr. JORDAN. Absolutely. We hear a lot of the same. It comes

back to my opening comments about the need or the desire for a

well-educated customer is really our best customer. We do find that

we are having to do a lot of explaining, a lot of educating ourselves,

on some acquisition-related issues. It would certainly be beneficial

to both sides if that training or understanding is brought to the

table in advance so that we can get to the process of contracting

versus educating.

Mr. CONNOLLY. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you.

Let me ask a question. How do we move into a couple of things.

One is best value for something, and the best value is this wonderful, nebulous concept that everyone has to have open for conversation. But as we deal with the best value, how do we move from best

value as cheapest this year versus cheapest in 10 years, or maybe

most efficient in 10 years, or has a greater life expectancy? Because

things are different, energy usages, some may be more efficient in

their energy usages, it may be made of better equipment, and so

it is going to last longer. Those are pure judgment calls.
70

How is the criteria set, and for the evaluation of that contracting

officer to say, this was actually, I guess what I am asking is, is

there a second guesser in this to go back and teach them and say,

you made this decision, this one was cheaper than this one. But by

the way, as I go back and look at everything, I think this would

have been a better deal because of this. Do they give that, is there

someone that’s stepping over their shoulder and helping train them

in that? Is there some way to be able to evaluate that? I think you

understand where I am.

Ms. MCFARLAND. Yes, I do, sir. One of the things the department

has to build into its acquisition process like DOD 5000 is milestones and decision point to facilitate life cycle costs, which is what

you are talking about, best value. And we have not the contracting

officer inclined to make that determination, it is a team. Because

the engineer needs to understand what the trades are, the logistician, the pricer, the coster.

So when there’s a source selection to be made, that is, when you

are deciding upon what you are going to buy, those people come together in consensus. Then the department has to take a look at it

from the administration’s view. So when they come forward to

make a decision, it is not just the local decision, it is the organizations and department decision.

Mr. LANKFORD. So do you feel like we are on top of this at this

point, or do you feel like it is improving, or where do you think we

are in this process?

Ms. MCFARLAND. It will and has improved. Is it improving as

fast as we need it? No. In the midst of this decline, we will have

challenges.

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. Same with FAI? Or are there other comments you want to make?

Ms. JENKINS. Sir, no, I couldn’t agree more with Ms. McFarland’s

statements. I think the challenges in the civilian agencies is that

we don’t have a baseline process like the DOD 5000 that as a civilian Federal Government we all follow. So FAI is working very hard

to establish some baseline processes that are just good business decisions, that then regardless of what agency you are at or you are

buying, we can drive those kinds of milestone decision type choices.

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. Mr. Jordan.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the real threat to best value,

and it is coming, as budgets get tighter, there is a downward pressure on costs and there is a tendency to focus on short-term savings in terms of those long-term life cycle costs. So I think everybody needs to be cognizant of okay, let’s not focus on the short

term, let’s keep our focus on long-term savings.

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. Part of that is how that contracting officer

is affirmed, how they are encouraged. If they are encouraged based

on speed and number that they got done, if they are encouraged

based on the final price obviously that makes a huge difference. Or

if there is some way to be able to affirm them, and you made a

good judgment here, this was a tough one, to be able to get it done.

I hear lots of stories on, that that person is risk averse, they are

going to do whatever is safest, they are going to work with a contractor they know, it is very difficult to be able to break in as a

new person or a new company getting in the mix. People that are
71

not the prime, they are trying to work to get to the prime, they

have a sub out there at some point, and have had it for 5, 6 years,

everyone knows they are doing a good job but can’t ever break in,

these same stories seem to be replicated, one person after another

that I talk with in the process.

So some of that is, again, I can’t imagine the first person bringing this up, but it is how do we get down into that level, to train

them to help new companies jump into the process and move into

that. Because it obviously saves us money, to not have the middle

man just in the transition. But it adds more work to that contracting officer, because now he is not grouping a whole bunch of

things together and getting that off his desk. Now he has to deal

with multiple smaller, but it also is cheaper for us.

Yes, Mr. Hutton.

