Acquisition Reform: GSA and VA Efforts to Improve Training of Their
Acquisition Workforces (Letter Report, 02/18/2000, GAO/GGD-00-66).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
training of the acquisition workforce in certain federal civilian
departments and agencies, focusing on whether: (1) the General Services
Administration (GSA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had
assurance that their acquisition workforces met training requirements as
defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and whether
contracting officers at one GSA and one VA field location met each
agency's training requirements; (2) OFPP had taken action to ensure that
civilian departments and agencies collected and maintained standardized
acquisition workforce information, as required by the 1996 Clinger-Cohen
Act; and (3) GSA and VA were taking actions to comply with Clinger-Cohen
Act funding requirements.

GAO noted that: (1) both GSA and VA have efforts under way to train
their acquisition workforces; (2) however, neither had assurance that
all members of their acquisition workforces had received core training
and continuing education, as required by OFPP's policy; (3) neither
agency had complete readily accessible information on the overall extent
to which their acquisition workforces had received required training;
(4) contrary to OFPP's policy, neither GSA nor VA had established core
training requirements for some segments of their acquisition
workforces--contracting officer representatives and contracting officer
technical representatives who do not have authority to award contracts;
(5) by reviewing agency training records and obtaining documentation
directly from GSA's Greater Southwest Regional Office and VA's medical
center in Dallas, GAO determined that 99 percent of GSA and 72 percent
of VA contracting officers at these two locations met core training
requirements that GSA and VA had established for such personnel; (6)
however, only about half of GSA's and VA's contracting officers in these
locations who were to have continuing education requirements completed
by December 1999 had met those requirements by the due date; (7) to help
explain why some officers had not completed the required training,
agency officials cited conflicts in scheduling the training and a lack
of awareness of training requirements; (8) OFPP has not yet ensured that
civilian departments and agencies were collecting and maintaining
standardized information, including training data, on their acquisition
workforces, as required by Clinger-Cohen; (9) in September 1997, OFPP
tasked the Federal Acquisition Institute to work with departments and
agencies and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop a
governmentwide management information system, including specifications
for the data elements to be captured, to assist departments and agencies
in collecting and maintaining standardized data; (10) system development
was significantly delayed because the Institute and OPM had not reached
agreement on final system requirements and specifications; (11) neither
GSA nor VA identified all the funds it planned to use for acquisition
workforce training in its congressional budget justification documents
as required by Clinger-Cohen; (12) Clinger-Cohen provides that agencies
may not obligate funds specifically appropriated for acquisition
workforce education and training under the act for any other purpose;
and (13) appropriations acts GAO reviewed for GSA and VA did not specify
a funding level for acquisition workforce education and training.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-66
     TITLE:  Acquisition Reform: GSA and VA Efforts to Improve Training
	     of Their Acquisition Workforces
      DATE:  02/18/2000
   SUBJECT:  Employment or training programs
	     Productivity in government
	     Training utilization
	     Personnel management
	     Federal procurement
	     Contracting officers
	     Human resources training
	     Contractor personnel
	     Federal procurement policy

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2000

GAO/GGD-00-66

ACQUISITION REFORM
GSA and VA Efforts to Improve Training of Their

Acquisition Workforces

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:

[email protected]

or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(240342)

Contents
Page 221       GAO/GGD-00-66 Acquisition Workforce
Letter                                                                      1
                                                                             
Appendix I                                                                 24
Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
                                                                             
Appendix II                                                                27
Comments From the
General Services
Administration
                                                                             
Appendix III                                                               29
Comments From the
Department of Veterans
Affairs
                                                                             
Appendix IV                                                                33
GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
                                                                             
Tables                     Table 1: Contracting Officer Warrant             9
                           Levels, Contracting Authority, and
                           Core Training Courses Required to
                           Obtain Warrants
                           Table 2: Status of Core Training Taken          10
                           by Contracting Officers Whose Records
                           We Reviewed in GSA's Greater
                           Southwest Regional Office and VA's
                           Dallas Medical Center
                           Table 3: Status of Continuing                   12
                           Education Taken by Contracting
                           Officers Whose Records We Reviewed in
                           GSA's Greater Southwest Regional
                           Office and VA's Dallas Medical Center
                                                                             

Abbreviations

GSA       General Services Administration
OFPP      Office of Federal Procurement Policy
OPM       Office of Personnel Management
VA        Department of Veterans Affairs

B-282359

Page 2         GAO/GGD-00-66 Acquisition Workforce
     B-282359

     February 18, 2000

The Honorable Stephen Horn
Chairman
The Honorable James Turner
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Government Management,
 Information and Technology
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
 
 This report responds to your request for a
review of the training of the acquisition
workforce in certain federal civilian
departments and agencies. You were concerned
that civilian departments' and agencies'
acquisition personnel may lack the necessary
training to perform their acquisition
responsibilities. These personnel are
responsible for billions of dollars of
procurement expenditures each year.

