Ways to Improve Acquisition Training in FY16

All of your ideas except number 3 are about testing. Testing is useful, but it isn't the main problem or the main road to improvement. The main problem is learning. Students must do that on their own.

No class should go for eight hours a day. That's much too long. People can't mentally attend that long. Six hours max, and even that's too long. The problem is that longer courses with shorter hours are not economically feasible.

Supervisors buy training for personnel en masse. They don't seem to send people to training based on individual needs. They send people to an introductory class who have twenty years experience. Supervisors need to do a better job of getting training for their people.

Supervisors don't explain to prospective students that they're being paid their salary while in class, that training is work, not bleep-off time, and that they are expected to consider it work and to work diligently.

Students don't take training seriously, even when they want training. They don't come prepared to learn. They show up for class without pencil and paper. They don't know how to take notes or how to organize them systematically for study. (They think they do, but most of them don't. Anybody hear of the Cornell method?) If you assign pre-course reading, half of the students don't read it and the other don't read it properly. They complain about having to do homework. They don't do the homework. A certain number of them arrive late for class every single day or come back late from lunch and breaks. They can't take their eyes off their bleeping phones. Good students are a rarity. Oh, for a class full of tiger learners, like I get at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, where they have real leadership.

Supervised self-study groups would be the best way to learn, but for that you need good textbooks and disciplined students. There are not enough of either of those in government contracting.

Classroom training is not sufficiently well-coordinated with OJT. The greatest problem in contracting is that people are hired and paid before they know how to do the work they're being paid to do. They learn most of what they will ever know while on the job. What they learn is what the old-timers teach them. If the old-timers are not first rate, then the products of their teaching will not be first rate, unless the students are the kind of people who are motivated to learn on their own. People who want to learn, and who know how to learn, will learn, training or no training. You need special 1102s to conduct OJT. They should receive extra pay. It should be a hard job to get.

I have a hundred suggestions, but not enough time.

Splitting the testing and the instructional roles may be worth looking into. The institution which instructs cannot be the institution that awards the certification.

My suggestion is to afford personnel the opportunity to use what they learn in self-study, class, or OJT. I personally don't believe we get enough reps doing things the right way simply because it usually means expanding lead times when the current goal is to reduce them. Secondly, make more resources available.

I find it peculiar and frustrating that there is a DoD Acquisition Workforce Development Fund but, nobody I've contacted seems to know how to tap into it.

I've requested books, classes (Far Bootcamp, Critical Thinking, Level III DAU courses, etc.), and subscriptions only to hear those dreadful words - we don't have the money.

I mention the fund and get blank stares or more questions than answers.

The best training you'll ever get can be summed up in two words and two sentences.

Read. Think.

Here are a few ideas:

1. No required training classes. Required competencies, developed and published by DAU/FAI, that employees must obtain using whatever method(s) they choose (self-study, online classes, DAU/FAI classes, commercial training organizations, etc.).

2. A series of exams on specific contracting topics that must be passed to advance in the career field, similar to what exists for actuaries: https://www.soa.org/Education/Exam-Req/edu-asa-req.aspx Exams developed by DAU/FAI. Exams given at commercial test centers. When the candidate is ready for the test they apply to DAU/FAI, who then mails the test to the candidate's local test center.

The Government's approach to training is to use a design specification (everyone must take these classes). We need to move to a performance specification (don't care how you get trained, as long as the results meet the standard).

From http://www.beanactuary.org/exams/:

Like other top-ranked professions (such as law and medicine), one must pass a set of examinations to achieve professional status as an actuary. Unlike other professions, in actuarial science you’ll have the opportunity to work as an actuary while completing the examination process—employers often allow study time during working hours, pay exam fees, provide internships, and even award raises for each exam passed. Though, to get the best start on a rewarding career, many soon-to-be actuaries begin taking exams while still in college. Of those that do, most achieve associateship in three to five years. All candidates acquire a core set of knowledge from required preliminary exams. The preliminary exams and Validation by Educational Experience requirements are the starting points for an actuarial career. The Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) and the Society of Actuaries (SOA) websites contain complete descriptions of their education and examination systems, including syllabus and study materials, registration information, rules and regulations and resources of each exam.