Mr. HUTTON. Mr. Chairman, a lot rides on the requirement and

how well you define that requirement up front. And we issued a

report a couple of months ago that just looked at the acquisition

planning process. I think you are kind of talking about some of the

things that we observed, is that the planning doesn’t start soon

enough. Because when you start sooner, you can be more thoughtful about the process, what is it we are going to buy, what is the

best approach to buy it.

You also allow more time for competition. You also allow more

time if you have someone with a critical eye taking a look at that

statement of work that you think you are going to have, and looking at and seeing, is this going to open it up for us for competition.

We have done work looking at competition at DOD. You have competition advocates that are starting to get more involved and trying

to promote more in competition. I think just as an example, doing

it early, better understand your requirements up front, will hopefully give an increased likelihood that you are going to have better

outcomes.

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. I would agree on that. It depends on

whether you are close to the end of the fiscal year or not on that

decision as far as how much advance planning goes into it as well.

I want to defer an additional 2 minutes real quick, it is the chairman’s privilege on this one, I need to ask on where we are on trafficking in persons. We had a hearing that was extensive, talking

about the issue, and especially dealing with State Department contracts in the Middle East and on our bases in Afghanistan and Iraq

and third country nationals. No one disputed us on either panel

that day to say this is not occurring. There was a common nodding

of our heads as, we are fighting through this. No one came back

to us and said, we need one more rule. The rules are in place, the

processes seem to be in place, it is just not stopping. How do we

stop indentured servitude on our bases and in our embassies?

Ms. JENKINS. Well, the Federal Acquisition Institute, in partnership again with the Department of Homeland Security, developed

a course, an online module on human trafficking, to make people

aware, in the acquisition work force, of the signs of human trafficking as well as the FAR clause which is associated with that. We

also worked with the Department of State in developing the requirements as a subject matter expertise. So that is available on
72

the DAU learning management online system for the entire Federal work force and everybody else.

Mr. LANKFORD. Part of our frustration was, we can’t seem to find

any contractor who has been suspended or debarred because of

this.

Ms. MCFARLAND. Sir, the real issue is follow-through. I mean, as

you stated, all of this is in place. There is only a certain part that

you can get to with the teaching and the training. The second piece

is follow-through.

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. But if some contractor that is doing this

feels no threat of being suspended or debarred, if the prime up the

food chain from them feels no heat on it, they are not going to stop.

They are making a ton of money and using people as slaves in the

process, and they end up on our bases or in our embassies, and the

people that are working around them, service members, don’t know

that. At some point, we have to be able to put some heat down and

say, this has to stop.

But that is the accountability on the other side. And what I am

asking is, how do we get that? How do we get that accountability

that somebody’s head starts rolling in this process to say, for the

first time, we know this is happening, we know it is happening consistently, we have a low threshold of proof, we have the suspension

and the debarment on the facts that we are finding on the ground,

you are suspended as we work through this process until we can

get this resolved. And so suddenly the word begins to spread, cut

it out.

How do we get there?

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that first, identifying it is of

critical importance. And it is really an oversight function. Obviously we support greater oversight. Contracting in a contingency

environment is a little bit more complicated. I think here, within

the United States, obviously the threat of suspension and debarment is substantial. Companies are very cognizant of it. I am not

sure that subcontractors, third country nationals, for example, fully

understand the threat of suspension and debarment, or for that

matter, care. But I certainly think that there needs to be a greater

focus on it. But I also think that in doing so, you need to understand the dynamics of a contingency contracting environment.

Mr. LANKFORD. I understand that, somewhat, if you haven’t been

here 10 years. That’s tougher to explain after 10 years, and it is

even tougher to explain in our embassies on the ground.

I need to defer to Mr. Connolly as well.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would just thank you for bringing that up, Mr.

Chairman, because I think, as a take-back, but in our hearing, not

a single prosecution has occurred. Not one. There are tens of thousands of contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq, tens of thousands,

thousands of contractors, and the practice is widespread.

