The Wages of Managerial Neglect

Vern Edwards said:

There are more people 70 and older than there are people under 25 years old working in federal procurement, Field said at the Professional Services Council’s Federal Acquisition Conference on Tuesday. Overall, only 7% of the acquisition workforce is under 30 years old.

The average new contract specialist hired is in their late 20's or early 30's - in my experience. I was 26 when hired as a GS-5 Procurement Tech on a ladder to GS-7/9 CS. I know no person in my org under 25 or over 70. 

The most productive work years of any individual, in any field is in their late 30's and 40's. 

This statement looks like pleading to hire more kids out of college that are mentally weak, poor workers, none driven and want more time off than a person capable, retiring out the contracting arm of the military. 

"Personnel is policy." - Michael Knowles

Vern Edwards said:

There are more people 70 and older than there are people under 25 years old working in federal procurement, Field said at the Professional Services Council’s Federal Acquisition Conference on Tuesday. Overall, only 7% of the acquisition workforce is under 30 years old.

This makes me wonder......while not completely during my professional career yet during most of it I have found WIFCON to be of great use.  I could be biased when I read the quote but made me wonder what the age is of those posting questions in Forum....the 7% or ?

Just more alarmist talk and no action to me.  This situation has been around for years and nothing of substance is done to change things.  Every time some reasonable approach is mentioned for change, multiple factions oppose.

C Culham said:

made me wonder what the age is of those posting questions in Forum....the 7% or ?

There was a Poll done on this in 2016 and it is still open.  I just voted in it myself.  See results here:

formerfed said:

This situation has been around for years and nothing of substance is done to change things.  Every time some reasonable approach is mentioned for change, multiple factions oppose.

Absolutely spot on observation. I recall discussing the "human capital crisis" circa 2006/2007. At the time, I was quoted in Aviation Week. Doesn't matter. When there is no accountability for the lack of problem-solving then, as Kenan Thompson famously said on Saturday Night Live, "ain't nothing gonna happen."

here_2_help said:

When there is no accountability for the lack of problem-solving then, as Kenan Thompson famously said on Saturday Night Live, "ain't nothing gonna happen."

I think you have described the problem perfectly.

And I think it's foolish to believe that an acting head of OFPP can solve it.

As a country, we no longer seem to believe in the concept that in order to achieve something important you need someone who knows what they're doing and has been given a clear mission and a mandate to do it and to fire anyone who won't or can't follow orders and contribute.

I can think of of two persons who exemplify, "I'm in charge. I'm accountable. And you're going to do what I say and get it done or you are gone." And they both achieved a great thing for our country when our country needed it.

General Leslie Groves, who was in charge of the development of the atomic bomb, and who hired Robert Oppenheimer to do the science despite opposition to his appointment.

Admiral Hyman Rickover, who was in charge of the development of the nuclear submarine, and about whom there is a new biography.

There are others of their ilk, military and civilian, who achieved great things, less deadly things, but those two stand out for me, because they were up against it and simply could not fail.

But I don't think America believes in such people any more. They are too tough for us as we are now.

If you think that having a first-rate contracting workforce is not important, you don't understand the nature of our contracted-out government.

Vern Edwards said:

I think you have described the problem perfectly.

And I think it's foolish to believe that an acting head of OFPP can solve it.

As a country, we no longer seem to believe in the concept that in order to achieve something important you need someone who knows what they're doing and has been given a clear mission and a mandate to do it and to fire anyone who won't or can't follow orders and contribute.

I can think of of two persons who exemplify, "I'm in charge. I'm accountable. And you're going to do what I say and get it done or you are gone." And they both achieved a great thing for our country when our country needed it.

General Leslie Groves, who was in charge of the development of the atomic bomb, and who hired Robert Oppenheimer to do the science despite opposition to his appointment.

Admiral Hyman Rickover, who was in charge of the development of the nuclear submarine, and about whom there is a new biography.

There are others of their ilk, military and civilian, who achieved great things, less deadly things, but those two stand out for me, because they were up against it and simply could not fail.

But I don't think America believes in such people any more. They are too tough for us as we are now.

If you think that having a first-rate contracting workforce is not important, you don't understand the nature of our contracted-out government.

This is a nice overview of Groves and Oppenheimer:

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/unlikely-pair

It also mentions the opposition to Groves’ selection of Oppenheimer, if you are wondering why. I didn’t know that Gen. Groves had been in charge of the Country’s Mobilization construction program up to that point in 1942. That was an exceptional feat in itself!