Picture this:

Like other top-ranked professions (such as law and medicine), one must pass a set of examinations to achieve professional status as a contract manager. Unlike other professions, in contract management you’ll have the opportunity to work as a contract manager while completing the examination process—employers often allow study time during working hours, pay exam fees, provide internships, and even award raises for each exam passed. Though, to get the best start on a rewarding career, many soon-to-be contract managers begin taking exams while still in college. Of those that do, most achieve associateship in three to five years. All candidates acquire a core set of knowledge from required preliminary exams. The preliminary exams and Validation by Educational Experience requirements are the starting points for a contract management career. The Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) and the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) websites contain complete descriptions of their education and examination systems, including syllabus and study materials, registration information, rules and regulations and resources of each exam.

I like it!

I think many of us are waiting for Part IV of Vern's Contracting Trainee blog.

People didn't seem enthusiastic about it to me, so I let it go. But I note that the number of viewers has grown. Or maybe it's the same 20 people checking over and over.

Don't forget that contract specialists must master their automated procurement systems!

Capturing the right bits and bytes takes precedence over following the correct policies and procedures, using the correct provisions and clauses, and getting the best deal for the customer.

Unfortunately, there is truth in napolick's comment...

Exams for contracting classes should not be multiple-guess. To me, they need to be problem based.

Exams for contracting classes should not be multiple-guess. To me, they need to be problem based.

It's not either/or. You can have multiple-choice questions that are based on a problem.

How about rebalancing and redistributing the workforce in an effort to incentivize training and have unqualified people self-eliminate from consideration as contracting officers.

Maybe it's easier to implement stringent competency, education, testing, and certification requirements if we limit it to key positions - say contract specialist and contracting officers.

Bring in other 1100 series, outside of 1102s, to do the more routine or simplified actions as well as support the 1102s.

Then implement, as Don stated, required competencies, developed and published by DAU/FAI, that employees must obtain using whatever method(s) they choose (self-study, online classes, DAU/FAI classes, commercial training organizations, etc.). This pipeline could lead to 1102 positions, which should be significantly and progressively higher on the pay scale than the positions below and supporting it.

Money incentivizes many things. People could take the training mentioned above seriously if it paid to do do.

Special Pay Positions:

OJT Trainer

Special Qualifications

Reviewer/Policy

Just thinking out loud...

Don:

In my opinion, multiple choice questions are not appropriate for professional education. They're a sop to the weak student. Any exam question that both facilitates guessing and suggests the answer to guess at is an insult to the serious student. It just gives them a chance to pass whether they deserve to or not.

But you and I have argued about this in the past, and I don't expect to change your mind.

Vern

Absent a takeover of our culture and technology by the Luddites, multiple choice is the only type of test that can be administered. No narrative can be prepared using Ipads while the students are walking to the Starbucks!

Vern,

I haven't changed my mind. I would not agree that using multiple-choice questions is inappropriate for professional education as a general proposition. I think it depends on what you are attempting to assess. In terms of Bloom's cognitive levels, I think multiple-choice questions can be used to assess knowledge, comprehension, application, and analysis. However, they would not be appropriate for assessing higher cognitive levels (synthesis, evaluation). I acknowledge the risk of a student "guessing" successfully, but this can be somewhat mitigated by increasing the number of choices and having good distractors (wrong answers).

Don:

If I want to test knowledge, etc., instead of asking a question and then asking, "Which of the following is the correct answer?" why not just ask, "What's the answer?"

Instead of asking:

For which of the following contract types must the CO prepare a D&F... [a]... ... [c]... or [d]...?

why not just ask:

For which contract type(s) must the CO prepare a D&F?