We heard testimony, tens of thousands, maybe many more, of

human beings who are being trafficked as sort of payoff the contracts or just necessary costs of doing business, irrespective of the

terrible harm to these human beings. Not one that I know of debarment or suspension. Three referred for sort of a warning and that

was it. And a practice, undisputed testimony, widespread.
73

And from our point of view, absolutely on a bipartisan basis, not

acceptable, not acceptable. It has to be stopped, and we have to go

beyond training, as you said. It is about enforcement. How serious

are we about this. And we aren’t serious enough.

But at any rate, I certainly echo the chairman’s sentiments on

that, and we are going to stay on top of that.

Coming back to the topic at hand, the chairman earlier asked

some questions about, well, sort of, we saw the acquisition and procurement and contracting personnel sort of shrink in ratio to the

growth in contracting in the previous decade. We have done some

catchup, especially made some progress in the Pentagon. But now

we are seeing contracts sort of stagnant, and maybe they will fall

given the budgetary pressures we are all under. And we don’t want

to sort of be in this kind of cycle.

I guess I want to focus less on the numerical balance and more

on the qualitative aspects of why this makes sense as an investment. Because when we have smart contracting officers, acquisition

officers in the Federal Government, we can save money, we can

make sure things are being run efficiently, we can avoid cost overruns and the kind of tragic problem the chairman talked about in

terms of human trafficking. Mr. Hutton, I want to give you an opportunity to comment on that.

Mr. HUTTON. In terms of the quality and the expertise versus the

numbers, you are absolutely right. And when you are playing

catchup, which I think is what we are doing, you are going to get

a large influx of newer people. And they can get that initial training and they can get the certification. But just like in GAO, we are

building our work force. We have a lot of junior people. And we are

spending a lot of time on the day to day, on the job training, trying

to bring them and their expertise up to the level where we want

them to be to be actually journeymen and go out on their own.

It is certainly a big challenge. I think you have to have the mentors. If you are losing too many of your senior people, then who is

going to train those folks? Plus the fact that you have a work force

and it might depend on each agency, they got a lot to do. And when

you have a lot to do, you wonder sometimes, are we just being too

quick and not doing the job as thoroughly as we should. So I think

it is a tradeoff of like the workload, it is a tradeoff of the demographics of the people we have, do we have the senior people to

mentor, and just the overall number of people. When you are bringing in a lot of new people I think this is a little bit of a transition

for everyone right now.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Presumably it is also about technical knowledge.

We are now getting, it is one thing to say, I need you to manage

a contract whereby we produce and we order 300,000 pencils every

year. That is one kind of contract. But we are moving out of that

kind of contract. We are now talking about sort of broad systems

integration contracts that require fairly intimate knowledge of how

technology works, so that when somebody in the department says,

here is what I need, I have the skill set to translate that into the

technical language and the RFP and then manage that once the

contract is awarded to make sure that those specs are being met.

And sometimes the lay person, who is deeply into the mission

says, they may not have an understanding of the boundaries of
74

technology or what that really means in terms of cost, linking up

the field offices and data, big data bases and data entry and the

coordination and being able to recognize, I mean, those are all different kinds of capabilities we wouldn’t have even talked about 30

years ago, but they are commonplace today.

So I assume it is also about technical expertise. And that has to

be, that is a concern of mine, Mr. Chairman, because the higher

level of technical expertise, now you are competing with the private

sector trying to get those people. And the private sector generally

pays a lot more than we do in the public sector. And that is of concern to me moving forward, will we be able to have that skill base.

Not just how you manage the contract, but do you have the technical knowledge to make sure that contract is being fulfilled and

the taxpayer interests, and I know I talk too much.

Mr. HUTTON. No, that is fine, Mr. Connolly. And I would agree

with you, and that is why it is important to really have a good understanding of what you are buying and what your current capacity

is. Things change all the time. Like you said, 10 years ago, we

weren’t buying half the things we are now, but we are buying very

technically complex things.

So you have to constantly be revisiting your acquisition Workforce plan and have a good understanding of who we have again

and what the current capacity is. We have done some work looking

at acquisition planning, as I mentioned earlier. Just some anecdotes, people were starting the process, they had the requirements,

yes, it was very technical. They started bringing in those, anybody

within the organization that had insights on some of these technical issues. Some of the agencies are bringing in like business specialists or industrial type people to help support the front end of

the process. Those are certain ways you can do it. But of course,

for certain types of things, you might have to get the expertise outside.