     Specifically, as agreed with your office, we
determined whether (1) the General Services
Administration (GSA) and the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) had assurance that their
acquisition workforces met training requirements
as defined by the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP) and whether contracting officers at
one GSA and one VA field location met each
agency's training requirements; (2) OFPP had taken
action to ensure that civilian departments and
agencies collected and maintained standardized
acquisition workforce information, as required by
the 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act; and (3) GSA and VA
were taking actions to comply with Clinger-Cohen
Act funding requirements.

     To accomplish these objectives, we examined
records and interviewed officials at GSA and VA
headquarters, the Office of Management and
Budget's OFPP, the Federal Acquisition Institute,
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), GSA's
Greater Southwest Regional Office in Fort Worth,
Texas, and VA's medical center in Dallas, Texas.
We concentrated our efforts on GSA and VA, in
part, because they had large numbers of contract
specialists and had large volumes of contracting
activity relative to other federal civilian
agencies. In fiscal year 1997, GSA and VA contract
specialists constituted 23 percent of the 8,320
contract specialists in all federal civilian
executive departments and agencies. They had 1,224
and 727 specialists, respectively, making GSA and
VA the top two federal civilian agencies in terms
of numbers of contract specialists employed. In
addition, in fiscal year 1997, GSA and VA spent 18
percent of the $63.1 billion in federal
contracting dollars ($7 billion and $4.5 billion,
respectively) for civilian executive departments
and agencies in the federal government. We
conducted our review between March 1999 and
February 2000 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. A detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology is
presented in appendix I. We requested comments on
a draft of this report from the Administrator of
GSA, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the
Directors of the Office of Management and Budget
and OPM. The comments are addressed at the end of
this letter.

Results in Brief
     Both GSA and VA have efforts under way to
train their acquisition workforces. However,
neither had assurance that all members of their
acquisition workforces had received core training1
and continuing education, as required by OFPP's
policy. Neither agency had complete, readily
accessible information on the overall extent to
which their acquisition workforces had received
required training. Training records maintained at
one GSA and one VA field location we visited were
incomplete. About a third of the files we reviewed
at each field location lacked information on
whether contracting officers met their core
training and continuing education requirements.

     Contrary to OFPP's policy, neither GSA nor VA
had established core training requirements for
some segments of their acquisition
workforces-contracting officer representatives and
contracting officer technical representatives who
do not have authority to award contracts. These
representatives comprised 14 percent of GSA's and
54 percent of VA's acquisition workforce,
respectively. In addition, GSA's requirement for
16 hours of continuing education every 2 years for
contracting officers having authority to award
lower-dollar level contracts is not consistent
with OFPP policy, which stipulates at least 40
hours every 2 years.

     Furthermore, by reviewing agency training
records and obtaining documentation directly from
GSA's Greater Southwest Regional Office and VA's
medical center in Dallas, we determined that 99
percent of GSA and 72 percent of VA contracting
officers at these two locations met core training
requirements that GSA and VA had established for
such personnel. However, only about half of GSA's
and VA's contracting officers in these locations
who were to have continuing education requirements
completed by December 1999 had met those
requirements by the due date. To help explain why
some officers had not completed the required
training, agency officials cited (1) conflicts in
scheduling the training and (2) a lack of
awareness of training requirements.

     OFFP has not yet ensured that civilian
departments and agencies were collecting and
maintaining standardized information, including
training data, on their acquisition workforces, as
required by Clinger-Cohen. In September 1997, OFPP
tasked the Federal Acquisition Institute to work
with departments and agencies and OPM to develop a
governmentwide management information system,
including specifications for the data elements to
be captured, to assist departments and agencies in
collecting and maintaining standardized data.
System development was significantly delayed
because the Institute and OPM had not reached
agreement on final system requirements and
specifications.

     Neither GSA nor VA identified all the funds
it planned to use for acquisition workforce
training in its congressional budget justification
documents as required by Clinger-Cohen. While VA
had reported some of its acquisition training
funding requirements in its budget documents for
fiscal years 1998 through 2000 pursuant to Clinger-
Cohen, GSA had only done so for fiscal year 2000
due to what GSA officials described as an
administrative oversight. In addition, neither
agency tracked all of its acquisition training
expenditures. GSA plans to begin tracking training
expenditures sometime during fiscal year 2000. In
commenting on a draft of this report, VA said that
it would explore the feasibility of doing this.

     Clinger-Cohen provides that agencies may not
obligate funds specifically appropriated for
acquisition workforce education and training under
the act for any other purpose. Appropriations acts
we reviewed for GSA and VA did not specify a
funding level for acquisition workforce education
and training.

     We are making recommendations to the
Administrator of GSA, Secretary of VA, and
Administrator of OFPP concerning observance of
statutory and policy requirements.

Background
     For fiscal year 1998, the Federal Procurement
Data Center reported that federal agencies had
contract obligations of about $200 billion.
Acquisition refers to the process of obtaining
goods, services, and space for use by the
government. The acquisition process begins with a
determination of a need for goods or services and
includes deciding on solicitation and selection of
sources; award of contracts; and contract
administration, completion, and closeout.
Personnel in many different occupations perform
these acquisition tasks, including those who are
in the acquisition profession and those who are in
other professions but who become involved in the
acquisition process by performing such activities
as determining requirements or monitoring
contractor performance.

     Congress, recognizing that billions of
dollars are spent each year on federal
procurement, the acquisition process is highly
complex, and the caliber of the workforce is
critical to the efficiency and effectiveness of
the acquisition process, has expressed concern
over the years about the expertise of the federal
acquisition workforce. Every major congressional
acquisition reform initiative since 1972 has
included steps toward improving the acquisition
workforce. Steps taken have included such measures
as designating a central agency to provide
leadership for acquisition workforce development,
establishing minimum qualification requirements,
requiring enhanced performance incentives, and
giving greater visibility to funding for training
the acquisition workforce.

     The December 1972 report of the Commission on
Government Procurement recommended improvements in
the efficiency and effectiveness of the
procurement process through various measures,
including improving the caliber of the acquisition
workforce. Since then, Congress and the executive
branch have taken actions designed to improve the
acquisition workforce. In 1974, Congress passed
legislation establishing OFPP and, over the years,
assigned it responsibility to provide direction of
procurement policy and leadership in the
development of executive agency procurement
systems, including the professional development of
acquisition personnel. Through legislation,
Congress directed that the Federal Acquisition
Institute, under the direction of OFPP, promote
governmentwide career management programs for a
professional acquisition workforce. The Institute
carries out this role by such means as
periodically analyzing acquisition career fields,
developing competencies for acquisition positions,
and developing acquisition training courses.

     In February 1996, Congress enacted the
Clinger-Cohen Act (P.L. 104-106). Section 4307 of
Clinger-Cohen, entitled "Acquisition Workforce,"
amended the OFPP Act and requires OFPP to, among
other things, (1) establish minimum acquisition
workforce qualification requirements, (2) promote
uniform implementation of acquisition education
and training requirements among agencies to the
extent this is consistent with their missions, (3)
ensure that agencies collect and maintain
standardized information on the acquisition
workforce related to Clinger-Cohen's
implementation, and (4) evaluate agencies'
implementation of Clinger-Cohen.

     In addition, Clinger-Cohen requires civilian
agencies to establish, in consultation with OFPP,
policies and procedures for effective management,
including education and training requirements, for
their acquisition workforces, and to ensure
uniform implementation of policies and procedures
among components to the maximum extent
practicable. Clinger-Cohen further requires
civilian agencies to separately identify the
funding levels requested for acquisition workforce
education and training in their congressional
budget justification documents submitted in
support of the President's budget and provides
that agencies may not obligate funds appropriated
for acquisition workforce education and training
under the act for any other purpose.

     In September 1997, after consulting with
agency procurement executives, OFPP issued Policy
Letter 97-01 that set forth governmentwide
policies and approaches for implementing Clinger-
Cohen's acquisition workforce provisions. Among
other things, OFPP directed agencies to establish

ï¿½    core training for contract specialists (GS-
1102), contracting officers, purchasing agents (GS-
1105), contracting officer representatives, and
contracting officer technical representatives, and
ï¿½    at least 40 hours of continuing education or
training every 2 years for contract specialists
and contracting officers.
     There is one main occupational series that
federal employees involved in acquisition work
fall into-GS-1102. Contract specialists are
defined as a broad category of employees whose
positions are in the GS-1102 occupational series.
This series includes those who perform the duties
of contracting officers. Contracting officers are
federal employees with the authority to bind the
government legally by signing a contractual
instrument. Purchasing agents, who by definition
are in the GS-1105 occupational series, are
federal employees who generally issue delivery
orders against established contracts. Contracting
officer representatives and contracting officer
technical representatives are federal employees
who have been designated by a contracting officer
to perform certain contract administration
activities, some of which relate to program or
technical issues; these categories of acquisition
personnel can be in a variety of OPM occupational
series.

     In Policy Letter 97-01, OFPP delegated to the
Federal Acquisition Institute the responsibility
for developing a governmentwide management
information system that would allow departments
and agencies to collect and maintain standardized
acquisition workforce information, including
training data, and that would conform to standards
established by OPM for its Central Personnel Data
File.2

     Although OPM has data on the total number of
federal employees in the GS-1102 and GS-1105
series, it does not have data on the numbers of
acquisition personnel, such as contracting
officers or contracting officer technical
representatives who are in other job series.
Therefore, because agencies have acquisition
personnel in job series other than the GS-1102 and
GS-1105 series, it is not possible to determine
the total number of acquisition personnel
governmentwide at this time. GSA and VA, however,
have estimated the number of contracting officer
representatives, contracting officer technical
representatives, and other acquisition personnel
they employ. Most recent OPM data show that as of
March 1999, there were a total of about 31,400
acquisition personnel in the GS-1102 and GS-1105
job series, of whom about 20,900 were in the
Department of Defense and about 10,500 were in
civilian agencies.

     According to GSA, as of December 1999, it had
3,146 acquisition personnel, including 1,319 in
the GS-1102 and GS-1105 job series, 1,383
contracting officers who were not in the GS-1102
or GS-1105 job series, and 444 contracting officer
representatives or contracting officer technical
representatives, who were not contracting
officers. In addition, GSA also reported that 253
of the 1,383 contracting officers were contracting
officer representatives or contracting officer
technical representatives.

     According to VA, during 1999, it had 4,357
acquisition personnel, including 1,724 contracting
officers in the 1102, 1105, or other job series,
such as program analysts (GS-345), general
engineering (GS-801), reality specialist (GS-
1170), and prosthetic representative (GS-672);
2,355 contracting officer representatives or
contracting officer technical representatives who
were not contracting officers; and 278 others,
such as supply management specialist (GS-2003)
personnel and procurement, clerical, and technical
(GS-1106) personnel. In addition, VA also reported
that 21 of the 1,724 contracting officers were
contracting officer representatives or contracting
officer technical representatives.

Neither GSA Nor VA Has Organizationwide Training
Data, But Some Training Is Being Provided
     Neither GSA nor VA has comprehensive
organizationwide data showing the extent to which
its acquisition workforce has received required
training. Further, although both agencies have
efforts under way to provide training, training
records for acquisition personnel we reviewed at
locations for each agency were incomplete; some
acquisition personnel at each location had not met
all of their training requirements; and contrary
to OFPP's policy, neither agency had established
core training requirements for all categories of
acquisition personnel.

Automated Systems and Manual Records
     Both GSA and VA lacked organizationwide data
on the status of training provided to the
organizations' acquisition workforce. Without such
information, neither agency, nor OFPP, can be
assured that Clinger-Cohen Act requirements
relating to the training of the acquisition
workforce are being met.

     GSA and VA each have both automated
information systems and manual records that have
some information on their acquisition workforces.
For example, GSA's automated personnel information
system contains demographic information, such as
an employee's name, job series and grade,
location, and education. We found that the
education level on 7 of 19 (37 percent) newly
hired contract specialists was erroneous and had
to be corrected to reconcile with the records
located in the field. Furthermore, a GSA official
told us that this automated system does not
contain centralized data on the extent to which
GSA's acquisition workforce meets core training
and continuing education requirements. Instead,
training records of this nature are maintained at
the local level. With respect to VA, its Office of
Acquisition and Materiel Management centrally
collects and maintains training information on
contracting officers with intermediate- and senior-
level warrants.3 The information includes the
employee's name, title and grade, facility, core
training completed, education level, and warrant
level, but does not include core training
information for contracting officers with basic-
level warrants and contracting officer technical
representatives. According to VA, its field
offices are to maintain training information on
contracting officers with basic-level warrants. VA
officials told us that their headquarters'
database does not contain up-to-date information
on contracting officer's training for any warrant
level because they suspended maintenance of their
existing database in anticipation of the
implementation of the governmentwide management
information system in 1999.