For contracting, I believe a written test similar to the Maryland Bar Exam, written test, would suffice. 10 questions - three hours:

http://mdcourts.gov/ble/examquestionsanswers.html

No multiple choice. Follow, the written test with an oral exam of some sort and call it good.

I'm not commenting on the extent of Maryland's Bar Exam because if its anything like California it has additional testing, the California Bar Examination consists of the General Bar Examination and the Attorneys’ Examination. The General Bar Examination has three parts: six essay questions, the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE, which is multiple choice), and two performance tests (PT, which is another narrative).

I don't see how you improve the acquisition environment without better training the PMs and CORs. How much of the CO's workload would be reduced if PMs and CORs made better decisions?

Of course, I'm an outsider in this discussion (not a Government employee) so take my POV with a grain or two of salt.

H2H

An organization can't accept failure in an individual employee when his position is so difficult to fill. Perhaps rationally the long-term benefit should outweigh the short-term pain, but in reality we don't see it that way. Every hire simply has to succeed when you employ the absolute minimum number of people in a job category.

In order to have high standards, we need to institute a farm team of potential talent. Then let the cream rise to the top. That also means there has to be a place for the non-star. I like Jamaal's comment #13 to get there. I think Vern has also spoken along similar lines.

Just adding a question to the roiling multiple-choice debate.

I had a policitcal science professor who favored "multiple multiple choice" questions, and they were challenging. They looked something like this:

i.) Cost-plus-no-fee

ii.) Cost-plus-fixed-fee

iii.) Time-and-materials

iv.) labor hour

v.) fixed price with economic price adjustment

vi.) fixed price

For which of the preceding contract types must the CO prepare a D&F?

A. i & ii

B. i, ii, & iii

C. i

D. ii

E. vi, v & vi

F. i, ii, iii, iv, & v

He was a real character, if you were able to achieve a perfect 0 on one of his tests you received an "A" in the class and never had to return. If you inadvertantly got one wrong, well, you wound up with a 2. Never had sufficient command of that material to go for the perfect 0.

Don:

If I want to test knowledge, etc., instead of asking a question and then asking, "Which of the following is the correct answer?" why not just ask, "What's the answer?"

Instead of asking:

For which of the following contract types must the CO prepare a D&F... [a]... ... [c]... or [d]...?

why not just ask:

For which contract type(s) must the CO prepare a D&F?

If I wanted to assess a student's ability to recall that information from memory, then a short answer test question would probably be more reliable than a multiple choice question. However, short answer questions become impractical if there are many right answers. For example, I could ask:

"Which numbers are odd?"

or, I could ask:

"Which numbers are odd?

a. 1

b. 2

c. 3

d. 4"

By using multiple-choice, I could use a slight variation of your question to assess the student at higher Bloom's Levels. For example:

"For which type of the following contracts must the CO prepare a D&F?

a. Requirements contract for mortuary services

b. Commercial time-and-materials contract with options

c. Cost-plus-award-fee contract for research that resulted from a Broad Agency Announcement

d. Service contract for an inherently governmental function"

This question requires the student to apply knowledge, determine what information is relevant, and use deductive reasoning.

Choosing a type of assessment item is like choosing a type of contract. No one type is inherently good or bad. Each type has its place depending on what you are trying to assess.

Q: Which numbers are odd?

A: All integers (whole numbers) that are not multiples of 2.

Your multiple choice approach would show only that the student knows (or does not know) that certain numbers are odd, but would not show that he knows why they are odd or what "odd" means.

Look, you're okay with multiple choice, and I don't like them. But I understand your point that if used properly they can be respectable.

Does DAU use them properly, as a general rule?

I would say that we're hit and miss.

What percent hit and what percent miss?

While I support the renewed “professionalization” of the contracting workforce, I am pessimistic that the workforce’s knowledge of law, regulation and market environment will improve. If anything happens to workforce knowledge, it will decline. This is due to the transfer of non-professional workload to the professional workforce.