But the important thing is, you do that up front, you do it early

enough so you really nail down what the heck it is we are buying.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can I just ask one more question, Mr. Chairman?

And I think it is fairly brief.

We have 24 agencies figuring out how to do smart contracting.

And some of them avail themselves of FAI, some might avail themselves of DAU, some may avail themselves of both. But they also

do their own training. Your point of view about how well we are

looking at best practices, we are creating some base uniform standards for all contracting officers and how this coordination works or

does.

Mr. HUTTON. Well, I will have to say, sir, we have gotten a request recently by the full committee, about a month ago, and it has

asked us to look at the role OFPP plays as well as FAI in the training of civilian acquisition professionals. We have talked this afternoon that there are several agencies that have their own institutes

and academies. I can’t tell you today how many there are out there

and who they are serving and what type of training. Maybe the

folks on the panel can, but we haven’t done work in that area.

But we have been asked to look at that particular issue, as well

as the physical location of the training facilities and the cost to develop and deliver that training. I think that review is going to be
75

touching on some issues we haven’t looked at more recently. And

I think that is going to help inform a lot of the discussion here.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANKFORD. A quick follow-up on that as well.

You had mentioned all the different academies. Do we know how

many training academies are out there?

Ms. JENKINS. Sir, I don’t know the exact number. But I can let

you know that it is part of the legislation that requires each senior

procurement exec to establish a line item in their budget to train

their acquisition work force. So my guess is that every agency is

complying with the regulation and therefore is providing some form

of training, whether it is sending them to individual vendor locations or they are establishing central locations, like the VA, DHS,

Treasury.

Mr. LANKFORD. Is there some collaboration that could occur, that

could be coordinated to be able to combine some of these or suggest

combination for smaller agencies and say, three or four of you, let’s

come together and find a way to do this more efficiently? Obviously

we will talk about it all day, and we will talk about for a long time

about budget issues. So are there some of those things being explored?

Ms. JENKINS. Absolutely, and I am actually glad you asked that

question in that way. Because we have at FAI developed the Federal Acquisition Institute Training Application System. I mentioned

it before, and it is a robust work force management tool. But what

it actually also allows is every agency to load its course offerings

into the system and any other agency can see when that agency

doesn’t fill a seat that there are open seats. So no seat would go

left unfilled at the expense of the taxpayers’ resources.

Additionally, as we move toward the training consortium board,

we will move into trying to collaborate on the development of new

courseware.

Mr. LANKFORD. So you are targeting to have your training areas

as full as the airplanes coming in and out of Reagan Airport?

Ms. JENKINS. More so.

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, that would be terrific. Any other collaboration that is currently occurring between the two major groups here?

Obviously there are a lot of resources between the two of you I am

hearing, Web site development, and there are certification issues

and trying to share some of that. Other projects that are ongoing

that we need to be made aware of, as far as sharing resources?

Ms. MCFARLAND. One of the main efforts that we are trying to

do together is have the same learning management system. If we

take our systems close together, as we upgrade our courses and our

curriculum, they can take advantage of it and the same thing the

other way around. So really the central IT, as I emphasized during

my testimony, is very important.

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. Yes, rebuilding the wheel is not important.

If we can take Web sites, we can take certifications and adapt

them, that is much preferred.

Mr. Connolly, do you have anything final?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you. This is

a very important hearing. This topic, while maybe not universally

sexy, the taxpayers’ interest is lost or won, frankly, at this level of
76

management. And it is so critical. And it may seem arcane, but it

is very important. I just thank you and congratulate you for having

this hearing, because this is one are I am confident we can proceed

in a very bipartisan basis. Thank you.

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank you and thank you for your time as well,

getting into this and going through all the research and information and the work you are doing on it. I look forward to continuing

to hear the progress, as we will meet again in the days to come,

and be able to get an update on where we are. With that, we are

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]
77Æ