     During our review of training records at VA's
Dallas medical center, we found that 10 out of 11
intermediate- and senior-level contracting
officers' headquarters database files were
incomplete. In addition, each agency also
maintains hard copy personnel files for its
employees that, according to each agency, are
supposed to contain a variety of data, including
warrant level and training received. However,
about one-third of the files we reviewed at the
two agencies' field locations we visited were
incomplete. Files were incomplete for

ï¿½    25 of the 70 (36 percent) files we reviewed
at GSA's Greater Southwest Regional Office and
ï¿½    8 of the 25 (32 percent) files we reviewed at
VA's Dallas medical center.

 In these instances, files frequently lacked
documentation that contracting officers met core
training and continuing education requirements. We
had to request additional information from the
individual contracting officers or agency
officials regarding warrants, core training, or
continuing education for these 33 individuals. The
contracting officers and agency officials provided
us with the additional information.

     In January 1998, GSA's Inspector General also
found that training records were incomplete at
GSA's Greater Southwest Regional Office.4
Specifically, 48 of the 86 (56 percent)
contracting officer files that the Inspector
General reviewed lacked sufficient documentation
to support the assertion that these individuals
had completed all the required training for their
type of appointment or warrant level. Although the
Regional Administrator agreed with the Inspector
General's recommendation to fully document all
pertinent training, a July 1999 Inspector General
report concluded that the Regional Administrator's
action plan was not yet fully or satisfactorily
implemented.5

Core Training
     OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 directs executive
agency heads to establish core training for
acquisition personnel. GSA and VA have established
core training for acquisition personnel who need a
warrant. Table 1 shows the GSA and VA contracting
officer warrant levels, contracting authority,6
and number of core training courses required to
obtain a warrant.

Table 1: Contracting Officer Warrant Levels,
Contracting Authority, and Core Training Courses
Required to Obtain Warrants
_______________________________
1Training required before a contracting officer
could award, administer, or terminate contracts on
a permanent basis.
2This file, created and maintained by OPM,
contains data on the federal civilian workforce.
The standards cover such topics as classification
series, grade level, service computation date,
education level, and number and kind of personnel
actions.
3A warrant is the certificate that authorizes a
contracting officer to enter into, administer, or
terminate contracts on behalf of the department or
agency. Departments and agencies have various
warrant levels with specified dollar thresholds.
4Audit of Contracting Officer Warrant Program-
Region 7, A72126/O/7/F98001, Jan. 22, 1998.
5Implementation Review of the Audit of Contracting
Officer Warrant Program-Region 7,
A72126/O/7/F98001, Jan. 22, 1998, A995243, July
9,1999.
6Contracting authority is the dollar amount a
contracting officer is authorized to obligate the
government for purchasing goods and services. This
dollar amount is for individual transactions
(e.g., initial awards, contract modifications,
supplemental agreements) and not the aggregate
contract value.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 26        GAO/GGD-00-66 Acquisition Workforce
     Our objectives were to determine whether (1)
the General Services Administration (GSA) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had assurance
that their acquisition workforces met training
requirements as defined by the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) and whether contracting
officers at one GSA and one VA field location met
each agency's training requirements; (2) OFPP had
ensured that federal civilian departments and
agencies collected and maintained standardized
acquisition workforce information, as required by
the 1996 Clinger-Cohen Act; and (3) GSA and VA
were taking actions to comply with the Clinger-
Cohen Act's funding requirements.

     To determine the actions GSA and VA had taken
in ensuring that their acquisition workforce met
training requirements, we researched and analyzed
the Clinger-Cohen Act and OFPP policy letters to
identify the relevant provisions and policies. We
then interviewed GSA headquarters officials in
Washington, D.C., and regional officials in Fort
Worth, Texas, to determine their actions in
implementing the acts' training requirements and
OFPP policies. We also interviewed VA headquarters
officials in Washington, D.C., and VA medical
center officials in Dallas, Texas, for the same
purpose.

     To assess whether GSA and VA contracting
officers met training requirements, as set out by
each agency's headquarters office (associated with
relevant Clinger-Cohen requirements and OFPP
Policy Letter 97-01), we examined data maintained
at their headquarters for acquisition workforce
training and discussed this issue with acquisition
officials at each agency.  In addition, we
randomly selected a sample of 75 out of 324
contracting officer training records at GSA's
Greater Southwest Regional Office in Fort Worth,
Texas, and all 26 records at VA's medical center
in Dallas, Texas. We adjusted our original sample
size of 75 contracting officers to 70 at GSA's
Greater Southwest Regional Office because the list
provided was inaccurate.1 We eliminated one
individual's name from the list of 26 contracting
officers at VA's Dallas medical center because
this individual did not have a warrant. We
examined the selected training records to assess
whether contracting officers met training
requirements, and we discussed training and
documentation issues with acquisition officials at
each agency's field location.

     We reviewed GSA Inspector General reports
related to the education and training of GSA's
acquisition workforce. For the reports associated
with GSA's Greater Southwest Regional Office, we
discussed the audit findings with Inspector
General staff. VA's Office of Inspector General
had not completed audits on these issues at the VA
since the enactment of Clinger-Cohen.

     We selected GSA and VA for review because
they have large numbers of contract specialists
(GS-1102), handle large amounts of contracting
dollars, and engage in decentralized activities.
In fiscal year 1997, GSA and VA contract
specialists constituted 23 percent of the 8,320
contract specialists in all federal civilian
executive departments and agencies. They had 1,224
and 727 specialists, respectively, making GSA and
VA the top two federal civilian agencies in terms
of numbers of contract specialists employed. In
addition, in fiscal year 1997, GSA and VA spent 18
percent of the $63.1 billion in federal
contracting dollars ($7 billion and $4.5 billion,
respectively) for civilian executive departments
and agencies in the federal government. GSA and
VA's decentralized procurement activities also
provided us the opportunity to review both
headquarters' and field activities' efforts at
educating and training their acquisition
workforces.

     We conducted our review at GSA's Greater
Southwest Regional Office because, out of GSA's 11
regional offices, the Greater Southwest Regional
Office had the highest number of contract
specialists and had contract specialists assigned
to all of the region's three services (Federal
Supply Service, Federal Technology Service, and
Public Buildings Service). We conducted our review
at the VA Dallas medical center because it was the
fifth largest VA facility in terms of the number
of acquisition personnel and the largest VA
facility within the state of Texas.

     We researched and analyzed the Clinger-Cohen
Act to identify the provisions and policies
related to OFPP's requirement to ensure that
agencies collect and maintain standardized
acquisition workforce information, including
training data. We interviewed OFPP officials in
Washington, D.C., to obtain their views on these
provisions and policies to identify their actions
for ensuring that departments and agencies
implement this requirement. We reviewed documents
such as the project agreement, scope of work, cost
reports, and electronic communications between
OFPP, the Federal Acquisition Institute, Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), and Lexitech (the
private firm) to determine the status of the
development of a governmentwide management
information system that would allow departments
and agencies to collect and maintain standardized
information on the acquisition workforce,
including training data, that conform to standards
established by OPM for the Central Personnel Data
File. We also interviewed the Federal Acquisition
Institute and OPM officials in Washington, D.C.,
and an OPM official in Macon, Georgia, to
determine the actions they had taken to develop a
governmentwide management information system. In
addition, we interviewed GSA and VA officials in
Washington, D.C., to determine the actions taken
to collect and maintain standardized information
on their acquisition workforces.

     To determine the actions GSA and VA had taken
to fund and track the cost of educating and
training their workforces, we reviewed agency
budget development and congressional budget
justification documents, and we interviewed GSA
and VA officials at both Washington, D.C.,
headquarters and Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas,
field locations. Also, we interviewed GSA and VA
officials at both headquarters and field locations
to obtain their views on Clinger-Cohen's funding
provisions and to identify any barriers to
implementing the act's requirements. We did not
verify data in agencies' automated information
systems.

     We requested comments on a draft of this
report from the Administrator of the General
Services Administration, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, and the Directors of the Office of
Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel
Management and made changes to the final report as
appropriate.

_______________________________
1 For example, one contracting officer relocated
to another GSA region, one contracting officer was
listed twice, two contracting officers were not
warranted, and one contracting officer was unknown
to GSA Greater Southwest Regional Office
management.

Appendix II
Comments From the General Services Administration
Page 28        GAO/GGD-00-66 Acquisition Workforce

Appendix III
Comments From the Department of Veterans Affairs
Page 30        GAO/GGD-00-66 Acquisition Workforce

Appendix IV
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 33        GAO/GGD-00-66 Acquisition Workforce
GAO Contacts
Bernard L. Ungar (202) 512-4232

Acknowledgments
     Steve D. Boyles, John E. Clary, Luis
Escalante, Jr., Raimondo Occhipinti, Elliott C.
Smith, and Joel Smith made key contributions to
this report.

*** End of Document ***