Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the Training of Their Employees
Released: 2002-08-28T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The Congress and others have been addressing the question of how to strengthen the acquisition workforce since 1974 when the OFPP was created to establish governmentwide procurement policies for executive agencies. One of the primary responsibilities of this office and its Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) is to strengthen acquisition workforce training. The concern about the quality of the acquisition workforce deepened in the 1990s, as it became clear that the government was experiencing significant contracting failures partly because it lacked skilled personnel to manage and oversee contracts. There was also concern that program managers and other personnel integral to the success of the acquisition process were only marginally involved with the contracts. Two of the most significant steps taken in this regard were the passage of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act in 1990 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, among other things, provided specific guidance on DOD’s acquisition workforce definition. The Clinger-Cohen Act required civilian agencies to establish acquisition workforce definitions. Those definitions were to include contract and procurement specialist positions and other positions “in which significant acquisition-related functions are performed.” The Clinger-Cohen Act also required civilian agencies to collect standardized information on their acquisition workforce and establish education, training, and experience requirements that are “comparable to those established for the same or equivalent positions” in DOD and the military services. Table 1 provides more details on this act and other legislation and federal agency initiatives.

OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 directs executive agencies to establish core training for entry and advancement in the acquisition workforce. Agencies normally establish specific core training required to meet the standards for certification in each career field in their acquisition workforce (e.g., contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs). For contracting officers, agencies usually establish several warrant levels, with specified contracting authority for each level. Agencies issue permanent warrants only to contracting officers who have completed the core training required for each warrant level and who have the necessary work experience and formal education. Because contracting officers’ warrant levels generally correspond to their grade levels, employees’ career development and advancement is dependent on attending and passing required core training courses. The OFPP policy letter also established continuing education requirements for contract specialists and contracting officers.

DOD Has a Broader Definition of Acquisition Workforce

DOD includes a wide variety of disciplines—ranging from contracting, to technical, to financial, to program staff—in its acquisition workforce definition, but civilian agencies have employed narrower definitions that are largely limited to staff involved in awarding and administering contracts. Having a broader definition is important because it is one method to facilitate agencies’ efforts to ensure that training reaches all staff integral to the success of a contract. While most civilian agencies acknowledge that the acquisition process requires the efforts of multiple functions and disciplines beyond those in traditional contracting offices, few have broadened their definitions of the acquisition workforce to include them. Officials at two agencies we reviewed said that they had not broadened their definitions because officials responsible for managing the acquisition workforce did not have management responsibility for or control of the training of individuals in offices other than their own.

DOD Has a Multifunctional and Multidisciplinary Definition of Acquisition Workforce

DOD is required by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act to include, at a minimum, all acquisition-related positions in 11 specified functional areas in its definition of its acquisition workforce. It is also required to include acquisition-related positions in “management headquarters activities and in management headquarters support activities.” Therefore, DOD’s acquisition workforce includes contracting, program, technical, budget, financial, logistics, scientific, and engineering personnel.

DOD uses a methodology, known as the Refined Packard methodology,to identify its acquisition workforce personnel. Using the Refined Packard methodology, DOD now includes personnel in its acquisition workforce from three categories: (1) specific occupations that are presumed to be performing acquisition-related work no matter what organization the employee is in, (2) a combination of an employee’s occupational series and the organization in which the employee works, and (3) specific additions and deletions to the first two categories. DOD is currently coding the positions and employees identified by the Refined Packard methodology into its official personnel systems. DOD components and the military services’ estimate that the number of personnel included in the acquisition workforce will expand when the coding is completed in October 2002.

Civilian Agencies’ Acquisition Workforce Definitions Generally Limited to Contracting Functions

All the civilian agencies we reviewed include personnel in the contract specialist and purchasing agent job series as specified by the Clinger- Cohen Act. All agencies also include contracting officers and three include CORs and COTRs as required in OFPP’s policy enumerating acquisition- related positions. Every civilian agency includes additional positions in which contracting functions are performed, such as property disposal or procurement clerks. However, only VA and DOE include positions in which acquisition-related functions are performed (i.e., program managers). Table 2 shows how the agencies defined their acquisition workforces.