If I recall correctly, the professionalization of the contracting workforce began in the early 90s with the establishment of an educational requirement – a bachelor’s degree with 24 credit hours of business or business related subjects. Unfortunately, this laudable event was accompanied by other events that have undercut the effort to improve the professionalism of 1102s.

First, there was the introduction of automated procurement systems (APS) driven, not by clerk typists (1106s), but by contract specialists. Increasingly, the contract specialists spend more time and effort learning how to create documents and to enter data in the APS than learning the substance of their profession.

Currently, I work in a space adjacent to a staff of 1102s whose raison d’etre is an APS. All day long, 1102s line up to get help with the application of the APS to their specific procurements. If only they spent as much time reading the SOWs, the regs, the GAO and COFC decisions, and materials on the market they are seeking to use.

Prior to my current experience, I cannot count the number of times I, or a colleague, was told a particular procurement strategy or tactic cannot be accomplished because SPS or PRISM won’t allow it.

Because of the introduction of the APS, I believe contract specialists devote more time to learning their APS than to learning the substance of their “profession”.

Closely related to the impact of APS is the impact of FPDS. FPDS entries and corrections are accomplished by 1102s. How many hours do contract specialists spend on the FPDS? Why can't 1106s do this?

Next, while the procurement leaders were celebrating the new educational standards for 1102s, they were also eliminating 1105s, procurement agents. The work on small purchases – now simplified acquisitions – was transferred from 1105s to 1102s. I guarantee you that much/ most of the time 1102s spent/ spend on this new work was/ is spent on forcing the small purchases into the office APS.

Until the procurement hierarchy demonstrates clearly the importance of procurement knowledge vice knowledge of APS, FPDS and small purchase, the test methodology is irrelevant. This demonstration will be the reduction or elimination of time 1102s spend on the creation of APS, FPDS and small purchase.

Restore document preparation and reporting tasks to 1106s; return small purchases to 1105s.

The leadership of a career field should have something in common with those in the career field. This becomes harder the higher you get as specialization is less likely to be desired.

At the higher levels, policy makers are simply out of touch with reality and don't know what training is really required and face it, few officials hire vocal opposition that is willing and able to identify the failures in the system.

Who would ever allow the Attorney General, Surgeon General or Secretary of Health & Human Services, etc. to lead an organization they don't have the credentials for and simply have little understanding of? Has a former 1102 ever lead AT&L? Who in the front office of OFPP or AT&L, etc. have a working knowledge of the FAR system (from practice)? What is the growth potential for an 1102?

In addition to training, opportunity is needed. Without growth opportunity fewer of the good people will stay within the government and turnover isn't something that good training will solve.

Until the procurement hierarchy demonstrates clearly the importance of procurement knowledge vice knowledge of APS, FPDS and small purchase, the test methodology is irrelevant. This demonstration will be the reduction or elimination of time 1102s spend on the creation of APS, FPDS and small purchase.

Restore document preparation and reporting tasks to 1106s; return small purchases to 1105s.

Hear, hear!

With regards to a written exam, who would be the grading authority? If DAU’s Ask a Professor is any sort of guide, it shows that everyone has an opinion. One professor may say one thing, while another professor may believe something else. Answers to written exams aren’t always clear cut. Then again, multiple choice exams seem to encourage rote learning/memorization, rather than critical thinking.

Perhaps rather than having three levels of certification, would it be worth looking at having some form of certification for specific segments within the FAR? Perhaps a mandatory general certification followed by a specialist certificate in areas such as IT, construction, commercial, and simplified? The only reason I suggest “specialty areas” is because it seems like many people stay in the same area for long periods of time. Would that be too limiting?

I can’t speak for everyone else, but most people in my shop have stayed within one general area (construction, for example) for their entire time in contracting. The folks in the construction branch couldn’t be of assistance during the end-year rush because none of them had ever worked on commercial and simplified buys.

Should training focus more on specialized areas within the FAR?

Closely related to the impact of APS is the impact of FPDS. FPDS entries and corrections are accomplished by 1102s. How many hours do contract specialists spend on the FPDS? Why can't 1106s do this?

Next, while the procurement leaders were celebrating the new educational standards for 1102s, they were also eliminating 1105s, procurement agents. The work on small purchases – now simplified acquisitions – was transferred from 1105s to 1102s. I guarantee you that much/ most of the time 1102s spent/ spend on this new work was/ is spent on forcing the small purchases into the office APS.

Until the procurement hierarchy demonstrates clearly the importance of procurement knowledge vice knowledge of APS, FPDS and small purchase, the test methodology is irrelevant. This demonstration will be the reduction or elimination of time 1102s spend on the creation of APS, FPDS and small purchase.

Restore document preparation and reporting tasks to 1106s; return small purchases to 1105s.

CPARS as well. Seems like a large amount of my time is spent on reporting and administrative duties that take up a great deal of valuable time. What was the real reason for eliminating the 1105 series anyways?

Vern mentioned something about the Cornell Method (or Cornell Notes).

How about creating law school outlines in class, which help you apply the rules to scenarios at a later date (i.e. work)?

In my mind, the goal of classroom training is to build and test specific knowledge and ability: to apply what you have learned to real problems later. In that regard, pure recall of particular rules, while beneficial, is unnecessary, but mastering the concepts, and ability to conduct adequate analysis is. Law school outlines are great for that purpose.

Ultimately can you look at a set of facts and make a timely, accurate assessment of what rules apply, the best options available, and recommend a course of action? Law school outlines can help you with all three by organizing your learning and thoughts. Instead of preparing for an exam you'd be preparing for future procurement, etc.

I guess the quickest and cheapest way to improve training is to improve the way we train as individuals.

What was the real reason for eliminating the 1105 series anyways?

The arrival of the desktop computer.

Q: Which numbers are odd?

A: All integers (whole numbers) that are not multiples of 2.

Your multiple choice approach would show only that the student knows (or does not know) that certain numbers are odd, but would not show that he knows why they are odd or what "odd" means.

Look, you're okay with multiple choice, and I don't like them. But I understand your point that if used properly they can be respectable.

Does DAU use them properly, as a general rule?

Your answer illustrates another weakness of short-answer questions--they can be ambiguous. You've given me a property of odd numbers, but I still don't know if you could identify any. In my multiple choice example, I can assess whether you can identify an odd number. It's true that I can't assess whether the student knows why they are odd or what "odd" means, but those are different learning objectives. If I wanted to assess those two learning objectives, I would have to come up with different questions.

As far as whether DAU uses them properly, I would say 75% hit, 25% miss. Some courses are better than others. I think the students taking the exams would know better than me.

With regards to a written exam, who would be the grading authority? If DAU’s Ask a Professor is any sort of guide, it shows that everyone has an opinion. One professor may say one thing, while another professor may believe something else. Answers to written exams aren’t always clear cut. Then again, multiple choice exams seem to encourage rote learning/memorization, rather than critical thinking.

FAI/DAU would be the grading authority. There would be an answer key to eliminate inconsistency. I don't agree that a particular type of question encourages rote learning/memorization. A test condition (closed-book v. open-book) would have more of an effect on how a student prepared for an exam.

Perhaps rather than having three levels of certification, would it be worth looking at having some form of certification for specific segments within the FAR? Perhaps a mandatory general certification followed by a specialist certificate in areas such as IT, construction, commercial, and simplified? The only reason I suggest “specialty areas” is because it seems like many people stay in the same area for long periods of time. Would that be too limiting?

I can’t speak for everyone else, but most people in my shop have stayed within one general area (construction, for example) for their entire time in contracting. The folks in the construction branch couldn’t be of assistance during the end-year rush because none of them had ever worked on commercial and simplified buys.

Should training focus more on specialized areas within the FAR?

Yes, I think so. I've advocated for this type of approach in the past. I don't think we should be requiring all 1102s to take the exact same courses after Level 1. I don't think it would be too hard to identify five or six specialties and have certifications for each.

I've heard several older timers talk about having procurement clerks and whatnot, but was it any better then? How many people worked on a single contract file? Did a CO make a decision and have a clerk type up the memoranda? If so, it seems the clerk would have to be equipped with the same knowledge and competence as the CO.

What prevents offices from assigning duties that resemble the old time structure to today's 1102s? Seems the 1102 series consist primarily of overpaid scriveners anyhow so let a few serve as COs and specialists on other than simplified purchases, and another share serve as COs and specialists for SAP. Each team can assign some specialists as admin and clerical help to process CARS, CPARS, etc. I don't think this helps because the knowledge required is still absent.

Was infighting, over responsibilities, prevalent when offices were staffed with 1101s, 1102s, 1105s, and 1106s?

"Better" is too broad a term to be the foundation for a good question. Without some objective standard, all you'll get is diverse opinions. Having a procurement clerk do the administrative stuff was better for me. Whether it was better for anyone else is anyone's guess.

Go read OPM's position classification standard for procurement clerks/technicians and then come back and ask questions.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/standards/1100/gs1106.pdf

Here's the position definition:

This series includes positions that involve performing or supervising clerical and technical work that supports the procurement of supplies, services, and/or construction. Procurement clerks and technicians prepare, control, and review procurement documents and reports; verify or abstract information contained in documents and reports; contact vendors to get status of orders and expedite delivery; maintain various procurement files; resolve a variety of shipment, payment, or other discrepancies; or perform other similar work in support of procurement programs and operations. The work requires a practical knowledge of procurement procedures, operations, regulations, and programs.

I've read the classifications for 1102 (dreamscape), 1105 (fits many of today's 1102s in general), and 1106 (fits most of today's contract specialist).

I still don't understand how they worked as a team, in practice. I see how it could work if each series was staffed with people who knew their job well, so maybe that was the case. Maybe workload was lighter so fewer COs were needed.

One of the challenges I see today is that very few people are good at any facet of purchasing or contracting (duties of clerks or technicians, specialists, and contracting officers). Distributing the duties will not make individuals more competent, but reducing the overload and focusing on specialization could.

From my experience, you either work in construction or supplies and services. Within those teams you can be assigned anything from a $3,500 SAP to a multi-million dollar competitive negotiation and anything in-between. Most requirements are filled through task or delivery orders.

Jamaal,

I have worked in offices with 1102s, 1105s, and 1106s. It can work great! The 1105s do all the simplified acquisitions, and they can do them expertly! The 1106s can take responsibility for invoices and bid openings and filing and so forth. The 1102s can then be free to do what only they can do.

When I started as an 1102, my job title was contract negotiator, not contract specialist. I worked with an 1106 procurement clerk. This was doing R&D and major systems.

The 1106 received all incoming paperwork. When we received a requisition the clerk started a contract file and started preparing the routine paperwork, such as small business clearance, etc. The clerk would prepare boilerplate determinations, like the determination of non personal services. I would hand write documents, and she would type them. He or She would coordinate documents through the various staff offices. When we got a (more or less) automated contracting system, the clerk processed the system documents necessary for preparation of the RFP and final contract. In short, the clerk did all the routine administration and paperwork and processed coordinations. I wrote the content of substantive work, such as advanced procurement plans, D&Fs, justifications, etc., but the clerk would type and coordinate the documents and prepare the synopsis, unless there was something special about it. The clerk did the reporting that is now made to FPDS, but was then done on a DD Form 350.

Like anything else, how well it worked depended on the quality of the persons involved. I was lucky in most of the offices in which I worked. Like contract specialists, some clerks were great and some were lousy. What I liked, in retrospect, was being free of all the routine administrative stuff. I might add that my workload was much less than that of the typical contract specialist today, and the administrative tasking was much lighter. Ironically, as workload and administrative burden increased, the government did away with 1106s and put the entire burden on the 1102s.

Perverse management behavior.

A continuing problem was that the best procurement clerks wanted to be contract negotiators and would become angry when they couldn't rise. The influx of college graduates made advancement difficult for those who didn't have degrees. In some cases, the clerk would have made a great negotiator. In others, advancement would have been an instance of the Peter Principle at work. Being a great clerk did not mean that one would be a good contract negotiator, but it was difficult to make people understand and accept that reality.

In any case, being a contract specialist today is nothing like it was for me and my peers. The contracting workplace today is entirely different. Almost unrecognizable to someone of my era. A very big factor in workplace change was the arrival of the desktop computer, which changed everything everywhere, and not entirely for the better. Some day someone will write a great book on the effect of the desktop computer on workplace organization and sociology. Another factor was the gender divide. Virtually all of the clerks and purchasing agents were women and most of the negotiators were men. Negotiators were paid a lot more. That was a source of concern, discomfort, embarrassment, tension, anger, and conflict. I think the gender divide was a factor in the elimination of clerks and purchasing agents. I think it was seen as a way to close the gap. Today, about 60 percent of the 1102 workforce is female.

The week after Christmas I'm flying to L.A. for a reunion of some of the Air Force Copper Cap trainees I came up with. We all became GS-15s or SESs at a time when such positions were rare. Several of us went on to the private sector. One became a prominent public prosecutor. All but one of us are retired. I retired from teaching last month. The only one still working is with a California lobbying organization. It will be a gathering of the denizens of a lost world.

Our last 1105s and 1106s were converted to 1102's for the pay reason. In Washington we could not get anyone any good at the paygrades of an 1105 and 1106 (Typically GS 5 to 9). Those we had that were good wanted to get above GS-9 and could not. They would move to the program offices that had higher grades.

The pay grades have all escalated because the pay has not gone up enough within the grades. Now the "journeyman" (4 to 8 years) is a GS13 and looking to be a GS14 very soon. You must have 4 years to get your level III certification and many new personnel expect an unlimited warrant and a GS14 to come with that certification. A world of unrealistic expectation and yet many get it so it is not unrealistic anymore. I had a fast rise after a military career so I can not complain too much. It is good times for the staff but not so good for the organization.

It used to be only Division Directors were GS15 but now we have Branch Chiefs and in some cases independent COs as GS15. I have relatives in the midwest that would die to get a steady $50K a year job but inside the beltway you feel unwanted if you don't make six figures.

I retired from teaching last month.

I'm sorry to hear that, Vern. I realize that teaching was often a very frustrating experience for you ... but I very much enjoyed the one class I was able to attend. I tried hard to "think critically" but I'm afraid I didn't hit the mark you set. To be clear, I was okay with that. I learned more from your course than any three "seminars by PowerPoint."

I'm sad to think that my colleagues and direct reports won't have the same opportunity to be challenged and to stretch.

H2H

help:

Thanks. I had fun. Met a lot of people. Made a lot of friends. Got to go all over the world.

Everyone's time must come. (Peyton, are you reading this?)

Vern

Kobe did. Peyton should.

Everyone's time must come. (Peyton, are you reading this?)

Perhaps you can extend your career by abandoning the QB position and taking up the placekicker role.

Both score points for the team, but the QB expends much more physical and emotional energy.

Perhaps you can extend your career by abandoning the QB position and taking up the placekicker role.

Both score points for the team, but the QB expends much more physical and emotional energy.

Haha! That would be like asking Vince Lombardi or Nick Sabin to step down and become the assistant coach!

Guys, a person's retirement is no big deal. Let's please not make it a topic.

I don't know which one is more difficult to accept, Vern or Kobe. At least I got to see Kobe play live and in person.

Guys, I appreciate the thoughts, really, but, please, no more.

Vern