The writer of the article had the same problem as I did.  The Semi-permanent Acting Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy (since 2008) is Lesley Anne Field.   On my first try, I got the name wrong as did the author of the article.  I added an "s" to her last name too.  I bet she has spent more time in her OFPP roles than any confirmed Administrator.

I also add that this forum has over 7,000 registrations (the last time I counted years ago) so I think we can do better than 130 votes.

here_2_help said:

When there is no accountability for the lack of problem-solving then, as Kenan Thompson famously said on Saturday Night Live, "ain't nothing gonna happen."

My emphasis.

There is no substitute for experience.

Some may believe this oft-quoted line refers to generalized experience, such as a a number of years in service, or an age.  By "experience", I, though, am referring to inside corporate knowledge of the life of a project or program.  This (truly) specialized experience is what creates competence in an individual when presented a problem to solve that requires firsthand background knowledge.  Usually an event in a program's life (such as a contract award) is just not documented succinctly and meaningfully enough for an inexperienced person to expertly handle that event's related problems that come up later.  An organization performing truly meaningful work has got to learn how to manage its own knowledge, without relying on some outside influence like OFPP.

Quote

And I think it's foolish to believe that an acting head of OFPP can solve it.

As a country, we no longer seem to believe in the concept that in order to achieve something important you need someone who knows what they're doing and has been given a clear mission and a mandate to do it and to fire anyone who won't or can't follow orders and contribute.

Vern, I agree.  But firing someone just isn’t likely in the government.

I started browsing the history of OFPP Administrators and surprised to see Lesley Field as number 16.  With the exception of Steve Kelman none have any long lasting notable accomplishments.  Most are placed in the job to promote whatever the current Administration’s goals are.  It seems as if they aren’t supposed to do anything more.  

What’s needed is an Administrator that can go to Congress and sell them with feasible concepts to improve the process. But does any President and Congress really want that?

Certainly recruitment and retention of the workforce is important.  And new blood with fresh ideas and motivation is key to the success of any organization.  But the current HR process doesn’t support that.  It’s antiquated and geared towards personnel practices of the 1970s.  I don’t see Lesley Field doing much despite the rhetoric.

formerfed said:

With the exception of Steve Kelman none have any long lasting notable accomplishments.

@formerfedInteresting that you should say that. I just emailed my next Nash & Cibinic article to the editor and I said much the same. Although I did not always agree with Steve (performance-based contracting), I think he was the best Administrator we've ever had.

As for presidents, I think most have been clueless about the effect of procurement policy on their ability to get things done, although the current one has discovered the Defense Production Act. Presidents won't be remembered by improving procurement policy. That's why they don't care who they appoint to be Administrator and whether they are confirmed. Although presidents are "chief executives," they don't think of themselves as the managers of the Executive Branch. 

But, to be fair, they're just politicians, so what can you expect?

formerfed said:

Certainly recruitment and retention of the workforce is important.  And new blood with fresh ideas and motivation is key to the success of any organization.

Yes. And the way to get that is to improve professional education, training, leadership, and selection. The sad thing is that the government hires some very good people, then disappoints them.

@Voyager

Voyager said:

This (truly) specialized experience is what creates competence in an individual when presented a problem to solve that requires firsthand background knowledge.

Experience alone does not create competence. Educators, trainers, leaders, experience, and personal commitment are what create competence. It's a cyclic process. It's never done, and it must never end.

Vern Edwards said:

Educators, trainers, leaders, experience, and personal commitment are what create competence.

Of course.  A modicum baseline of all these is necessary to unlock the potential benefits of truly specialized knowledge.  I have seen a contracts shop where a former wage grade earner whom was Reduction-In-Force'd into the 1102 series was now the most senior contract specialist.  This person benefited the program very little except during breaks, where he's spin tall tales for us.  I called him the glue that held the shop together.  He was a GS-12 lifer, just happy to be there, and his lack of baseline education meant he could never succinctly or meaningfully recall knowledge to solve any of our problems.

In fact, of all the things you listed and I quoted, I think the man only had what you call "personal commitment".  Try firing that!  No, instead, exercising severe moral hazard, the shop just did not promote him.

So, is that what you meant by personal commitment?  I'd love to hear more about this topic from you, as it is a bit intangible.

Vern Edwards said:

professional education, training,

In my opinion, professional education as called for in a job qualification should just be enough to enable one to understand all assigned training.  And I don't mean training in the contents of a web module.  "Training" should mean reading the source material (while skipping along in the web module).

@Voyager

Voyager said:

Of course.  A modicum baseline of all these is necessary...

Voyager said:

In my opinion, professional education as called for in a job qualification should just be enough to enable one to understand all assigned training.

I do not share your views. I think a professional needs more than a "modicum" and "just... enough." We are not in agreement. Not even close. And I hope that your views are not widely shared by others.

If a young contract specialist were to ask me for a reading that would help them on  their way to competence, I would tell them to read and study Samuel Johnson's essay, "'Rules' of Writing," written in 1751, or Plato's "Gorgias." You would probably ask what either of those has to do with being a procurement professional. I would say, "Everything."

But I don't think you would understand.

In my defense, I was referring to new hires, aged 20-35.  I agree the obtainment of knowledge should never end, once one is hired.  So we likely are closer to agreement than you think if referring to those aged 36 and up.

I am especially interested in new hires aged 20 - 35.  Those aged 36 and up, if properly educated, would not need my advice. By the time I was 36 I already knew I was hopelessly ignorant.  I'm 75 now, and still hopelessly ignorant.

BTW, here is a quote from Johnson's essay, the third paragraph, which might prompt some thoughts about today's contracting rules:

Quote

The systems of learning therefore must be sometimes reviewed, complications analysed [sic] into principles, and knowledge disentangled from opinion. It is not always possible, without a close inspection, to separate the genuine shoots of consequential reasoning, which grow out of some radical postulate, from the branches which art has engrafted on it. The accidental prescriptions of authority, when time has procured them veneration, are often confounded with the laws of nature, and those rules are supposed coeval with reason of which the first rise cannot be discovered.

Now think about the requirements for certified cost or pricing data and for full and open competition.

Vern Edwards said:

Now think about the requirements for certified cost or pricing data and for full and open competition.

Or maybe, based on most recent discussion the need for OFPP?

On 6/23/2022 at 11:26 AM, Vern Edwards said:

As a country, we no longer seem to believe in the concept that in order to achieve something important you need someone who knows what they're doing and has been given a clear mission and a mandate to do it and to fire anyone who won't or can't follow orders and contribute.

Maybe the OFPP Administrator can’t fix everything but if I was in that position I would be screaming for change. I would be sending up flags to the contracting workforce, Congress, and the rest of government.  The current process is drastically outdated and broke.  Congress and the Administration need to push for change.  I don’t think China, North Korea, and other potential adversaries wait months and sometimes years to get contracts in place.

Our acquisition workforce is risk adverse.  People are afraid to do anything new or different.  They need several layers of management and approval for every action they take.  Policy people that review actions and lawyers take the conservative route.  So many contract specialists when faced with a new procurement cut and paste from prior examples.  They do this even when the fit is lacking. I’ve said before that if changes don’t happen and 1102’s don’t demonstrate value and prompt support to agency programs, program managers will be given procurement authority.  

We need new policies, new laws, new people, and new training and grooming recent hires.

On 6/24/2022 at 4:36 AM, Voyager said:

Of course.  A modicum baseline of all these is necessary to unlock the potential benefits of truly specialized knowledge.  I have seen a contracts shop where a former wage grade earner whom was Reduction-In-Force'd into the 1102 series was now the most senior contract specialist.  This person benefited the program very little except during breaks, where he's spin tall tales for us.  I called him the glue that held the shop together.  He was a GS-12 lifer, just happy to be there, and his lack of baseline education meant he could never succinctly or meaningfully recall knowledge to solve any of our problems.

In fact, of all the things you listed and I quoted, I think the man only had what you call "personal commitment".  Try firing that!  No, instead, exercising severe moral hazard, the shop just did not promote him.

So, is that what you meant by personal commitment?  I'd love to hear more about this topic from you, as it is a bit intangible.

Emphasis added.

@Voyager

Okay. Fair enough. By "personal commitment" I mean, among other things:

• taking personal responsibility for knowing what you must know and being able to do what you must do in order to be not just competent, but expert;
• taking inventory of your knowledge and skills and making lists of topics to study and skills to improve, especially basic knowledge and skills;
• seeking and reading books and articles pertinent (in the broadest sense) to your work and to the work that you hope to do and studying them;
• taking and maintaining well-organized study notes (see How To Take Smart Notes, 2d ed., by Sönke Ahrens) and reviewing them;
• practicing skills, such as reading difficult material and writing clearly;
• getting up early and staying up late to read and to write (you must do both in order to learn);
• never letting anyone know more about your work than you do;
• being ambitious for recognition by superiors and colleagues as knowing and being good at what you do;
• seeking the "hard" tasks (volunteering to "take point");
• not settling into a specific job, but moving around in order to gain broader and better experience;
• working long and hard to do well for yourself, your colleagues, and your organization; and, finally,
• deciding whether you want to be a professional or just an employee.

In short, it means that if you want to be a professional you must devote yourself to your profession. It means wanting and pursuing more than a "modicum baseline" and "just enough."

Is that tangible enough, Voyager?

@Vern Edwards

Your first nine points are well taken and I second them.  I contend, however, that they not be made baseline qualifications for a job, but be instead products of an organization’s culture.  An organization needs but one leader in charge that values these things and holds people accountable to them, and that leader will mold many 20- to 35-year-olds into what you desire.  They can be screened for the plasticity of mind to accept this culture during the interview process.  Just look at Bill Belichick’s Patriots culture in the NFL (for lack of a modern-day intellectual to which we can compare).  He takes what his people desperately want - glory - and says, “Follow me to it.”  A leader in federal contracting might use the unlimited warrant as a similar incentive to demand studious personal commitment.

Vern Edwards said:

not settling into a specific job, but moving around in order to gain broader and better experience

Is this quoted point scalable to the entire contracting workforce?  Or could perhaps a systems CS/CO be more valuable to this country by walking with a PM(s) hand-in-hand through all three Milestone Decisions of a program?

Does the quoted point apply to all the years of one’s career?  Or is there a point in time when one should settle down and commit to a favorite organization’s mission, and the improvement thereof for a decade or so?

All good points to ponder.  Thank you for getting me to think this through.  I just wonder if the contracting workforce should focus on spurring better mid-career leaders, vice wishing for better new hires.  After all:

On 6/23/2022 at 11:26 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I can think of of two persons who exemplify, "I'm in charge. I'm accountable. And you're going to do what I say and get it done or you are gone." And they both achieved a great thing for our country when our country needed it.

You said it.

Vern Edwards said:

not settling into a specific job, but moving around in order to gain broader and better experience;

There are offsetting considerations for this to consider, especially if you have a family. Moving every few years is disruptive and can be expensive. And if you have to finance a home purchase each time, it could result in having to pay off the mortgage loan well into retirement age.

Vern Edwards said:

By "personal commitment" I mean, among other things

Voyager said:

Does the quoted point apply to all the years of one’s career?

joel hoffman said:

There are offsetting considerations for this to consider, especially if you have a family. Moving every few years is disruptive and can be expensive. And if you have to finance a home purchase each time, it could result in having to pay off the mortgage loan well into retirement age.

The quotes I have picked are not to dwell on each but to further an element that is missed in the discussion with regard personal commitment.

Directing my comments towards the civilian side of the house I have always wondered why what I will call "life experiences" do not count for much.  I agree that to an extent life experiences are noted such as being an avid and broad reader but if one looks at the FAI certification and what is noted as core competencies there is a whole world where they can be achieved.  Yet when it comes to CLP's  to support "continuous learning" the professional is solely directed to knowledge and assets with emphasis that are government centric.  Some how personal commitment should be acknowledged and a persons outside interests acknowledged and given credit.  Being a professional does not stop at the door of the Federal building. 

To quickly try to get to my point why isn't doing things like achieving a  USCG Captains License, meeting qualifications standards and having experience in court mediation programs , participating substantially in civic activities such as serving on a planning commission, a city's budget committee, being an officer of the board and otherwise active with an NGO, acknowledged as ways to achieve competencies?  If acknowledged officially maybe doing so is a measure of personal commitment as well?

joel hoffman said:

There are offsetting considerations for this to consider, especially if you have a family. Moving every few years is disruptive and can be expensive. And if you have to finance a home purchase each time, it could result in having to pay off the mortgage loan well into retirement age.

You can change jobs without ever relocating. For example, if you go to Los Angeles, you can rotate doing a variety of acquisitions and contracting - R&D, ACAT, SCAT, operational, staff, etc.

Voyager said:

I just wonder if the contracting workforce should focus on spurring better mid-career leaders, vice wishing for better new hires.

We would benefit from accepting that a myopic view of leadership is limiting and should be abandoned. Informal leaders play a vital role in (1) getting things done and (2) the growth and development of other practitioners (including new hires).

More is caught than taught. In my observations, contracting folks adhere to what is modeled for them. They are influenced heavily by traditions and norms more so than by what they are told or the rules state. Most are practical people and just want to get things done without being admonished by their leadership.

Social influence of compliance and conformity is powerful. We can combat or balance some of the negatives of social influence by leveraging informal leaders in new ways (influencers and change agents). After all, look how many people come to this site for information. Why does WIFCON have more influence than some supervisors?

@Jamaal Valentine  I agree.  Contracting folks do indeed adhere to what’s modeled for them.  “Cut and paste” from other documents, templates and approved samples endorsed by management, office checklists, etc.  Creativity and ingenuity often doesn’t exist.  So many 1102s just go through the motions with the objective of making a timely award without protests

It’s amazing also how the same process gets done so many ways across offices.  Some are good practices while others are wrong. Things like requirements for negotiation memorandums, source selection decisions, and even FAR 5.2 announcements differ widely. Just look at the recent thread here on synopsizing for simplified acquisitions over $25,000 in value. 

Comments about changing jobs to get broader exposure are spot on.  So many offices have common practices that are just flat out wrong.  They are perpetuated by staff that haven’t worked anyplace else.  Plus offices that do all kinds of contracting just don’t exist.  Changing jobs to learn new things and obtaining broader exposure in our field is very beneficial.  Plus being subjected to new things, new people, and no processes is self-challenging and motivational.  Despite how good someone is in their job, people get content and bored with the status quo.  Having to start new and prove yourself all over again can be rejuvenating in someone’s career.

Jamaal Valentine said:

You can change jobs without ever relocating. For example, if you go to Los Angeles, you can rotate doing a variety of acquisitions and contracting - R&D, ACAT, SCAT, operational, staff, etc.

True enough, but I don’t think that Vern was necessarily limiting his comment to such scenarios. My first and second civil service bosses told me many years ago that I could choose a path of staying in one location for my career for financial stability but limited growth and promotion opportunities or be willing to move for greater growth, professional opportunities  and promotion potential. I chose the latter path. Lived in three different continents and numerous cities and 5 states.

Im still paying off my home mortgage, while friends who stayed put have paid off mortgages and have beach condos, etc. I retired at a much higher grade than most of them and had a very challenging, varied and fulfilling career.

joel hoffman said:

True enough, but I don’t think that Vern was necessarily limiting his comment to such scenarios. My first and second civil service bosses told me many years ago that I could choose a path of staying in one location for my career for financial stability but limited growth and promotion opportunities or be willing to move for greater growth, professional opportunities  and promotion potential. I chose the latter path. Lived in three different continents and numerous cities and 5 states.

Im still paying off my home mortgage, while friends who stayed put have paid off mortgages and have beach condos, etc. I retired at a much higher grade than most of them and had a very challenging, varied and fulfilling career.

Relocation is not longer a financial hardship.  I know of dozens of 1102s that did this and weren’t harmed financially.  

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/recruitment-relocation-retention-incentives/fact-sheets/relocation-incentives/

Of course this doesn’t negate family issues, especially children, that involve moving to a new geographical area

joel hoffman said:

Im still paying off my home mortgage, while friends who stayed put have paid off mortgages and have beach condos, etc. I retired at a much higher grade than most of them and had a very challenging, varied and fulfilling career.

Oh, for Pete's sake. It's a personal decision. If you can't or don't want to move around, THEN DON'T.

Criminy, Joel!  Way to go from a big idea to a small one!

On 6/26/2022 at 8:13 AM, C Culham said:

Directing my comments towards the civilian side of the house I have always wondered why what I will call "life experiences" do not count for much.  I agree that to an extent life experiences are noted such as being an avid and broad reader but if one looks at the FAI certification and what is noted as core competencies there is a whole world where they can be achieved.  Yet when it comes to CLP's  to support "continuous learning" the professional is solely directed to knowledge and assets with emphasis that are government centric.  Some how personal commitment should be acknowledged and a persons outside interests acknowledged and given credit.  Being a professional does not stop at the door of the Federal building. 

To quickly try to get to my point why isn't doing things like achieving a  USCG Captains License, meeting qualifications standards and having experience in court mediation programs , participating substantially in civic activities such as serving on a planning commission, a city's budget committee, being an officer of the board and otherwise active with an NGO, acknowledged as ways to achieve competencies?  If acknowledged officially maybe doing so is a measure of personal commitment as well?

My emphases.  From what I have seen, the OFPP (e.g., this guidance) and agency-level guidance on CLPs does not limit the supervisor from approving continuous learning in these things, Carl.  Here's a passage from OFPP guidance about recommended activities for CLPs, with boldened emphases that tie to your above quote:

Quote

B. Participating in Professional Organizations and/or their Events

CLPs may be earned for participating in professional organizations, attending events sponsored by them, and obtaining professional licenses or certifications. Membership in a professional organization alone will not be considered as fulfilling continuous learning requirements, but participation in the organization leadership will. Before participating in professional organizations, workforce members must ensure that their participation is authorized by their agency and is permitted by ethics laws and regulations. Examples of activities that may qualify for CLPs include holding elected/appointed positions, such as committee leadership roles, or attending and/or presenting at educational conferences or meetings.

For an agency example, check out this guidance from DOE, on its recommended professional activities to earn CLPs (bold emphases added):

Quote

• Publishing. Writing articles or books related to acquisition for publication generally meets the criteria for continuous learning. Points will be awarded only in the year published. Compliance with agency publication policy is required. 1 CLP per hour, maximum 20 CLPs per year.
• Self-Directed Study - An individual can keep current or enhance his or her capabilities through a self-directed study program agreed to by the supervisor. 1 CLP per hour.

Middle management has the approval authority - the subordinates need only ask.  The onus is squarely on them to do so.  As a precursor, a manager should hire those (otherwise competent) whom express interests in these things.  That manager should also establish a culture that appreciates these things just as much as it appreciates issuance of an RFP, approval of an Acquisition Plan, or other governmental, middling accomplishments.

Just now, Voyager said:

From what I have seen, the OFPP (e.g., this guidance) and agency-level guidance on CLPs does not limit the supervisor from approving continuous learning in these things, Carl.

Agreed but by experience the OFPP guidance is just that and agencies have adopted the government centric view even when the supervisor suggests strongly to approve the CLP's.  One more nail in the coffin for OFPP effectiveness.

C Culham said:

agencies have adopted the government centric view even when the supervisor suggests strongly to approve the CLP's

I think this is misinformed.  That same link above and my experience tells us all CLPs are approved by the supervisor solely.  If the supervisor is worried about what someone might think by approving these CLPs, this tells me one of three things, in progressively worse order: (1) the supervisor is a risk-averse or narrow-minded, (2) the culture somewhere higher up is toxic and the supervisor is afraid of it, or (3) the Acquisition Career Management Program (ACMP) is toxic.

Voyager said:

I think this is misinformed.

Yep but all the same...cherry picked quotes from a Department CLP memo....one I am familiar with but I am willing to bet there are others!  It might be dated yet demonstrates a viewpoint that I do not think has changed.

"...Monitoring progress and completion of continuous learning (CL) is a joint effort between an employee, their Supervisor, and the Bureau CL Manager (typically the ACM designated in the USDA agencies (ACMD))..."

"...FAITAS will indicate when employees complete the required number of CLPs for maintaining certification.  The employee must then submit a CL Achievement Request for their supervisor’s approval; once approved, the request will be reviewed for approval by the Bureau CL Manager (BCLM).  The BCLM is the final approver for accepting CL events and their associated CL points (CLPs).   CLPs will not be accepted for attending duplicative events (courses, seminars, conferences, etc.) within a four year period...."

On 6/25/2022 at 10:14 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Emphasis added.

@Voyager

Okay. Fair enough. By "personal commitment" I mean, among other things:

• seeking and reading books and articles pertinent (in the broadest sense) to your work and to the work that you hope to do and studying them;
• getting up early and staying up late to read and to write (you must do both in order to learn);
• deciding whether you want to be a professional or just an employee.

These three bullets really resonated with me. For the first bullet, I've been consistently surprised how reading something about an unrelated-to-contracting topic can influence my thinking about my contracting job. It happens all the time--something I read in the New Yorker or some such publication ends up having direct relevance to a project I'm working.

Just today, in regards to the second bullet, I was writing an email to a colleague that was mildly critical of a plan that I came across. I rewrote a key paragraph several times to make sure I captured the idea correctly. It landed perfectly--she immediately understood my position. The process of writing that helped me understand my own position. 

The last bullet is where I see a lot of challenges. I work with a decent amount of young-ish 1102s and there are a few of them that want the respect that being a professional accrues, without putting the work into becoming a professional. Becoming a professional is hard and it isn't a task that is ever fully complete. Vern commented that he's 75 and "still hopelessly ignorant." I'm 41 and much behind Vern on the ignorance scale (or am I ahead of Vern? Point is, Vern has forgotten more about contracting than I know), but a little less so every day.

On 6/23/2022 at 1:39 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The cohort of federal procurement professionals is aging, while agencies face challenges competing with the private sector to recruit younger workers.

There are more people 70 and older than there are people under 25 years old working in federal procurement, Field said at the Professional Services Council’s Federal Acquisition Conference on Tuesday. Overall, only 7% of the acquisition workforce is under 30 years old.

'These statistics make a pretty compelling case to make our workforce a top priority—both the pipeline, the recruitment, the development, and the retention,” she said.'"

Emphasis added.

Vern posted the above a few weeks ago.  As you can see from our poll of Wifcon users, this has spread to Wifcon.com.  Of 23 votes cast in our unscientific poll to date, all 23 votes are from users who are 30 and above.  Even more scary is the fact that about 44% of us are 60 years and above.  It isn't as if there is no new blood here because I continue to add new members every day -- from the government and industry.

Over the past few years, I have found less and less information to post on the daily Home Page.  It hasn't happened overnight.  Rather, it has happened over the years.  I've been adding more and more sources to search for information that contracting individuals might find useful.  Quite franly, the amount of information out there has declined from that in the past.  It's as if no one cares about you.

Last Friday, OMB released its plans for the Administration's management agenda for federal contracting.  I consider it BALONEY.  Actually, I have many more unkind thigs to say about it.  You may say Where is it? as you search.  I think it is objectives without stating the existence of a problem to correct

It’s just political noise.  Mid term elections are coming up and the Administration has dwindled the list of topics where it’s down to Federal contracting after almost two years.  This is just more “look what we are doing for the country.”

I think a more proper focus for a management agenda is modernizing the contracting process to make us competitive internationally.

From the President’s Management Agenda, we get,

“Priority 1: Strengthening and Empowering the Federal Workforce

…

“Make every Federal job a good job, where all employees are engaged, supported, heard, and empowered, with opportunities to learn, grow, join a union and have an effective voice in their workplaces through their union, and thrive throughout their careers.”

This president’s management agenda is hopelessly out of touch with reality and represents a total lack of direction.

formerfed said:

It’s just political noise.  Mid term elections are coming up and the Administration has dwindled the list of topics where it’s down to Federal contracting after almost two years.  This is just more “look what we are doing for the country.”

I think a more proper focus for a management agenda is modernizing the contracting process to make us competitive internationally.

I was thinking about modernizing the contracting process when I looked at the baloney last night.  This morning I looked at the clean version of H. R. 7900, the House NDAA for 2023.  I mention clean version because it just started the amendment process yesterday.  It was reported out of House committee on 7/1/22.  Theoretically, during the hearing process, one of the representatives on the committee identifies a real need that requires the law to be changed.

Title 8 is the annual dumping groung for bad contracting ideas.  Bad, in the sense that we don't need another piece of legislative garbage clogging up the contracting process.  It didn't take me long to find one.  Here it is

Quote

SEC. 803. PREFERENCE FOR DOMESTIC FOODS FOR MILITARY WORKING DOGS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 287 of title 10, United States Code, is 

amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 3906. Preference for domestic foods for military working dogs
``With respect to the acquisition of food for military working dogs
by the Defense Logistics Agency, the Director of the Defense Logistic
Agency shall give a preference for the acquisition of food that is
manufactured or produced--
``(1) in the United States;
``(2) by an entity that is based in the United States; and
``(3) using only ingredients and materials that were grown,
mined, manufactured, or produced in the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for chapter 287 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``3906. Preference for domestic food for military working dogs.''.

Now, I have 2 dogs that rule my house.  They want something, they get it.  They are a Princess and Prince.  But, do we need to have a legislative requirement to instruct DLA to buy Made in America dog food.  We need someone to read this and get so angry that they begin reforming the process.  As for me . . .

Hopefully, the buyers or shoppers  care enough about their 🐕 and aren’t using low bid acquisition methods anyway! 🐕❤️🤠

To be clear, I think tolerance is good.  I’m an American and we all need to tolerate our fellow Americans.  But too many priorities and unclear direction is a problem every American faces today.  When we tolerate enough people with poorly developed priorities, we collectively head in the wrong direction.  It’s so simple.  History is waiting to tell our kids this.

I wonder, how I can impart my ability to prioritize on others?  If I don’t, my kids will just follow someone else’s agenda, like this one.

On 7/14/2022 at 4:55 AM, bob7947 said:

Title 8 is the annual dumping ground for bad contracting ideas.

So are executive orders.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/15/2022-14967/nondisplacement-of-qualified-workers-under-service-contracts

Forty-five pages.

Quote

Even more scary is the fact that about 44% of us are 60 years and above.

Ok, but I have literally been hearing that since I was hired as an intern in 1992 under the outstanding scholar program which was put in place because of....the aging 1102 workforce. This is not new.

The fundamental issue is similar to the tax code - Federal procurement is overly complicated and favorable to insiders, because if it weren't complicated and favorable to insiders, an entire sector of our economy would go out of business overnight.  The FAR Bootcamp would be one a one-day webinar! 😆

For example, eliminating the CICA stay would wring out hundreds of  thousands of wasted dollars and hours of effort in Federal procurement but there's too much money being made by insiders to ever allow that.

REA'n Maker said:

The fundamental issue is similar to the tax code - Federal procurement is overly complicated and favorable to insiders, because if it weren't complicated and favorable to insiders, an entire sector of our economy would go out of business overnight.

That's quite an assertion. Not just an issue, but the fundamental issue.

What do you mean by "complicated"? Complicated? Complex? Convoluted? Intricate?

Is the complicatedness problematical only because it favors "insiders"?

How do you define "insiders"?

Vern Edwards said:

So are executive orders.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/07/15/2022-14967/nondisplacement-of-qualified-workers-under-service-contracts

Forty-five pages.

I started working for the government as an Army intern.  The civilian personnel recruiter explained to me in the interview that the contracting field is interesting and challenging.  He said I would learn about contract law, cost accounting, and negotiation.  The commendable objective of the field is buying critical goods and services in a timely manner and at good prices.  I would undergo two years of training including five weeks in basic contracting at Fort Lee, three weeks in contract administration at Wright Patterson, and three weeks in cost/price analysis and negotiation techniques at a Navy site in Arlington.   My on the job training would be done by seasoned contract specialists at one of the largest centers in the government doing centralized buying for ammunition at the peak of the Viet Nam period.  It was an exciting experience.

Young people entering the field today don’t get that same training and exposure.  Contracting today is much different.  It’s far from being from what I learned.  Contract specialists have to do through a maze figuring out mandatory sources, applicable socioeconomic considerations, preferred contract vehicles, and multiple clearances with lots of second guessing of their decisions.  In addition to dealing with many more laws and constraints, there are political initiatives that really have nothing to do with contracting for the government.  The executive order cited above is a prime example.  Why should the government care about how a contractor hires their employees?  This executive order is just issued to satisfy a sector of the voting base.  We are subject to the political flavor of the month.  

I don’t remember who said this but their comment was along this line - every new initiative starts out with “we will leverage their buying power of the Federal government”  What happened to acquiring things quickly at a fair price?  As I wrote this, I’m wondering how I would react to questions of a recent college graduate about entering the 1102 occupation.

On 7/15/2022 at 2:44 PM, Vern Edwards said:

That's quite an assertion. Not just an issue, but the fundamental issue.

What do you mean by "complicated"? Complicated? Complex? Convoluted? Intricate?

Is the complicatedness problematical only because it favors "insiders"?

How do you define "insiders"?

Fundamental to this issue, yes.  Immigration law is the same way for the same reasons.  New rules and regulations are added every day at every level to create the illusion of progress when all they are doing is adding layers of complexity which accomplish nothing.  When I was a consultant I conducted an organizational assessment of USCIS during the INS breakup period and had numerous interviews with the adjudicators ("immigration officers") who described driving to work in the morning and hearing about some new law or regulation that they had to implement when they got to work without any clue of what any of it meant.  It definitely struck me how similar that is to being an 1102 (think Covid clauses).

"Sustainable acquisition checklists" , "strategic sourcing memos" and the like multiply like flies and accomplish nothing except add to the space required to store our files.  Don't even get me started with what has been done to Part 12.  The -4 and -5 clause packages have ballooned, what, by a factor of 10 times or more since they were first conceived?  Is acquisition of commercial supplies and services  any the better for it?

Complicated, Convoluted, Complex, Intricate. And don't forget Contradictory.  I'm now required to evaluate a vendor regarding their "equity and inclusion"  but personal services considerations preclude me from having anything to do with hiring decisions. How is THAT supposed to work exactly?

Complicatededness is only relevant to insiders.

Insiders are anyone who profits from the current system, including this guy (points thumbs at self).