Agencies are aware of the need to expand their definitions to include all positions in which “significant acquisition-related functions are performed,” as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act. To assist agencies in this effort, OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 identified acquisition workforce positions, in addition to contracting and purchasing specialists, to include contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs. Furthermore, OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 stated that the Administrator would “consult with the agencies in the identification of other acquisition related positions.” All agencies include positions other than those enumerated in the Clinger-Cohen Act and OFPP policy, and GSA plans to do so. Specifically: VA includes program managers and procurement clerks in its definition. DOE includes program managers and property managers in its definition. HHS and NASA include procurement clerks in their definitions. GSA is identifying and including other acquisition-related positions in its acquisition workforce and expects to include program managers and other positions in the future, but GSA has not established a firm time frame.

NASA asserted that managing a much wider range of acquisition personnel, including “other equivalent positions,” such as CORs and COTRs, would be much more difficult than current practice because agency managers responsible for acquisition workforce training did not have authority over personnel in offices other than theirs to require they take specific training courses. However, HHS, which has CORs and COTRs (which it refers to as project officers) not under control of the acquisition office, established regulations requiring the head of each contracting activity ensure their CORs and COTRs receive specified training. In addition, DOE, which has similar oversight concerns, has established an “umbrella” directive governing acquisition career development. Two offices, the Acquisition Career Development Program office and the Project Management Career Development Program office, monitor the training of employees in their respective career fields.

Every Agency Has Established Training Requirements

Every agency we reviewed has established specific training requirements for each position identified in their acquisition workforce. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act established similar career management requirements, including education, experience, and training requirements employees must meet to qualify for each acquisition workforce position. These requirements are further defined, for DOD, by DOD regulations and other guidance, and for the civilian agencies by OFPP and the agencies’ own regulations. Two agencies also established training requirements for acquisition-related positions not formally included in their acquisition workforce definitions.

The DAU develops curricula, approved by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics), that include descriptions of the education, experience, and core training required to meet the standards for certification in each acquisition career field. In addition, DAU offers assignment-specific training. Annually, advisors from each DOD career field determine whether certification standards and assignment-specific training requirements should be updated and whether training curricula are current. Any changes must be approved by the Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development before they are published in the DAU catalog. The DAU curriculum includes courses identified by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) as integral to the education and training of personnel in identified positions. These courses are intended to provide unique acquisition knowledge for specific assignments, jobs, or positions; maintain proficiency; and remain current with legislation, regulation, and policy. They also cover topics such as program management, systems acquisition, construction, and advanced contract pricing.

OFPP’s FAI develops training and career development programs for civilian agency acquisition workforce personnel. Specifically, FAI developed the contracting and procurement curriculum for the acquisition workforce, worked closely with DAU in its course development, and coordinated with colleges and universities to identify and develop education programs for the acquisition workforce. In addition, FAI is developing several Web-based courses for various acquisition personnel.

All DOD agencies follow the DAU curriculum. Some civilian agencies, including NASA and DOE, also follow the DAU curriculum for the contracting and purchasing functions. Other agencies, including GSA and VA, have developed training programs and courses that follow the curriculum established by FAI. While HHS has awarded contracts to teach courses for its own acquisition workforce, the curriculum and course contents are modeled on those developed by FAI.

The civilian agencies we reviewed all had policies describing the education and training requirements for each member of their acquisition workforce. Even when agencies do not include all positions that play a role in their acquisition process in their acquisition workforce, they established education and training requirements for those positions. For instance, NASA and HHS, which do not include COTRs in their acquisition workforce, established training requirements for that position.

Various Mechanisms Used to Ensure Training Requirements Met

To ensure training requirements are being met, DOD and the military services use a centralized management information system that is automatically updated with training and personnel data. The civilian agencies use less sophisticated spreadsheet programs to collect and maintain information on the education, training, and continuing education received by their acquisition workforce. At least once a year, each agency collects data from its regional offices and/or contracting components and consolidates the data into its tracking system.

Although we obtained data from DOD and the civilian agencies to determine the various elements collected, we did not assess the reliability or adequacy of their systems. Our purpose was to ascertain that DOD and the civilian agencies maintained data on the training received by their acquisition workforce and not to validate the accuracy of that data. While we have reported weaknesses in the data maintained by VA and GSA,those agencies are taking action to improve the reliability and completeness of their tracking systems.

