[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ON THE FRONT LINES IN THE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE'S BATTLE AGAINST
TAXPAYER WASTE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION
POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
PROCUREMENT REFORM
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 16, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-963 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania, Vice GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
TIM WALBERG, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho JACKIE SPEIER, California
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 16, 2011................................ 1
Statement of:
Gordon, Daniel I., Administrator, Federal Procurement Policy,
Office of Management and Budget............................ 9
Hutton, John P., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Roger
Jordan, vice president of government relations,
Professional Services Council; Donna M. Jenkins, Director,
Federal Acquisition Institute, U.S. General Services
Administration; and Katrina G. McFarland, president,
Defense Acquisition University, Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,
Department of Defense...................................... 24
Hutton, John P........................................... 24
Jenkins, Donna M......................................... 46
Jordan, Roger............................................ 38
McFarland, Katrina G..................................... 53
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, prepared statement of............... 8
Gordon, Daniel I., Administrator, Federal Procurement Policy,
Office of Management and Budget, prepared statement of..... 12
Hutton, John P., Director, Acquisition and Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 27
Jenkins, Donna M., Director, Federal Acquisition Institute,
U.S. General Services Administration, prepared statement of 48
Jordan, Roger, vice president of government relations,
Professional Services Council, prepared statement of....... 40
Lankford, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oklahoma, prepared statement of................... 4
McFarland, Katrina G., president, Defense Acquisition
University, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Department of
Defense, prepared statement of............................. 56
ON THE FRONT LINES IN THE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE'S BATTLE AGAINST
TAXPAYER WASTE
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Lankford
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lankford, Labrador, and Connolly.
Staff present: Richard A. Beutel, senior counsel; Molly
Boyl, parliamentarian; Sharon Casey, senior assistant clerk;
Mark D. Marin, director of oversight; Devon Hill, minority
staff assistant; Rory Sheehan, minority new media press
secretary; Cecelia Thomas, minority counsel.
Mr. Lankford. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee
exists to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans
have the right to know the money Washington takes from them is
well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient,
effective government that works for them. Our duty in the
Oversight and Government Committee is to protect these rights.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable
to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they
get from their government. We will work tirelessly and in
partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the
American people and secure genuine reform to the Federal
bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee.
I will make a brief opening statement. In addition to the
nature of the workload, let me back up, the people who plan and
prepare and issue Government contracts play a vital role in
protecting the interests of the American taxpayer. We are all
familiar with stories about $16 muffins and $600 hammers being
bought by the government. But these stories often turn out to
be more complicated than the sound bite would suggest.
But they do reflect an underlying reality. The Government
must have capable people overseeing these complex acquisitions
in order to properly steward the taxpayers' money. It is
essential to have skilled, capable people acquiring the goods
and services necessary to run the government and to serve the
American people. Our Federal Government is the single largest
customer in the world. And its acquisition work force is
grappling with a huge increase in volume. Between fiscal year
2000 and 2008, acquisition spending by the Federal Government
expended by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $539 billion.
Today, procurement spending is approaching $700 billion.
In addition to the nature of what that workload has become
increasingly complex. Government procurement increasingly
reflects complex services rather than just simple goods. It is
a lot harder to acquire a complex engineering and technical
expertise than to buy office supplies. Services, not supplies,
now account for 70 percent of the Federal Government's
spending.
Many experts note the need for proper training of
acquisition officers concerning the complex and frequently
changing Federal contracting environment. While seismic shifts
are occurring in the landscape of Federal acquisitions, the
skills and tools of the Federal acquisitions work force has
remained largely stagnant. This further places agency missions
and taxpayer funds at risk. Improving the skills of the Federal
acquisition work force is in the best interest of everyone
involved: the Federal acquisition work force, the contractors,
the government, and all taxpayers.
Two broad reforms are being required. First, how do we
improve Government-wide leadership in the coordination and
development of the Federal acquisition professionals? Defense
Acquisition University and the Federal Acquisition Institute
play central roles in the training and shaping of the
acquisition work force. But why does the Government has so many
training centers? Who is coordinating the curriculum between
the civilian and military acquisition work force to allow for
work force mobility and advancement? Should the Government
break training centers into centers of excellence, each
focusing upon a specific speciality, such as creating an i.d.
cadre? I just want to ask the question and let's find out.
Second, beyond leadership and coordination, we must focus
on the Government's use of tools and advanced capabilities to
equip qualified acquisition work force professionals. Why isn't
there a standardized contract writing tool across the whole
Government? Why is the tracking and reporting data on the
Federal procurement data base unreliable at times and sometime
deficient?
We know there are several new initiatives underway to
improve the acquisition work force. Some of these initiatives
include such programs as mentoring and intern programs, the use
of flexible hiring authority, increase college recruitment
efforts and improvements within the acquisition work force
career track. We are going to ask what else, and is it enough
and how is it going.
I look forward to hearing more about these efforts today
and working with the ranking member on the common ground that
we do have on this very important issue. We spent a significant
amount of time talking to people that have Government contracts
and trying to chat on what are the solutions that they see,
what are the things that they identify. And a lot of this
conversation today will focus on the low-hanging fruit, what
can we get accomplished, where should we be going, and how are
we doing in the progress that we are making at this point.
So with that, in perfect timing, I would like to recognize
the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Connolly, for his opening
statement. You missed my fabulous opening statement, Mr.
Connolly.
[The prepared statement of Hon. James Lankford follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.002
Mr. Connolly. I will get a tape.
Mr. Lankford. I am sure you will.
Mr. Connolly. And tonight, when I get home.
Mr. Lankford. That would be a terrific date night.
Mr. Connolly. I will watch it.
I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
hearing to review the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement
Act and other acquisition personnel issues. I appreciate your
attention to the issue which is of critical importance to
Federal employees, contractors and taxpayers.
As you know, Senator Collins and I introduced companion
bills to strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, and that
legislation has been included in the House National Defense
Authorization Act. I appreciate the administration's support
for our efforts and believe this bill will support Donna
Jenkins' efforts to strengthen FAI. I look forward to
discussing the bill with both panels of witnesses.
In addition to strengthening the FAI, it is appropriate
that we would consider other acquisition work force policies
that can improve Federal efficiency and the delivery of
services. Chief among these are personnel policies with respect
to recruitment, retention and compensation, which are all
related, obviously. As the thoughtful staff memorandum for this
hearing noted, the acquisition work force is experiencing a
silver tsunami, in which 25 percent of employees could retire
within the next several years. The shortage would only be
exacerbated by mindless attempts to slash the Federal work
force through attrition or layoffs.
Federal agencies need to be recruiting the next generation
of acquisition staff right now, while training existing
personnel to adapt to a changing procurement environment which
is more focused on services and technology. In order to recruit
new staff and retain existing staff, it is imperative that we
maintain competitive compensation packages in the Federal work
force. While Federal employees may never be paid as much as
their private sector counterparts, and indeed, we recently had
a study that shows we have actually had deterioration in that
ratio, we cannot allow that gap to widen so much that we lose
our best acquisition personnel to the private sector.
Fortunately, many individuals and agencies are leading the
way to improve the acquisition work force. The administration's
25 point plan for IT reform, for example, calls for the
creation of acquisition career paths focused on technology in
which OMB and FAI are in fact collaborating.
DOD is hiring 10,000 new acquisition personnel over the
next 4 years. Donna Jenkins has expanded the FAI staff from six
to nine, a 50 percent increase, to meet the growing agency
demands. But I hardly think that is adequate. And it is
partnering with a diverse set of agencies to maximize the
impact of a very small team of experts.
The Veterans Affairs Administration has opened an
outstanding acquisition training academy in the national
capital region. These are all laudable efforts, and I hope we
will learn today how best we can support them, including but
not limited to passing the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act.
In a recent hearing, we learned about one appalling
consequence of a lack of contracting oversight, widespread
human trafficking among overseas subcontractors. And again, I
congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for holding those delicate but
very important hearings. We must maintain a focus on this
issue, because whether it is human trafficking or the failure
to hold down contract costs, our acquisition personnel are in
the front lines on behalf of our constituents, the taxpayers.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing, and I
look forward to our continued collaboration on acquisition work
force issues.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.003
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Other Members may
have 7 days to submit opening statements or extraneous
materials for the record.
We will now welcome our first panel, the Honorable Dan
Gordon. He is the Administrator of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy for a little while longer. Dan has been a
forceful advocate on behalf of the acquisition work force for
many years. In his role as OFPP Administrator, he has been a
tireless proponent for the men and women who steward our
taxpayer dollars. And we appreciate that.
Recently, Dan announced his intent to leave Federal service
to join the distinguished faculty at George Washington
University Law School as an associate dean. It seems fitting to
have Dan here today to discuss one of his passions, the
acquisition work force, which was the centerpiece for his
Senate confirmation hearing 2 years ago. I do thank you for
your distinguished service, congratulate you on your new
position and look forward to continuing to pick your brain in
the days to come on the things that you see as deficiencies and
ways we can go after this and be able to solve some of the
problems.
Pursuant to committee rules, witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. I would ask you, Mr. Gordon, if you would
please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Lankford. Let the record reflect the witness answered
in the affirmative. You may be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, you know the drill
here very well, you have been here before, we would ask you to
limit your testimony to 5 to 10 minutes, then we are going to
pepper you with questions after that. Your entire written
statement will be made part of the record, so feel free to be
able to make oral statements that are above and beyond your
written statement as well.
We now recognize you for 5 minute for an opening statement,
Mr. Gordon.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL I. GORDON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Gordon. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly,
other members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here
today. There is nothing that I care about more in the
acquisition system than strengthening our acquisition work
force. It is my top priority, it is our top priority. And I'd
like to talk about a number of points in this brief opening
statement.
I do want to broaden the scope a bit wider, and you will
see what I mean in a moment, because I think it is helpful to
have somewhat more context. As you said, Mr. Chairman, the
Federal acquisition system spends in buying goods and services
more than half a trillion dollars a year. That number was going
up very fast between 2000 and 2009. I am happy to report that
in fact, we have slowed that down so that in 2010, the number
actually went down. And while we don't have final numbers for
2011, it appears that they will be roughly at that lower level
of 2010.
The Federal acquisition work force, as you said, Mr.
Chairman, handles that half a trillion dollars a year, and it
is very important that they be in a position to protect the
integrity of the Federal procurement process. That is why
Congressman Connolly's comments resonate so much with us in
terms of protecting and strengthening the Federal acquisition
work force.
When I talked about broadening the scope, I want to make
clear that when we say the acquisition work force, we mean more
than our contracting officers and contract specialists, what we
in the personnel system call our 1102s. It also includes our
contracting officer's representatives [CORs]. In some agencies,
they are called COTARs, contracting officer's technical reps.
They play a key role in contract management, contract
oversight. And that is a role that has been much neglected,
frankly, over the last quarter of a century. I want to talk a
little bit about strengthening that COR role.
In addition, we have project and program managers who are
part of the acquisition work force but are often disconnected
from the actual contracting shops.
One of the things that we have tried to do in this
administration is look at that entire acquisition work force
and be sure that we are strengthening that entire work force.
We in OMB have been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen
the work force. As I am sure you know, the President's budget
for 2011 and 2012 requested significant dollar investments in
the Federal acquisition work force. And while Congress did not
appropriate all the money that we requested, we did have some
success in strengthening the acquisition work force at a good
number of agencies.
But when I talk about broadening the scope, I want to talk
about it in a different dimension as well. Because for much of
the last quarter of a century, when we talked about
acquisition, we really talked about who got the contract, the
award of the contract was usually our focus. And in this
administration, we have tried to broaden that scope as well, so
that we spend much more time and energy focused on acquisition
planning. Because frankly, whether it is a large IT project or
any other large project, when we screw up, often it is because
we didn't do good acquisition planning.
And then after the award of the contract, we need to do a
much better job of contract management, to be sure that we hold
contractors to the promises they made. They did, after all,
sign a contract. And we need to be sure that they deliver on
schedule, on cost and with the performance level that they
promised us.
Let me in the brief time that I have highlight a couple of
the ways in which we have tried to improve acquisition planning
in the work force. Number one, our mythbusters memo that we put
out in February of this year talks about the need for our
acquisition work force to listen to industry, to talk to
industry, to have better communication with industry. We can't
do our job properly if we are not talking to and listening to
industry.
Second, as Congressman Connolly pointed out, we are focused
on strengthening specialized acquisition cadres for IT, for
services and for others, so that the acquisition cadre can do a
better job of planning our acquisitions and carrying them out.
In terms of contract management, because of shortage of
time, let me just mention that we have raised the bar for the
standards to be a contracting officer's representative. We now
have a three-tier certification process, so that the COR, or
the contracting officer's representative, overseeing a very
large contract, is someone that has the experience, that has
the training to oversee that very large contract.
In the area of training, you are going to have the benefit
in the next panel of hearing from both Donna Jenkins at the
Federal Acquisition Institute and Katrina McFarland at the
Defense Acquisition University. I will only tell you that we
have worked closely with both and done our best to strengthen
their efforts and to see to it that they are working together,
as they are, so that our taxpayer funds are being well spent.
The fact is, as the stewards of the taxpayer dollars, we
need to be sure that we doing everything that we can to avoid
fraud, waste and abuse, and also to spend the money in an
intelligent way. Our acquisition work force, if treated
properly, if trained properly, if compensated properly, can be
the best protection for the acquisition process. And we
appreciate this committee's commitment to improving the
acquisition work force.
I am happy to answer any questions that committee members
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.010
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
Let me recognize myself initially for a first round of
questions. You obviously walked into this whole thing in
motion. You inherited issues, you worked at it significantly
for a couple of years and now you are leaving for other things.
What is the next person coming in, what should be the first
thing they take on? You would say, this is the low-hanging
fruit, this is the big project that must be done right now?
Mr. Gordon. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, my response is
going to be related to a point that Congressman Connolly made.
I am very concerned, very concerned that the progress we have
made over the past 2 years is at risk. Budgetary pressures
risks slashing the Federal acquisition work force, whether it
is a matter of cutting salaries, cutting benefits, showing
disrespect for our Federal work force, cutting the numbers of
our people, cutting the training that they are getting. We
cannot protect the Federal acquisition process without a good
Federal acquisition work force. And I am very concerned that
budgetary pressures are going to unroll much of the progress
that we have had.
Mr. Lankford. And the task that the next person has coming
in as far as midstream to the projects that you have, I
understand that, because that is true of every agency,
everything that we do in every part of America and every
company currently. Not every, but many companies in America are
dealing with that same issue. The next director that walks in,
what is the project that needs to be first on their desk?
Mr. Gordon. I think the priorities are going to remain the
same priorities. My priority number one has been, strengthen
the Federal acquisition work force. That means look for
opportunities for training, it means do outreach. The second
priority is fiscal responsibility. We need to buy less, we need
to buy smarter. One of the benefits of buying smarter is that
it reduces the burden on the Federal acquisition work force.
Strategic sourcing, by having vehicles in place governmentwide
means that individual contracting officers don't need to run
competitions for contracts. That reduces their workload and is
helpful.
Rebalancing our relationship with contractors, whether it
is improving the communication, part of mythbusters, or seeing
to it that we are doing better contract oversight. We need to
be sure that we have a good balance in our relationship with
contractors. I don't think that can change.
Mr. Lankford. Can I ask a quick question? As you are
listening to contractors, what is the primary thing that is
rising to the top? What are they saying the most? You say it is
a major priority.
Mr. Gordon. Several things. And I do spend a lot of my time
on the road. Listening is something that I learned from my
mother as a very important skill. I try to listen a lot,
whether it is to contractors or Federal officials or others.
Companies are very worried about the uncertainty of what is
about to happen. They are very worried about the budget and how
it is going to impact their own companies and their own
company's work. They are very worried about unjustified
regulation, which is why I and my colleagues have been so
committed to being sure that we do a sensible cost benefit
analysis before we impose new requirements. They are concerned
about excessive reporting requirements, both coming from the
Congress and coming from us in the executive branch.
I think those may be the three. But I should mention in
connection with mythbusters, because I hear this from vendors
all the time. They are worried about communication being shut
down. We need more communication and the companies tell me they
are worried that in fact, too often they don't have enough
communication.
Mr. Lankford. Do you feel like more contractors are trying
to get involved in the process now or fewer? Do you feel like
we are increasing competition, more small, medium, large
businesses are engaging in this?
Mr. Gordon. We are certainly trying, sir.
Mr. Lankford. I am trying to get a feel for it. Do you
think that is occurring? I understand there is outreach that is
happening. Do you think we are getting more people in the
pipeline that are bidding?
Mr. Gordon. When I look at the data, it looks like we do
have an increase in competition and a decrease in sole source
contracts. When I look at the number of dollars going to small
businesses, I see increases. But boy, we have a lot more work
to do.
Mr. Lankford. That is a common theme that I hear with a lot
of the folks that are in my district that are trying to get
engaged. It is still, the hurdles and the paperwork
requirements and the processing, it seems to be significant for
them. Both trying to discover what is out there or that the
rules for acquiring a contract seem to be written specifically
for a company and they don't fit that criteria. So trying to
get involved in that. So trying to find ways to allow more
people to compete obviously drives the cost down and raises up
the next generation of large companies that we are going to
need to take on these big issues.
Mr. Gordon. Absolutely. I will tell you that SBA has been
working diligently, and we have been working with them, to try
to reduce the barriers to entry. It is so tough to get into the
Federal contracting arena. Typically for companies, the first
contract is the toughest one to get. Once they have gotten one
and they get a feel for how the system works, they can often
compete and get further contracts. But breaking down the
barriers to entry is tough. SBA is trying to simplify the
process and to get materials online to help companies. But that
is an ongoing challenge.
Mr. Lankford. Okay, thank you. I yield questioning to Mr.
Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back,
Mr. Gordon. It is good to see you again.
As you know, I introduced H.R. 1424, the Federal
Acquisition Improvement Act, and Senator Collins introduced a
companion bill in the Senate, bipartisan legislation. I would
like your views on the legislation. Will it be helpful in terms
of the mission of your organization and work force training?
Mr. Gordon. I will tell you, Congressman Connolly, that for
us it is a breath of fresh air to have commitment like you have
shown to improving training for our Federal acquisition work
force. It is extremely important, and it is also good to see
action up on the Hill that is bipartisan. It is also a good
sign.
I will tell you that over the years, as you know, the
Federal acquisition is often a bipartisan issue. And that is a
healthy thing for our work force.
There are provisions in the bill that are clearly helpful.
There has been some nervousness, frankly, on the part of people
in my office that the bill's language would appear to make it
look like the Office of Federal Procurement Policy would
actually be running FAI. I don't think that was the intent, and
we need to be sure, when the bill, if the bill is enacted, we
need to be sure that we are able to keep having GSA in the
important role that it has shown.
But with that caveat, I do think that the bill sends a very
strong signal of improving and strengthening the Federal
Acquisition Institute.
Mr. Connolly. Yes, just on that last point, the bill
explicitly allows OFPP to delegate management of FAI to GSA.
You would prefer we explicitly just have GSA manage it without
the delegation? I guess from our point of view in drafting the
bill, we thought you have overall management responsibility and
therefore we didn't want to in any way denigrate that
responsibility. We actually thought we were being helpful. But
we obviously could rewrite it to just put it in GSA.
Mr. Gordon. From our point of view, it makes more sense to
keep FAI within GSA, which is the current placement. It seems
to me that you still can get the benefits of the bill even
leaving FAI in GSA. Because the real message of the bill is
support for FAI. And that is very important to us.
Mr. Connolly. None of use want to grow bureaucracy. But
when I look, and we are going to hear in the next panel, but
the comparison of how it is done in the defense world and how
it is done for the rest of the civilian work force is so
unbalanced in terms of resources committed to this mission and
training, what is your sense about that? My understanding is,
by default as a result, a lot of people who are in the civilian
work force who get training end up having to go to the Defense
Acquisition University because we simply don't have the
wherewithal on the civilian side under FAI to do the training.
Or at least the initial training.
Mr. Gordon. It is a very important issue. I should tell
you, I am not sure you know, sir, I used to be a high school
teacher. I care a lot about teaching, I care a lot about
training. We need our training to be useful. It doesn't help to
give training at a time where it is not going to help or in a
way that is not going to help.
Online training is one of the ways to overcome the
challenge you are talking about. And DAU, as you will hear from
the next panel, DAU is working with FAI and others to share
their resources in a very helpful way.
It is true that when we have civilians go to DAU courses,
they sometimes feel like it is not beneficial because it is so
oriented toward DOD. But the more those two institutions talk
together and share resources together, the further our taxpayer
dollars are going to go. So I am pretty optimistic about that.
Mr. Connolly. That may be a good solution for a certain
base level of training, presumably, because a contract is a
contract at a certain level. But once you get into the
specialization of that contract, I am dealing with
pharmaceutical agents and how to manage a contract on very
delicate clinical trials and tests and outcomes and pricing or
whatever, that has nothing to do with the mission of the
Pentagon, presumably. And so at that level, I need a different
level of training in order to make sure I know what I am doing
and I am protecting the public's interest.
Where is that specialized training, where do you think that
belongs on the civilian side?
Mr. Gordon. Well, every agency does some specialized
training. Some of them do quite a bit. VA, mentioned earlier,
VA has a terrific acquisition academy up in Frederick. Some of
their training is VA-specific. I have been up there, I have
listened to the interns that are there, I have talked to the
faculty. They do a very good job. Other agencies also have
agency-specific training. But just to be sure, I don't want
anybody to be surprised by the facts, much of the training that
we get is in fact from contractors. And those contractors often
teach at all the different agencies' training. So it is the
very same teachers in many of the courses.
Mr. Connolly. Would the chairman indulge just one more
question? I am assuming we don't have a second round?
Mr. Lankford. Yes, that is correct. I would yield another
minute.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair. While we have you, I just
want to ask your opinion, two things concern me about
procurement and acquisition management in the Federal
Government. One is level of expertise, and not meaning anything
disparaging at all. But as contracts grow more and more complex
technologically and get larger and have all kinds of feelers
associated with them, do we have the right people in place who
have the training and expertise to keep up with the contractors
we have just hired to manage it?
Second, I am worried about internal personnel policies.
There is terrible turnover, so there is a lack of continuity in
the management of the contract. You could have many, many, many
contract managers during the life of the contract. Even a brief
life of a contract. I am concerned that with the best of
intentions, that has a degrading effect on the quality of
acquisition.
Mr. Gordon. I couldn't agree more. That is why in the 25
point plan that you alluded to earlier to improve IT
acquisition, we committed to having a cross-disciplinary team
that would be with the Acquisition with as little turnover as
possible from the beginning of the acquisition planning all the
way through contract management, so we would be sharing
information between contracting people and IT people, and we
would have continuity. We can't have situations where we have
this imbalance between us and the contractors. The contractors
know way more about it than us.
I have to tell you, I was at a session with companies a few
months ago. One of the fellows said to me, you know, Dan, I am
getting so tired of training my contracting officer's
representative how to do their job. We need to strengthen our
people to be sure that we have a balanced relationship. The
contractors are incredibly important. But they are supporting
us. And we need to be knowledgeable enough to do that.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
indulgence.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Lankford. Let me make just a quick comment, then, and
we are going to close out this panel. Thank you again for your
service and all you have done. Your comment there, I need to
reiterate as well. I have multiple contractors that I have
spoken to around the central Oklahoma area that have said the
same thing to me, that they are training the person that they
are working with, that they are very familiar with the
processes and procedures, and that the contracting officers and
individuals they are dealing with seem to be very risk averse.
They are constantly taking the safest route, and they are
having to show them, no, this is how it is done, and they go
back and run it down and they come back.
The second issue we deal with is obviously something you
alluded to as well, is retainment. They start a process with
one person, in the middle of it they are with another one, and
they end it with another person. The continuity of the
decisions and the interpretation seems to move around. So those
are not new ideas to you. Obviously those are issues that we
will have to resolve in the days to come to be able to provide
some sort of consistency in the process.
Do you want to make a comment on that?
Mr. Gordon. Just one brief comment if I could. First of
all, I want to thank the committee for the hearing. It is a
very important topic.
But I also want to say, when I meet with the front line
acquisition professionals, we have a group that we call the
front line forum. We bring in about three dozen contracting
officers and contract specialists from across the government,
defense and civilian. We happen to have them coming in
tomorrow. They come in every 3 months to the White House
complex. I ask them, what does it look like from your point of
view? What are your perspectives? It is incredibly important
that we be listening to them and that we be taking steps to
strengthen them. I believe in the Federal acquisition work
force that they in fact, if you unleash their innovation, their
willingness to try things, you will get good results. I know
that GAO issued a report yesterday about our contract savings
effort. And in that report, you will see 10 pages, GAO pages,
so a lot of text, page after page of all the innovations, the
good innovations that our people are doing. Whether it is
electronic reverse auction, strategic sourcing, better
acquisition planning, our people can do the work if they are
only allowed to do it and given the tools to do it. Thank you.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. With that, we will
take a short break and transition to the second panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Lankford. We welcome our second panel of witnesses, Mr.
John Hutton, Director of the Acquisition and Sourcing
Management of the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr.
Roger Jordan, vice president for government relations,
Professional Services Council; Ms. Donna Jenkins, the Director
of the Federal Acquisition Institute of the General Services
Administration; and Ms. Katrina McFarland, Director of the
Defense Acquisition University.
All of you have very busy days and I appreciate very much
your being here and the time that you put in on both your
written statements and being here for oral statements and
allowing us to be able to ask questions. I hope you understand
this will be a dialog, we want to have a chance to get as much
information as we can.
Pursuant to all committee rules, witnesses are sworn in
before they testify. If you would please rise and raise your
right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Let the record reflect the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, the same rules will
apply. We will ask you to limit your testimony to five or so
minutes. I will be a little bit gracious with the timing on
that, so we can hear your entire statement. Your entire written
statement, of course, will be made part of the record on that.
I would like to recognize Mr. Hutton for an opening
statement.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN P. HUTTON, DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION AND
SOURCING MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE;
ROGER JORDAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COUNCIL; DONNA M. JENKINS, DIRECTOR,
FEDERAL ACQUISITION INSTITUTE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION; AND KATRINA G. McFARLAND, PRESIDENT, DEFENSE
ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. HUTTON
Mr. Hutton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly and members of
the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to discuss our
recent work on acquisition work force issues at the Department
of Defense, the government's largest buying entity.
The Federal Government's current budget and long-term
fiscal pressures underscore the importance of a highly capable
work force. Our work has found that a lack of an adequate
number of trained acquisition and contract oversight personnel
has placed DOD at times at risk of potentially paying more than
necessary.
My remarks will focus on two topics based on our recent
work. First, I will discuss DOD's progress in rebuilding the
capacity of its acquisition work force. Second, I will offer
specific insights into the Defense Contract Management Agency's
efforts to rebuild its work force as an illustration of the
overall challenges the Department faces.
Our work shows that DOD has made some progress in
rebuilding the capacity of its civilian acquisition work force.
DOD has established a goal of increasing this work force by
20,000 by fiscal year 2015, and DOD plans to reach its goal in
two key ways: hiring personnel using the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund and in-sourcing functions that were
being performed by contractor personnel.
Using these two methods, DOD reports that it hired about
5,900 individuals in fiscal year 2010. However, the
Department's plans for continued acquisition work force growth
are uncertain. DOD announced that it has halted the in-sourcing
initiative, except on a case by case basis, and announced a
hiring freeze for the civilian work force due to anticipated
budget constraints. DOD has indicated that initiatives using
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, including
hiring for the acquisition work force, will continue.
But just as important as increasing the size of the work
force is building the work force skills and expertise. We found
that DOD has continued to make progress in completing the
competency assessments which identify the skills and
capabilities of the work force and help identify areas needing
further attention. DOD reports that it has used these
competency assessments in part to help revise the training
curriculum for its contracting career field.
While these actions are focused on what is considered the
traditional acquisition work force, we have also reported that
DOD needs to identify the other personnel outside this
traditional work force who have a role in acquisition, such as
those who help set the requirements, or serve as a contracting
officer's representative to manage and oversee contractor
performance. These are functions that are key to sound
acquisition outcomes. DOD notes that identifying this
population is challenging in part because it is spread across
many organizations. Also, the acquisition duties these people
perform are often done as a secondary duty. Nonetheless, DOD
agreed with several of our recommendations to help it get a
better handle on who these people are and the skills they need
to perform their roles in the acquisition process.
I will now briefly touch on our work-related DCMA. By the
early 2000's, DCMA had experienced significant erosion of
expertise, such that it could not fulfill all of its oversight
functions. Since 2008, however, DCMA has been rebuilding its
work force, making increasing use of the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund to do so. For example, in fiscal
year 2011, DCMA hired a little over 1,200 new employees under
this authority.
DCMA has also taken steps to rebuild their skill sets. For
example, by the late 1990's, DCMA had lost the majority of its
contract cost price analysts. As a result, DCMA reported that
DOD's acquisitions were subject to unacceptable levels of cost
risks. Over the past 2 years, DCMA has hired almost 280 new
contract cost price analysts and cost monitors.
One challenge facing DCMA is its large percentage of
retirement-eligible employees, making the agency vulnerable to
the loss of valuable technical expertise and organizational
knowledge. In part, DCMA plans to mitigate this risk to
aggressive recruiting and bringing back retired annuitants to
help raise the skill levels of the newer employees.
In closing, DOD has made some progress in terms of growing
the acquisition work force and identifying the skills and
competency it needs. However, more needs to be done. The fiscal
and budget challenges facing this Nation and DOD underscore the
need for DOD to strategically manage its work force so that it
has the right skills, capabilities and training to effectively
manage the billions of dollars it spends on goods and services
each year.
Whether DOD achieves its planned growth and unrelated work
force improvement initiatives remains uncertain. But what its
certain is that DOD can ill afford not to succeed in preparing
its work force to meet its future needs. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.021
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Hutton.
Mr. Jordan.
STATEMENT OF ROGER JORDAN
Mr. Jordan. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
today to provide an industry perspective on the acquisition
work force.
I will begin by highlighting why the Federal contracting
community believes in the need for a highly skilled, well-
trained and adequately staffed acquisition work force. Savvy
businesses understand that the best customer is a well-
informed, educated customer. As a business, when you have a
client that accurately defines its needs, communicates openly
and clearly and recognizes the fundamental elements of the
risks being adopted by your company through the partnership,
then you have a customer you can work with best to deliver real
capabilities and enhancements to meet their mission needs.
But these important understandings are not always inherent.
As the critical cog between government and the private sector,
it is important that the acquisition work force contain the
expertise, training, continuing education and commitment to
collaboration that fosters successful interfaces with the
private sector. The acquisition work force suffered as a result
of numerous factors dating back to the mid-1990's and
appropriately, this work force has garnered much-needed
attention in recent years.
As a result, there are signs of improvement that
considerable threats to the acquisition work force remain and
industry has a number of observations and recommendations.
First, the biggest challenge facing the acquisition work force
is how the government will address pending budget reductions.
As work force reductions related to the budget scenario
continue to be debated, PSC recommends that Federal departments
engage in thorough human capital planning based on evaluated
mission needs. Inclusion of the acquisition work force should
be a critical component of such planning, and as a result, PSC
believes agencies will discover that the acquisition work force
should not be slashed. This certainly has been the finding of
DOD, and as a result, their efforts have exempted cuts to the
acquisition work force.
Also, as budget pressures persist, Federal contracting will
share in the burden. Savings may be achieved as government
makes difficult decisions about what it is buying, but of
greater significance will be decisions about how the government
buys. For example, the administration has pushed for greater
use of firm fixed price contracts. In conveying such guidance,
the administration also acknowledged that the use of such
contracts is only encouraged where suitable to the nature of
the acquisition. However, the latter message has not
effectively filtered down to the field, resulting in the use of
firm fixed price contracts where inappropriate, and thus
creating inordinate risk to contractors and high cost to
government.
In addition, industry has witnessed a dramatic increase in
the use of lowest price technically acceptable awards. While
LPTA is an important component of the acquisition tool box, its
misapplication can lead to reduced quality in mission
capabilities for the Government, where a focus on value may
have produced greater benefits and long-term cost savings. To
avoid misapplication of these approaches, PSC recommends
training of the acquisition work force to foster critical
thinking and strategic decisionmaking, rather than simply
teaching strict adherence to procedures and avoiding any
Government risk.
In addition, for more complex procurements, those involving
cyber security, for example, the work force must be encouraged
to avoid over-reliance on the cheapest proposals and instead,
being encouraged and supported when they apply appropriate
costs and technical tradeoffs, that is, best value
considerations.
Communication and collaboration between the acquisition
work force and the private sector also diminished in recent
years. And in order to foster meaningful partnerships, such
communication must not be permitted to deteriorate further.
OFPP's initiation of a mythbusters campaign, part of OMB's
broader 25 point IT management improvement plan, seeks to
encourage and clarify how industry and government can
appropriately engage with one another during the acquisition
process. This is a positive development. Yet it is not readily
apparent the message has been adopted by rank and file
acquisition personnel. Hence, PSC recommends that OFPP take
additional steps to buildupon the mythbusters campaign.
Additionally, PSC encourages the examination of individual
department efforts to increase the capabilities of their
acquisition work force. Gains have been made on this front as
departments have established successful internship or training
programs. DHS and VA are two examples.
PSC believes that Congress can take steps to enhance such
initiatives. The Federal Acquisition Improvement Act, for
example, would buildupon these initiatives by clarifying the
role of FAI and governmentwide acquisition work force training
and would increase FAI responsibilities to include
collaboration among existing civilian agency acquisition work
force training initiatives.
Last, I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of
consistent funding for the various acquisition work force
training initiatives. Comprehensive acquisition skills are not
developed overnight. And the efforts that have been initiated
in recent years are not likely to yield immediate results.
Hence, it is important that funding, staffing levels and
education and training for the acquisition work force remain a
priority. As a result, we strongly believe that long-term
savings associated with the investment in the acquisition work
force will pay future dividends that far outweigh any short-
term savings being touted as a result of acquisition work force
cuts. And the Government will truly establish itself as the
private sector's best customer.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.028
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
Ms. Jenkins.
STATEMENT OF DONNA JENKINS
Ms. Jenkins. Good afternoon, Chairman Lankford, Ranking
Member Connolly, members of the committee. As you are aware, I
am Donna Jenkins, the Director of the Federal Acquisition
Institute. I am pleased to be here today to tell you about the
progress FAI has made over the last 8 months since I have
assumed the position.
Taxpayers rely on the work force to make critical business
decisions. They impact the lives of every American, from
protecting the homeland to supporting the small businesses that
fuel our economy. This demands an agile work force, with
diverse and sophisticated sets of skills to define
requirements, make complicated tradeoff decisions among
competing alternative and manage complex projects with tight
budget and schedule constraints.
Agencies have shifted from buying products requiring a
process-based procurement approach to ensure the right product
is delivered on time to now an acquisition of complex services
and technologies, the success of which depends on a knowledge-
based life cycle management approach. Our professionals must
navigate an evolving commercial marketplace driven by rapid
advances in technology, global supply chains and emerging
security concerns. Keeping the work force's skills is
imperative to our success.
Improvements have been realized but we still face three
fundamental challenges. The first, as mentioned by everybody
else, is the demographics of the acquisition work force. We do
have a younger, more educated work force, but they still
require the necessary technical training to be successful. We
also need to ensure that the seasoned half of the work force,
expected to retire over the next 10 years, transfers their
knowledge to the new and less experienced members.
The second challenge is to make smart investments that
result in shared work force management tools and use technology
to eliminate inefficient duplication across the government. The
third challenge is to continue to improve collaboration across
the acquisition community. We can no longer afford for each
agency to solve its own human capital challenges. We need to
collectively develop tools, training and share leading
practices to improve standardization, reduce redundancy and
cost and cultivate a mobile work force.
FAI has been working with key stakeholders and
collaborating on these challenges. We are partnering with OFPP
and the Office of Personnel Management to establish the first
ever acquisition track in the Presidential Management Fellows
Program for fiscal year 2012. We are reaching a broader base of
acquisition professionals and have added new training on
critical topics such as price analysis and human trafficking.
For the first time, FAI is training program managers and
contracting officer's representatives, positions critical to
responsibly defining the government's requirement and managing
the contracts after award. We are investing in technology that
pays off. This month, FAI trained 5,600 acquisition work force
members in a single session through an online Webinar. Class
enrollment for FAI-sponsored courses increased by 30 percent in
fiscal year 2011.
FAI is using a risk-based approach to improve the
certification programs. Now, the highest level of certification
for the contracting officer's representative combines
additional training and experience requirements to optimize the
taxpayers' return on investment. In partnership with the
Department of Homeland Security, FAI has launched the Federal
Acquisition Institute Training Application System, or FAITAS.
It is a robust work force management tool. FAITAS will
eliminate the need for stand alone, stovepiped systems across
government by providing agencies with a way to manage their
work force, certifications, warrants and training delivery
programs. Soon, agencies will be able to use the system's
business intelligence tools to analyze the demographics of the
work force, supporting more effective human capital planning.
FAI has also worked to re-energize its many interagency
committees which helps shapes the initiatives, program and
training, so that the government only has to invest in these
items only once.
In conclusion, with the support and leadership of GSA and
OFPP, FAI has delivered innovative solutions which demonstrate
the value of cross-agency collaboration.
I appreciate the committee's attention to this critical
issue, and Ranking Member Connolly's proposed legislation that
would support smart investments in the acquisition work force.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and I am
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenkins follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.033
Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
Ms. McFarland.
STATEMENT OF KATRINA G. McFARLAND
Ms. McFarland. Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Connolly,
distinguished members of the committee, my name is Katrina
McFarland, and I am the president of the Defense Acquisition
University. I am really thankful for this opportunity to
testify and I also appreciate your support to this very
critical area. And also to the panel members, because they are
right on target.
So my testimony will be brief and focused strictly on what
the Defense Acquisition University has seen and has developed
on.
The best way to ensure our warfighters get what they need
and that our taxpayers get their money's worth and that we
combat fraud, waste and abuse, is a well-trained and fully
qualified acquisition work force. The defense acquisition work
force is comprised of individuals from a broad spectrum of
technical expertise, program and business skills and
institutional memory. The work force is approximately 150,000
strong, the standing army of the Potomac, and it spans 15
career fields, program Management, systems engineering,
logistics, contracting.
With the draw-down in the 1990's as referenced, we left our
acquisition work force and organizations in a significant
reduction in capacity and capability, especially in critical
areas like contracting, auditing, pricing, engineering. Still
with us, this ``bathtub effect'' as has been discussed means
that many people are leaving us with that critical expertise
and leaving behind less experience.
In the 1991 Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act,
DAWIA, DOD established a statutorily mandated career
Development program for people who are formally identified in
the Acquisition work force. This certification program consists
of three pieces: education, experience and training. DAU
provides the training piece of this program, which has grown
through our 40 years of experience serving the acquisition
community.
DOD began a rebuild of its defense acquisition work force
in approximately April 2009. With the help of the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, DAWDF, established by
Congress in the fiscal year 2008 NDAA, we increased our work
force capacity and began addressing our work force capacity
concerns. But while work force size is important and skill mix
is important, quality is paramount.
Today we offer about 100 courses, both classroom and
online. Entry level training is predominantly provided online
as is continuous learning.
We have a lot of online training that is self-paced. It
provides knowledge management, communities of practice and is
open to the public. Our IT infrastructure is critical in our
ability to reach that work force 24/7 around the world.
As a result of the funds from DAWDF, in addition to being
able to expand our Web-based learning, DAU has been able to
hire additional faculty and additional infrastructure for
training and classrooms for what is our advanced defense
acquisition training. Our faculty provide, in addition to
training in classroom, consulting, targeted training, rapid
deployment training and all of this to the acquisition
organizations throughout the department and at call. A combined
total of our Web and faculty service is tallied this year at 11
million learning hours.
We stay responsive to current DOD concerns. In addition to
having recognized that Services are a larger part of what our
spend is, we have recognized the need to provide our work force
services acquisition training, we have developed a services
acquisition model online. We have developed automated services
requirements developments tool, so that you stress on what is
important on what you want before you issue forth a
solicitation, and deliver Services acquisition workshops across
the department.
We have worked this past year with the DOD inspector
general's office and the defense and Services audit agencies to
identify acquisition training requirements for the auditor
community and have signed an agreement to that. We have also
signed a memorandum with the Defense Contract Management
Agency, Charlie Williams, to establish a new DAU college, the
College of Contract Management, for onsite management of major
weapons systems, contract and in-theater contract operations.
We are increasing our training for these DOD employees that
are not included in the statutorily mandated defense
acquisition work force, but whose role is critical for their
successful acquisition outcomes to be had. For example, in
response to the 2007 NDAA, we now train those DOD employees
responsible for generating requirements for major defense
acquisition programs. We have also increased training for
deployed contracting officers and contracting officer
representatives.
We are not alone in our training role. As you see beside
us, we cooperate in training initiative with the Federal
Acquisition Institute, the VA Academy, NASA, Department of
Homeland Security, many others. We are currently working to
achieve efficiencies in that area by sharing our curriculum,
our IT infrastructure, governance, facilities in some cases,
and a great number of cross agency recognition of work force
credentials so our work force can be transitory. Our
contracting courses are a great example of this. Specifically
tailored for the civilian use, a process that we are expanding.
Because DAU is a provider of practitioner training, what we
teach particularly in classrooms is focused on what our people
need to do on their jobs. With that, and the fact that we have
trained and grown over the 40 years in our own learning, we
have expanded and taken a look at how we can improve what we do
and how we teach. We are engineering right now our next steps
to develop a qualified acquisition professional. The
department's most recent effort toward a fully qualified
acquisition work force is this qualification initiative. Our
goal is to have a work force which is both certified, which is
formal classroom and the associated sundry testing that comes
with it, but also to take it into the workplace environment and
qualify those folks on the job to effectively perform their
duties as acquisition professionals.
We will ensure that the work force both understands the job
when they leave the classroom and also can effectively perform
it successfully. This qualification initiative, I might add,
responds to a statutory mandate, Section 1723(c) of the Title
10 U.S.C.
Acquisition is inherently a responsibility of the
government. And successful acquisition outcomes are critical to
our national security. We must increase our buying power and
deliver efficiently and affordably, and responsible stewards,
to do the taxpayers' resources the justice it deserves. We must
always ensure that our warfighters have products and Services
they need to win. To do this, we need a fully qualified
acquisition work force. The Honorable Frank Kendall has said,
``Our legacy is to leave behind a stronger work force, a more
capable work force than we inherited.'' I promise you, we will
do that.
And I thank you for this opportunity again, and welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McFarland follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.043
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, and thanks to all of you as well.
We will probably do several rounds of questions back and
forth, so this will be an ongoing conversation, to be able to
pull out what we can on it.
You gave an overall concern for me, and this is not
something that you can solve. In the 1990's, with that
wonderful peace dividend, we dialed back a lot of things,
including this contracting work force. So we dialed that back,
and just to get it dialed back and reduce our numbers in time
for September 11th, when we dramatically increased the number
of contracts that are out there. So we spent 10 years trying to
catch up on personnel and training, about the time that we now
start to slow down our purchasing again.
How do we hit a balance on this so that we do not overreact
in the same way, that we suddenly dramatically increase our
numbers and our training and all the investment into it, overdo
that, if that is imaginable right now, and get out of balance
again? Any quick ideas on that, on how we manage that in the
days to come? Because I would hate to see us 10 years from now
go through a cut and go through the same cycle again.
Mr. Hutton.
Mr. Hutton. Mr. Chairman, the way I would frame that
question is, to make an intelligent decision, one needs to know
at each agency what you are buying, what your current
capability is in terms of an acquisition work force, and what
are your needs to assure yourself you are going to get good
outcomes for what you need to buy. The extent to which you have
gaps, I think you need to identify those.
Mr. Lankford. Who is the best person to track that? Is that
the agency head in each area? Or who can best determine that?
Mr. Hutton. I think it starts at the agency. I think the
procurement officials, I think other stakeholders such as human
capital people, people from the CFO shop, I think it takes a
team like that to put it at a high enough level in an
organization to have a good understanding of what the condition
is right now.
Also you need to look at the demographics. If you have a
lot of senior people in the organization, and as it has been
discussed here before, bringing in a lot of new people, they
can get the initial training, but they need that experience.
They need that mentoring.
Mr. Lankford. Right. That comes up consistently in a lot of
the conversations that I have with contractors. It is the, we
understand the process better than the person that is actually
working through our contract. And it is because they are
occasionally getting someone new. And as they work through that
system, it is frustrating for them, because they are saying,
no, this is how it is done. It is frustrating because they know
there is flexibility in contracting vehicles, and they get
frustrated, Mr. Jordan, I think you mentioned the fixed price
vehicle as being preferential.
So all that challenge is something you have to work through
with training and age and experience and all those things that
you all live and breathe every single day to be able to work
through. It is getting that down to every single person in the
organization. Tell me how you feel like progress is being made
in that. I am hearing some optimism in that, and obviously you
are very aware of this. I am not the first to bring it up, by
far.
Mr. Jordan, do you want to mention that real quick? You had
already brought it up.
Mr. Jordan. Chairman, I will start with the mythbusting
campaign. There was a significant deterioration in the
communication between industry and government dating back
several years. And the mythbusting campaign has really started
to turn that around. I still think it needs to be an additional
focus. Like I said, the direction from leadership has been
right. But how that message has permeated down through the
field has been, it has been a little slower. I think that Mr.
Gordon has recognized that, and recognized that that needs to
be an additional area of focus.
So I would start with that and I think that with the drive
toward more firm fixed price contracts, again, it is not
necessarily the guidance from leadership has been wrong. They
have said, we want you to focus more on firm fixed price but
use it where it is appropriate.
Mr. Lankford. Well, yes, what I have heard back from
contractors is, I am glad to do it firm fixed price, but it is
going to cost more, because I don't know what the risk is
involved. Whereas another vehicle may be, and I understand this
is a reaction in the other direction, but I can't tell you how
many times I have heard that. I am glad to do it, but I am
going to always charge more for this, because I am assuming all
the risk.
Mr. Jordan. That is true. So it comes back to the guidance
from leadership about using it where it is appropriate. And
that guidance has been right. But again, the full message is
not filtering all the way down to the people that it needs to
filter down to.
Mr. Lankford. Ms. Jenkins, Ms. McFarland, either one, how
do we work through that? Because obviously that has to be
someone with clairvoyance to be able to determine which one is
going to be cheaper and which one is going to be better for the
taxpayer at the end of the it. So I understand there is not
going to be a perfect way to be able to determine that. What is
your suggestion on how to process through that?
Ms. McFarland. Well, I am going to start, if I could, back
on the original premise, which is, how do we get there. How do
we get, in the midst of this economic decline, attention to the
detail that you brought to the attention of the work force's
competency. And I think one of the things the Department of
Defense has done, under the guidance of Dr. Carter and Mr.
Kendall, has, with the recognition of the outfall of a lot of
the better buying power initiatives, was this sudden
recognition that the work force wasn't up to the par to be able
to perform the duties that this policy, which was accurately
written, was intended to outcome wise.
So one of the things they did was, with the university, to
step up that. And another thing is, the services themselves are
taking a very, very conscious and disciplined approach to take
a look at their Workforce and where their needs are. What can
you do to improve it? Well, fixed price, for example, you need
to explain to people where they get the resources to help them
understand, which is related to why you would go into a fixed
price arena, cost and price certainty. You have to have a good
understanding of the configuration of the item before you try
to engage in a fixed price situation. And unfortunately,
people, just as Mr. Jordan said, engaged in the act of
compliance by act of understanding. That critical thinking is
one of our challenges.
Mr. Lankford. I am going to defer to Mr. Connolly for a
series of questions, then I will come back and we will finish
this up.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before you start the
clock, just for a second, this whole conversation reminds me of
the story John Glenn used to tell. I used to work with John
Glenn in the Senate. When he was sent into space, he was in a
capsule on top of a rocket with hundreds of thousands of pounds
of thrust, comforted in the knowledge that both had been won by
the lowest Federal bidder. So contracting was even on his mind
way back then.
I want to thank our panel for being here. Let me just ask
this first question, if I may. Ms. McFarland, I am listening to
your statistics, which are very impressive, 100 courses, 11
million learning hours. How many people trained this last year?
Ms. McFarland. This year, 57,000 seats went through.
Mr. Connolly. Fifty-seven thousand. Wow. And I want to
thank Mr. Jordan and Ms. Jenkins for their kind remarks with
respect to the FAI Improvement Act. Do you have any view on how
that might make your job easier, harder? Or you don't care?
Ms. McFarland. Personally, I think it is an excellent
opportunity for improvement. Working with Donna and
particularly, I am sorely disappointed Dan is going, because he
has been a bright light. And the support that you all have been
providing for this area has certainly moved us forward. And it
needs to continue to move forward.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Ms. McFarland. And H.R. 1424 has the right emphasis and it
excludes the DOD appropriately. So it looks for, in my personal
view, excellent support.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much. And Ms. Jenkins, you
gave a wonderful example of an online training program with
5,600 people in one session, very impressive. How many were
totally trained this year, would you venture to guess?
Ms. Jenkins. So we did 7,000 actual seat classes. And then
the civilian work force has continued to benefit from the FAI-
DAU partnership, completing 87,000 online course modules at
Defense.
Mr. Connolly. Is it your impression that if you, I am not
trying to set it up, but if you had augmented resources, that
you might be able to meet a much larger population, I mean, DAU
is doing 57,000 a year. Is there a demand that is unmet, is
what I am getting at?
Ms. Jenkins. We do appreciate the support that you provide
the work force. I think we all want the same thing, a competent
and efficient acquisition work force to be good stewards of the
taxpayer dollars. FAI has a slightly different role, in that we
don't do organic teaching, we don't teach the classes
ourselves. We hire our vendor support. So in collaboration with
a number of the other Federal agencies, we assist them by
setting the standards that they must all meet, which is a
little bit different role than, for instance, the VA Academy or
the large training program that exists at DHS and NASA, just to
name a few of the other agencies.
So I think as long as we are all training to the same set
of standards that we work collaboratively together, we can meet
our need.
Mr. Connolly. Would it be fair to say that, for example, an
online class, like the one you cited, and I have taken those
myself when I was in the private sector, a lot of that, either
entry level or continuing learning kinds of classes, but
sometimes there is no substitute for in the classroom technical
training to make sure I am mastering what I need to master?
Would that be a fair observation from your point of view?
Ms. Jenkins. I think general, yes, you are absolutely
correct.
Mr. Connolly. And would it also be true that virtually
every Federal agency, despite the wonderful work of DAU and
FAI, still needs to have its own specialized training, because
the VA mission is different from FDA?
Ms. Jenkins. Yes, I would agree with that. And I see the
role of FAI there as being a collaborative. Because there is
still even a baseline portion of the training program that
would be consistent across all the Federal agencies. So I am
very excited to actually say that the chief acquisition
officer's counsel just approved us to do what we call a
training collaboration board, or to establish a training
collaboration board. What that would do would be allow us to
discuss any developmental items, any courses we are going to
develop, and we would be able to, say, come up with an 80
percent solution once and then leave the room for agencies to
add, if there are specific mission requirements in the
remaining portion. I think that is a good role for FAI.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Jordan, you heard Mr. Gordon actually observe that in
his conversations with many contractors, he has heard
frequently how tired they are of having to train Federal
contract officers on the contracts they are managing. Is that
something you also hear at the Professional Services Council in
terms of the members you represent? And any other observation
you have about that?
Mr. Jordan. Absolutely. We hear a lot of the same. It comes
back to my opening comments about the need or the desire for a
well-educated customer is really our best customer. We do find
that we are having to do a lot of explaining, a lot of
educating ourselves, on some acquisition-related issues. It
would certainly be beneficial to both sides if that training or
understanding is brought to the table in advance so that we can
get to the process of contracting versus educating.
Mr. Connolly. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
Let me ask a question. How do we move into a couple of
things. One is best value for something, and the best value is
this wonderful, nebulous concept that everyone has to have open
for conversation. But as we deal with the best value, how do we
move from best value as cheapest this year versus cheapest in
10 years, or maybe most efficient in 10 years, or has a greater
life expectancy? Because things are different, energy usages,
some may be more efficient in their energy usages, it may be
made of better equipment, and so it is going to last longer.
Those are pure judgment calls.
How is the criteria set, and for the evaluation of that
contracting officer to say, this was actually, I guess what I
am asking is, is there a second guesser in this to go back and
teach them and say, you made this decision, this one was
cheaper than this one. But by the way, as I go back and look at
everything, I think this would have been a better deal because
of this. Do they give that, is there someone that's stepping
over their shoulder and helping train them in that? Is there
some way to be able to evaluate that? I think you understand
where I am.
Ms. McFarland. Yes, I do, sir. One of the things the
department has to build into its acquisition process like DOD
5000 is milestones and decision point to facilitate life cycle
costs, which is what you are talking about, best value. And we
have not the contracting officer inclined to make that
determination, it is a team. Because the engineer needs to
understand what the trades are, the logistician, the pricer,
the coster.
So when there's a source selection to be made, that is,
when you are deciding upon what you are going to buy, those
people come together in consensus. Then the department has to
take a look at it from the administration's view. So when they
come forward to make a decision, it is not just the local
decision, it is the organizations and department decision.
Mr. Lankford. So do you feel like we are on top of this at
this point, or do you feel like it is improving, or where do
you think we are in this process?
Ms. McFarland. It will and has improved. Is it improving as
fast as we need it? No. In the midst of this decline, we will
have challenges.
Mr. Lankford. Okay. Same with FAI? Or are there other
comments you want to make?
Ms. Jenkins. Sir, no, I couldn't agree more with Ms.
McFarland's statements. I think the challenges in the civilian
agencies is that we don't have a baseline process like the DOD
5000 that as a civilian Federal Government we all follow. So
FAI is working very hard to establish some baseline processes
that are just good business decisions, that then regardless of
what agency you are at or you are buying, we can drive those
kinds of milestone decision type choices.
Mr. Lankford. Okay. Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, I think the real threat to best
value, and it is coming, as budgets get tighter, there is a
downward pressure on costs and there is a tendency to focus on
short-term savings in terms of those long-term life cycle
costs. So I think everybody needs to be cognizant of okay,
let's not focus on the short term, let's keep our focus on
long-term savings.
Mr. Lankford. Right. Part of that is how that contracting
officer is affirmed, how they are encouraged. If they are
encouraged based on speed and number that they got done, if
they are encouraged based on the final price obviously that
makes a huge difference. Or if there is some way to be able to
affirm them, and you made a good judgment here, this was a
tough one, to be able to get it done.
I hear lots of stories on, that that person is risk averse,
they are going to do whatever is safest, they are going to work
with a contractor they know, it is very difficult to be able to
break in as a new person or a new company getting in the mix.
People that are not the prime, they are trying to work to get
to the prime, they have a sub out there at some point, and have
had it for 5, 6 years, everyone knows they are doing a good job
but can't ever break in, these same stories seem to be
replicated, one person after another that I talk with in the
process.
So some of that is, again, I can't imagine the first person
bringing this up, but it is how do we get down into that level,
to train them to help new companies jump into the process and
move into that. Because it obviously saves us money, to not
have the middle man just in the transition. But it adds more
work to that contracting officer, because now he is not
grouping a whole bunch of things together and getting that off
his desk. Now he has to deal with multiple smaller, but it also
is cheaper for us.
Yes, Mr. Hutton.
Mr. Hutton. Mr. Chairman, a lot rides on the requirement
and how well you define that requirement up front. And we
issued a report a couple of months ago that just looked at the
acquisition planning process. I think you are kind of talking
about some of the things that we observed, is that the planning
doesn't start soon enough. Because when you start sooner, you
can be more thoughtful about the process, what is it we are
going to buy, what is the best approach to buy it.
You also allow more time for competition. You also allow
more time if you have someone with a critical eye taking a look
at that statement of work that you think you are going to have,
and looking at and seeing, is this going to open it up for us
for competition. We have done work looking at competition at
DOD. You have competition advocates that are starting to get
more involved and trying to promote more in competition. I
think just as an example, doing it early, better understand
your requirements up front, will hopefully give an increased
likelihood that you are going to have better outcomes.
Mr. Lankford. Right. I would agree on that. It depends on
whether you are close to the end of the fiscal year or not on
that decision as far as how much advance planning goes into it
as well.
I want to defer an additional 2 minutes real quick, it is
the chairman's privilege on this one, I need to ask on where we
are on trafficking in persons. We had a hearing that was
extensive, talking about the issue, and especially dealing with
State Department contracts in the Middle East and on our bases
in Afghanistan and Iraq and third country nationals. No one
disputed us on either panel that day to say this is not
occurring. There was a common nodding of our heads as, we are
fighting through this. No one came back to us and said, we need
one more rule. The rules are in place, the processes seem to be
in place, it is just not stopping. How do we stop indentured
servitude on our bases and in our embassies?
Ms. Jenkins. Well, the Federal Acquisition Institute, in
partnership again with the Department of Homeland Security,
developed a course, an online module on human trafficking, to
make people aware, in the acquisition work force, of the signs
of human trafficking as well as the FAR clause which is
associated with that. We also worked with the Department of
State in developing the requirements as a subject matter
expertise. So that is available on the DAU learning management
online system for the entire Federal work force and everybody
else.
Mr. Lankford. Part of our frustration was, we can't seem to
find any contractor who has been suspended or debarred because
of this.
Ms. McFarland. Sir, the real issue is follow-through. I
mean, as you stated, all of this is in place. There is only a
certain part that you can get to with the teaching and the
training. The second piece is follow-through.
Mr. Lankford. Right. But if some contractor that is doing
this feels no threat of being suspended or debarred, if the
prime up the food chain from them feels no heat on it, they are
not going to stop. They are making a ton of money and using
people as slaves in the process, and they end up on our bases
or in our embassies, and the people that are working around
them, service members, don't know that. At some point, we have
to be able to put some heat down and say, this has to stop.
But that is the accountability on the other side. And what
I am asking is, how do we get that? How do we get that
accountability that somebody's head starts rolling in this
process to say, for the first time, we know this is happening,
we know it is happening consistently, we have a low threshold
of proof, we have the suspension and the debarment on the facts
that we are finding on the ground, you are suspended as we work
through this process until we can get this resolved. And so
suddenly the word begins to spread, cut it out.
How do we get there?
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, I think that first, identifying
it is of critical importance. And it is really an oversight
function. Obviously we support greater oversight. Contracting
in a contingency environment is a little bit more complicated.
I think here, within the United States, obviously the threat of
suspension and debarment is substantial. Companies are very
cognizant of it. I am not sure that subcontractors, third
country nationals, for example, fully understand the threat of
suspension and debarment, or for that matter, care. But I
certainly think that there needs to be a greater focus on it.
But I also think that in doing so, you need to understand the
dynamics of a contingency contracting environment.
Mr. Lankford. I understand that, somewhat, if you haven't
been here 10 years. That's tougher to explain after 10 years,
and it is even tougher to explain in our embassies on the
ground.
I need to defer to Mr. Connolly as well.
Mr. Connolly. I would just thank you for bringing that up,
Mr. Chairman, because I think, as a take-back, but in our
hearing, not a single prosecution has occurred. Not one. There
are tens of thousands of contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq,
tens of thousands, thousands of contractors, and the practice
is widespread.
We heard testimony, tens of thousands, maybe many more, of
human beings who are being trafficked as sort of payoff the
contracts or just necessary costs of doing business,
irrespective of the terrible harm to these human beings. Not
one that I know of debarment or suspension. Three referred for
sort of a warning and that was it. And a practice, undisputed
testimony, widespread.
And from our point of view, absolutely on a bipartisan
basis, not acceptable, not acceptable. It has to be stopped,
and we have to go beyond training, as you said. It is about
enforcement. How serious are we about this. And we aren't
serious enough.
But at any rate, I certainly echo the chairman's sentiments
on that, and we are going to stay on top of that.
Coming back to the topic at hand, the chairman earlier
asked some questions about, well, sort of, we saw the
acquisition and procurement and contracting personnel sort of
shrink in ratio to the growth in contracting in the previous
decade. We have done some catchup, especially made some
progress in the Pentagon. But now we are seeing contracts sort
of stagnant, and maybe they will fall given the budgetary
pressures we are all under. And we don't want to sort of be in
this kind of cycle.
I guess I want to focus less on the numerical balance and
more on the qualitative aspects of why this makes sense as an
investment. Because when we have smart contracting officers,
acquisition officers in the Federal Government, we can save
money, we can make sure things are being run efficiently, we
can avoid cost overruns and the kind of tragic problem the
chairman talked about in terms of human trafficking. Mr.
Hutton, I want to give you an opportunity to comment on that.
Mr. Hutton. In terms of the quality and the expertise
versus the numbers, you are absolutely right. And when you are
playing catchup, which I think is what we are doing, you are
going to get a large influx of newer people. And they can get
that initial training and they can get the certification. But
just like in GAO, we are building our work force. We have a lot
of junior people. And we are spending a lot of time on the day
to day, on the job training, trying to bring them and their
expertise up to the level where we want them to be to be
actually journeymen and go out on their own.
It is certainly a big challenge. I think you have to have
the mentors. If you are losing too many of your senior people,
then who is going to train those folks? Plus the fact that you
have a work force and it might depend on each agency, they got
a lot to do. And when you have a lot to do, you wonder
sometimes, are we just being too quick and not doing the job as
thoroughly as we should. So I think it is a tradeoff of like
the workload, it is a tradeoff of the demographics of the
people we have, do we have the senior people to mentor, and
just the overall number of people. When you are bringing in a
lot of new people I think this is a little bit of a transition
for everyone right now.
Mr. Connolly. Presumably it is also about technical
knowledge. We are now getting, it is one thing to say, I need
you to manage a contract whereby we produce and we order
300,000 pencils every year. That is one kind of contract. But
we are moving out of that kind of contract. We are now talking
about sort of broad systems integration contracts that require
fairly intimate knowledge of how technology works, so that when
somebody in the department says, here is what I need, I have
the skill set to translate that into the technical language and
the RFP and then manage that once the contract is awarded to
make sure that those specs are being met.
And sometimes the lay person, who is deeply into the
mission says, they may not have an understanding of the
boundaries of technology or what that really means in terms of
cost, linking up the field offices and data, big data bases and
data entry and the coordination and being able to recognize, I
mean, those are all different kinds of capabilities we wouldn't
have even talked about 30 years ago, but they are commonplace
today.
So I assume it is also about technical expertise. And that
has to be, that is a concern of mine, Mr. Chairman, because the
higher level of technical expertise, now you are competing with
the private sector trying to get those people. And the private
sector generally pays a lot more than we do in the public
sector. And that is of concern to me moving forward, will we be
able to have that skill base. Not just how you manage the
contract, but do you have the technical knowledge to make sure
that contract is being fulfilled and the taxpayer interests,
and I know I talk too much.
Mr. Hutton. No, that is fine, Mr. Connolly. And I would
agree with you, and that is why it is important to really have
a good understanding of what you are buying and what your
current capacity is. Things change all the time. Like you said,
10 years ago, we weren't buying half the things we are now, but
we are buying very technically complex things.
So you have to constantly be revisiting your acquisition
Workforce plan and have a good understanding of who we have
again and what the current capacity is. We have done some work
looking at acquisition planning, as I mentioned earlier. Just
some anecdotes, people were starting the process, they had the
requirements, yes, it was very technical. They started bringing
in those, anybody within the organization that had insights on
some of these technical issues. Some of the agencies are
bringing in like business specialists or industrial type people
to help support the front end of the process. Those are certain
ways you can do it. But of course, for certain types of things,
you might have to get the expertise outside.
But the important thing is, you do that up front, you do it
early enough so you really nail down what the heck it is we are
buying.
Mr. Connolly. Can I just ask one more question, Mr.
Chairman? And I think it is fairly brief.
We have 24 agencies figuring out how to do smart
contracting. And some of them avail themselves of FAI, some
might avail themselves of DAU, some may avail themselves of
both. But they also do their own training. Your point of view
about how well we are looking at best practices, we are
creating some base uniform standards for all contracting
officers and how this coordination works or does.
Mr. Hutton. Well, I will have to say, sir, we have gotten a
request recently by the full committee, about a month ago, and
it has asked us to look at the role OFPP plays as well as FAI
in the training of civilian acquisition professionals. We have
talked this afternoon that there are several agencies that have
their own institutes and academies. I can't tell you today how
many there are out there and who they are serving and what type
of training. Maybe the folks on the panel can, but we haven't
done work in that area.
But we have been asked to look at that particular issue, as
well as the physical location of the training facilities and
the cost to develop and deliver that training. I think that
review is going to be touching on some issues we haven't looked
at more recently. And I think that is going to help inform a
lot of the discussion here.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lankford. A quick follow-up on that as well.
You had mentioned all the different academies. Do we know
how many training academies are out there?
Ms. Jenkins. Sir, I don't know the exact number. But I can
let you know that it is part of the legislation that requires
each senior procurement exec to establish a line item in their
budget to train their acquisition work force. So my guess is
that every agency is complying with the regulation and
therefore is providing some form of training, whether it is
sending them to individual vendor locations or they are
establishing central locations, like the VA, DHS, Treasury.
Mr. Lankford. Is there some collaboration that could occur,
that could be coordinated to be able to combine some of these
or suggest combination for smaller agencies and say, three or
four of you, let's come together and find a way to do this more
efficiently? Obviously we will talk about it all day, and we
will talk about for a long time about budget issues. So are
there some of those things being explored?
Ms. Jenkins. Absolutely, and I am actually glad you asked
that question in that way. Because we have at FAI developed the
Federal Acquisition Institute Training Application System. I
mentioned it before, and it is a robust work force management
tool. But what it actually also allows is every agency to load
its course offerings into the system and any other agency can
see when that agency doesn't fill a seat that there are open
seats. So no seat would go left unfilled at the expense of the
taxpayers' resources.
Additionally, as we move toward the training consortium
board, we will move into trying to collaborate on the
development of new courseware.
Mr. Lankford. So you are targeting to have your training
areas as full as the airplanes coming in and out of Reagan
Airport?
Ms. Jenkins. More so.
Mr. Lankford. Okay, that would be terrific. Any other
collaboration that is currently occurring between the two major
groups here? Obviously there are a lot of resources between the
two of you I am hearing, Web site development, and there are
certification issues and trying to share some of that. Other
projects that are ongoing that we need to be made aware of, as
far as sharing resources?
Ms. McFarland. One of the main efforts that we are trying
to do together is have the same learning management system. If
we take our systems close together, as we upgrade our courses
and our curriculum, they can take advantage of it and the same
thing the other way around. So really the central IT, as I
emphasized during my testimony, is very important.
Mr. Lankford. Okay. Yes, rebuilding the wheel is not
important. If we can take Web sites, we can take certifications
and adapt them, that is much preferred.
Mr. Connolly, do you have anything final?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you. This
is a very important hearing. This topic, while maybe not
universally sexy, the taxpayers' interest is lost or won,
frankly, at this level of management. And it is so critical.
And it may seem arcane, but it is very important. I just thank
you and congratulate you for having this hearing, because this
is one are I am confident we can proceed in a very bipartisan
basis. Thank you.
Mr. Lankford. I thank you and thank you for your time as
well, getting into this and going through all the research and
information and the work you are doing on it. I look forward to
continuing to hear the progress, as we will meet again in the
days to come, and be able to get an update on where we are.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 71963.044