Civilian agencies said that they did not have centralized management information systems because they were awaiting development and implementation of OFPP’s proposed Web-based Acquisition Career Management Information System (ACMIS), expected to be available in September 2002. The civilian agencies, with the exception of VA, viewed their systems as being interim. As a result of not having a centralized management information system, these agencies must rely on the data submitted periodically by training coordinators in their various locations throughout their agencies. Also, this data is often maintained on unofficial manual records or on various spreadsheets, making it difficult for the responsible acquisition officer to verify its accuracy. Because of ACMIS development delays, VA developed its own management information system to alleviate these problems, and it is currently entering historical employee training data into the database.

ACMIS is to be a federal Web-accessible database of records to track acquisition workforce training and education. It is expected that the data in ACMIS will be used in making budgeting, staffing, and training decisions and monitoring the status of staff warrants. The baseline data for ACMIS will come from the Office of Personnel Management’s Centralized Data Personnel File and agency workforce databases. Those records will then be supplemented with education, training, warrant, and certification data provided by individuals in the acquisition workforce. In addition, the system is to provide for computer-to-computer interfaces for bulk and automated data transfers (i.e., updates from agency personnel files or updates of multiple employee records with a common set of data, such as the completion of a course).

The development of the new system, however, has experienced considerable delays. Although OFPP tasked FAI to develop the system in September 1997, it has not yet been implemented. In 2000, we reported that delays in developing the system were largely attributable to difficulties in obtaining agreement on the requirements for the system.

Since our report, FAI, under OFPP direction, has published functional specifications and data requirements for the system. In December 2001, FAI contracted for development of the system, and FAI officials said the contractor was on track to meet the September 2002 implementation.

Agencies Were Able to Fund Current Training Needs but Some Cited Concerns

While DOD and the agencies we reviewed had varying degrees of funding available, all reported that they managed to meet their acquisition workforces’ current required training needs. However, we did not review or validate acquisition workforce training budget and obligation data. Officials explained that knowing what training courses employees will need, determining the courses that will be provided to meet training needs, and knowing the costs of providing each course, including related travel costs, allowed them to establish the funding required for needed training. DOD employs a centralized approach in determining its funding requirements for acquisition workforce training for its services and components. Using its management information system and estimated costs, DOD and the military services and components go through the iterative process of reconciling course needs, class size, instructor availability, and other costs, such as travel. DAU funds (1) the cost of developing and presenting the courses and (2) the travel expenses for DOD employees attending the courses. The civilian agencies we reviewed employ similar procedures relying on the data available to them in their interim systems comprised of spreadsheets and unofficial manual records.

DOD, the military services, and civilian agencies stated they had sufficient funds to meet their current minimum core training requirements. NASA and HHS reported making acquisition workforce training a priority and earmarking sufficient funds for it. Other agencies–GSA and VA—said that because they use revolving funds to pay for their training, they also had sufficient funds earmarked for their acquisition workforce training. However, DOE, which reported having limited funds for training, often relied on DOD and NASA courses provided free of charge, on a space available basis, for much of its acquisition training.

Although they could fund current core training, DOD, the military services, and DOE–because they rely on DAU for much of their training–expressed concerns with their ability to meet future required training and career development needs of their employees, since DAU faces budget reductions. A DOD official noted that fiscal year 2001 budget reductions combined with 2 years of “straight-line” budgets have precluded DAU from providing all the courses requested by the DOD components. Also, while all employees received core training for their current positions and grades, they were often unable to receive core training needed to obtain warrants at the next higher level to allow them to work on larger contracts and to be competitive for promotion to a higher grade. Army and Navy officials cited similar concerns regarding DAU’s budget reductions. Air Force officials stated that anticipated increases in the acquisition workforce, because of the implementation of the Refined Packard methodology, the replacement of retirees, and its planned increases in cross training between acquisition specialties to meet strategic objectives, would require additional funding for core training in the future.

A DOE official said that DAU’s budget cuts also potentially affect DOE’s ability to meet its future training requirements because of its reliance on DAU-provided courses. The official also noted that DOE’s limited training funds have curtailed funding tuitions for college courses, intern programs, continuing education, as well as management and leadership development programs, which could have an impact on the acquisition workforce’s career development. Other agencies reviewed did not indicate concerns about future training and career development.

Conclusions

DOD and the military services have a more broadly defined acquisition workforce, including functions beyond the traditional contracting function. Civilian agencies’ definitions are narrower. Regardless of whether or not an agency determines to include a particular position in its acquisition workforce, each agency needs to take active steps to identify all those positions that have a role in the acquisition process important enough to warrant specific training. This knowledge can be fed into the agencies’ strategic planning efforts and increases their ability to provide human capital strategies to meet their current and future programmatic needs. The challenge for civilian agencies ensuring their acquisition workforce is receiving the proper training has been made more difficult by OFPP’s slow progress in implementing ACMIS. Continued delays in implementing this system will increase the time in which agencies have to use less sophisticated tools for tracking acquisition workforce training.

Recommendations for Executive Action

In an effort to ensure agencies succeed in defining a multifunctional and multidimensional acquisition workforce, we recommend that the Administrator of OFPP work with all the agencies to determine the appropriateness of further refining the definition of the acquisition workforce and to determine which positions, though not formally included in the acquisition workforce, nonetheless require certain training to ensure their role in the acquisition process is performed efficiently and effectively.

We also recommend that the Administrator of OFPP continue to monitor the ACMIS contract milestones to ensure that the contractor and FAI complete and implement the proposed governmentwide system on schedule.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Administrator of OFPP. She generally concurred with our recommendations and made observations about OFPP’s efforts regarding the acquisition workforce (see appendix I). However, the Administrator took issue with our conclusion that delays in implementing the ACMIS system caused difficulties in ensuring the civilian agencies acquisition workforce is trained. The Administrator noted that, despite the absence of a centralized system, the agencies are responsible for managing the training of their workforce. Our recommendations are intended to help ensure that all staff integral to the success of agencies’ acquisition efforts receive appropriate training. Also, as we noted in the report, the civilian agencies said they had not developed centralized management information systems because they were awaiting the implementation of OFPP’s proposed governmentwide system that OFPP originally tasked FAI to develop in September 1997.

We also received written comments from DOE, NASA, and VA and comments via e-mail from DOD, HHS, and GSA as discussed below. All agencies generally agreed with our findings.

DOE concurred with our findings and offered additional technical comments regarding the inclusion of financial assistant specialists in its acquisition workforce and the status of certification and training requirements for personnel in its acquisition workforce. We incorporated these comments where appropriate. DOE’s comments appear in appendix II.

NASA noted that it included procurement clerks in its acquisition workforce. We changed the report to reflect this. NASA also provided additional specific information regarding the training required of those acquisition personnel not included in its acquisition workforce definition. NASA’s comments appear in appendix III.

VA concurred with our findings and noted the release of its Procurement Reform Task Force Report, which addresses the need for acquisition workforce enhancements. VA’s comments appear in appendix IV.

DOD provided several technical comments and suggestions to clarify our draft report. We incorporated these comments and suggestions where appropriate.

HHS concurred with our findings and provided technical comments. HHS noted that although certain acquisition personnel are not under the control of its acquisition office, that office has established regulations to ensure they receive required training. We believe our report adequately reflects their concerns.

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

Scope and Methodology

To accomplish the objectives, we reviewed policies and procedures, examined records, and interviewed acquisition personnel, training, and budget officials at DOD, Army, Navy, Air Force; VA, DOE, HHS, GSA, and NASA. However, we did not attempt to determine the adequacy or timeliness of the training these agencies provided their employees. These agencies are the largest in terms of their annual expenditures and among the largest in terms of the number of people in their acquisition workforce. In fiscal year 2000, their acquisition workforce included almost 25,000 contract specialists and purchasing agents (the primary career fields in the acquisition workforce), who were responsible for nearly $200 billion in federal obligations for goods and services.

To obtain information on the oversight and guidance provided to federal agencies, we reviewed legislation, regulations, directives, and policies and interviewed officials at OFPP and FAI.

We conducted our review between October 2001 and June 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to other interested congressional committees, the secretaries of Defense, Army, Air Force, Navy, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs; and the administrators of General Services Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4125 or Hilary Sullivan at (214) 777-5652 if you have any questions regarding this report. Major contributors to this report were Thom Barger, Cristina Chaplain, Susan Ragland, Sylvia Schatz, and Tanisha Stewart.

Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix III: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs