DOD’s use of services contracts gets congressional scrutiny

The House version of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act would require the Defense Department to hire an outside organization to assess its use and oversight of services contracts.

The House Armed Services Committee believes DOD doesn't have a strategic approach to managing its service contracts, according to the committee’s June 18 report on the authorization bill (H.R. 2637).

As a result, “the department is at risk of being unable to identify and correct poor contractor performance in a timely manner and is at risk of paying contractors more than the value of the services they performed,” the committee wrote.

The House passed the bill June 25 by a vote of 389-22. The Senate committee has marked up its version of the bill, but the committee has yet to approve it.

Under the House bill, the assessment would be conducted by a federally funded research and development center. The center would look at the guidance DOD provides its acquisition workforce on how to develop a services contract, including how to define requirements and the associated performance metrics.

The center also would look at whether or not DOD has enough people in its acquisition workforce to do the work appropriately. The report would be due in March 2010.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the legislation supports the Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to increase the civilian acquisition workforce’s size and to reduce DOD’s reliance on contractors for critical acquisition duties. DOD officials want to hire 9,000 new government employees and convert 11,000 contractor jobs to DOD civilian personnel.

“Defense acquisition reform is a top priority for our committee,” Skelton said in statement June 17 after his committee approved the legislation.

In another acquisition reform, the committee wants to find ways for DOD to buy IT more quickly.

IT systems require regular updates, because of changes in technology, which affects critical parts of the DOD infrastructure. But DOD’s process for buying IT makes it difficult for the department to keep up, according to a DOD task force.

The acquisition process is time-consuming and cumbersome, the task force wrote in a March report. "The process should be agile and geared to delivering meaningful increments of capability in approximately 18 months or less."

The House bill would allow DOD to pick 10 IT programs every year in which to test new procurement processes.Acquisition reforms in the House's fiscal 2010 National Defense Authorization Act concentrate on oversight of service contracts and buying information technology quickly.

Read the story: FCW.com News - DOD’s use of services contracts gets congressional scrutiny

GSA contract expiration reflects market needs, experts say

GSA official says many GWACs won't be renewed as GSA markets its Alliant and Alliant Small Business contracts

The General Services Administration's plan to let many of its governmentwide information technology contracts expire, largely ending the era of big governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs), reflects the evolving needs of the market, experts say.

They say the federal IT market’s sales have been driving GSA to end and merge GWACs for several years now. There are too many GWACs, causing too much overlap of services. The result is scattered sales while the cost of running the contracts still dips deeply into GSA’s pockets.

GSA will continue to support only Alliant, its small-business companion contract and a few GWACs targeted to companies in specific socioeconomic categories, said Ed O’Hare, assistant commissioner of the Office of Integrated Technology Services at GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service.

For the long term, though, GSA will likely merge the GWAC program with the widely used Multiple Award Schedules program. “But that will take years, not months,” O’Hare said.

Before ending the GWAC program, GSA will first winnow down the number of marginally performing GWACs, such as Commerce Information Technology Solutions-NexGen, said Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement. In recent years, GSA has taken over several GWACs, such as COMMITS from the Commerce Department, and now the agency needs to streamline its efforts, he added.

GSA has said for more than a year that the overlapping GWACs are expensive for government and industry and should be pared down, said Bill Perlowitz, vice president of advanced technology at Apptis. No one should be surprised that the agency is saying it won’t renew many GWACs, particularly given the Obama administration’s desire for a more efficient government.

“GSA would be streamlining things” to close down or merge GWACs into its schedules program, said Hope Lane, officer of government contracts consulting at Aronson and Co.

Total IT sales figures have slipped slightly in the past several years. The fallout in 2004 over GSA’s mishandling of the Defense Department’s money has caused some DOD customers to turn to other IT contracts, such as the Navy Department’s SeaPort-e, Lane said.

Meanwhile, sales on GSA’s massive Schedule 70 have remained relatively flat at about $17 billion annually for the past three years, according to government figures.

The recently awarded Alliant and Alliant Small Business GWACs, which were delayed for two years, have a wide choice of services, which makes many other GWACs unnecessary, experts say.

"You can get pretty much anything you want from Alliant," Lane said.

Courtney Fairchild, president of Global Services, said GSA’s Alliant contracts, which were awarded earlier this year, were always meant to replace the expiring GWACs.

“I suppose the real question for industry is whether or not government agencies have enough faith in the Alliant contract to switch over,” she said.

Agencies that shy away from Alliant will still have the option to work with one of more than 15,000 companies in the schedules program.

GWACs offer options to agencies that the schedules program can’t, such as cost-reimbursement contracts. Unless GSA can tweak the schedules program’s rules to change that, GWACs will always have a place, Allen said.

In addition, GSA would have a tough time closing the socioeconomic-based GWACs, such as the 8(a) small-business Streamlined Technology Acquisition Resources for Services and the Veterans Technology Services GWACs.

“Would you want to stand before Congress and try to explain why you ended those contracts?” Allen asked.

On the other hand, any attempt to merge the GWAC and schedules programs would be “consistent with the spirit and message of the creation of the recent Federal Acquisition Service,” Fairchild said.

The reorganization of the Federal Technology Service and the Federal Supply Service into FAS allowed GSA to scrap dueling and repetitive contracts that might confuse customers.

Read the story: Washingtontechnology.com News - GSA contract expiration reflects market needs, experts say

Acquisition workforce: Social media could be big draw

The government acquisition community ought to take a cue from President Barack Obama’s campaign strategy and use social media technology to bolster its ranks, one lawmaker says.

The government needs to be brave enough to draw on the younger generation’s new ways of interacting to help attract them to government service and to simply improve how agencies run, said Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), speaking at a congressional hearing last week.

Many older federal employees may not be as comfortable with that technology, but the up-and-coming employees live by it. “This is their primary way of thinking,” he said.

Obama’s campaign captured young people’s attention like no other presidential candidate has before. It created Change.gov, a hip Web site describing Obama’s agenda. But Obama also sent out text messages and had a presence on Facebook, MySpace and numerous other social networking sites. Obama posted videos on YouTube. He even tweeted.

As a candidate, Obama was “a socially enabled, socially connected, socially aware, socially conscious leader,” Barry Libert, author of “Barack, Inc.: Winning Business Lessons of the Obama Campaign,” said in a recent speech.

At the hearing, Bilbray said the older generations that didn’t grow up with this technology will always be somewhat blind to it, unlike the younger people who have never known life without that technology.

“First of all, it intimidates us to some degree, and we may not understand it. But the potential is huge,” he said.

The next generation is heading toward more Web 2.0 tools and collaboration from the crowd.

The General Services Administration already has a technology-rich culture, said David Drabkin, acting chief acquisition officer at GSA, who testified at the hearing. The agency is adopting cloud computing and Web 2.0 collaboration tools internally and using social networking sites such as Facebook to interact with the public.

“We are on the edge,” he said.

Mary Davie, assistant Federal Acquisition Service commissioner for assisted acquisition services at GSA, is already thinking about the application of social media to acquisition. In a column in this week’s print edition of Federal Computer Week, Davie suggests opening the process of defining an acquisition’s requirements to get insight from a community of experts, inside or outside of the government.

“Using the wisdom of the crowd to define requirements and the best development process, participants could propose ideas based on experience, good practices, and standards, question and weed out bad ideas, build on one another’s ideas, and float the best to the top,” she writes.

Like Bilbray, Davie sees an opportunity not only to improve procurement but to appeal to younger recruits.

“Imagine what this might do to attract and retain the Net Generation workforce we are always seeking out,” Davie wrote.

At the hearing, Shay Assad, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, said technology will bring major changes in acquisition during the next two years.

The department is developing a database that will give Defense Department contracting officials quick access to information on business deals across the department, such as how the department negotiates with certain contractors, what they buy, and how much they may.

The system will be based on information collected by the Defense Contract Management Agency, which is the hub for analysis of the value and costs of DOD’s procurements.

At present, the individual services often don’t share information and know little about what the other services are buying, even from the same contractor, Assad said. “The fact of the matter is that we are not as capable as a number of organizations in terms of being able to share that information, but we are getting there,” he said.

Read the rest of the story: FCW.com News - Acquisition workforce: Social media could be big draw

GSA looks to corral former customers

Procurement agency tries to win back lost business

Good news hasn't come very often to the embattled General Services Administration in recent years. So when some positive attention does come its way, GSA officials are eager to wave the results in front of its old go-it-alone customers — if only to show them that the agency has left its bad habits in the past.

Auditors from the Defense Department and GSA have been examining GSA’s books, and agency officials are confident the outcome will reveal that GSA can toe the regulatory line, said Ed O’Hare, new assistant commissioner for integrated technology services at GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service.

“We are confident we made the changes we needed to make, and we’ll fly through,” he said in a speech delivered in May.

Meanwhile, his marketing people are gathering a list of multiagency contracts and indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts that other agencies launched around the same time GSA was found to be assisting the Defense Department with illegal purchases. O’Hare is targeting his message of repentance to the officers in the agencies whose own IDIQs are about to expire. The contracts often last for five to 10 years.

He wants to convince those agencies that GSA is ready to take over the other IDIQs, relieving other agencies of the maintenance burdens that come with running a large contracting program.

His question is simply: “Do you really want to do this again?”

For added emphasis, O’Hare also intends to highlight GSA’s inexpensive usage fees. Agencies pay a 0.75 percent service fee to use the Alliant GWAC, and GSA is capping that fee at $150,000 a year.

“I defy anyone to do a GWAC less expensively than that,” O’Hare said.

GSA’s ‘come to Jesus’ moment

Although GSA says it has moved past the scandal that rocked it five years ago, the memories — and history — linger. On Jan. 8, 2004, the GSA inspector general reported a pervasive problem of improper task orders and contract awards by the agency’s client support centers (CSCs), which served DOD. The IG found that some GSA employees were using the Information Technology Fund for purchases of goods and services that were well outside the fund’s scope. As a result, DOD officials banned use of GSA for major purchases.

The list of GSA’s sins grew long, according to the IG: improper sole-source awards, allowing work outside the scope of contracts, and inappropriately using time-and-materials task orders. Although the IT fund is authorized only for acquiring IT equipment, software and related services, investigators found that CSCs were dipping into it to pay for a wide variety of inappropriate things, such as marine barriers, pathogen detection devices, and construction of classrooms and office buildings.

The GSA IG attributed the problems to a culture that emphasized revenue growth instead of adhering to proper procurement procedures.

“I think every organization has to have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment,” said David Drabkin, GSA’s chief acquisition officer. That IG report was GSA’s moment.

Although the problems applied only to one small piece of GSA’s operation, the public perception was that the agency was more broadly compromised. “One part of your business does badly, and it hurts everybody,” Drabkin said.

DOD customers were frustrated with GSA and showed it in 2004 and 2005. Sales in the multiple-award schedules program slowed, but the program kept GSA from losing money year over year, Drabkin said.

But O’Hare and Drabkin said the agency has reorganized and revamped its operations. GSA is a new place compared to several years ago. And with the problems solved, GSA is ready to work. This latest round of audits, as required by the fiscal 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, should close the file on GSA as a poor broker of procurement dollars, O’Hare said.

Good news

Kevin Carroll, former program executive officer for the Army’s enterprise information systems who was in charge of the Information Technology Enabled Services-2S contract, said the new audit results can only help GSA rebuild its image and agencies’ trust in it.

“They’re showing responsibility,” said Carroll, president of the Kevin Carroll Group. But, he said, GSA also must continue to re-establish and develop its business relationship with DOD. Just showing good audit results won’t be enough.

Greg Rothwell, former chief procurement officer at the Homeland Security Department and president of Everymay Consulting Group, said there’s a deeper issue that might be too tough for GSA to surmount with a good audit: Agencies have become accustomed to doing their own contracting, and they aren’t likely to dump their contracts just to return to GSA.

Martha Johnson, President Barack Obama's nominee to be GSA administrator, said the agency has suffered its decline largely because of new freedom for agencies. Legislative changes in the 1990s, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act, removed many of the rules that required agencies to use GSA. It’s now one option among many.

“If you own it, you can control it,” said Rothwell, who helped to launch DHS’ Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading Edge Solutions (EAGLE) contract and the Internal Revenue Service’s first two iterations of the Total Information Processing Support Services (TIPSS) contracts. “If you can’t control it, it can’t be as responsive to the agency’s mission.”

Faster, better, cheaper

The reality of control and GSA’s rough times forced it to cater to its customers and listen to them, experts say. For instance, GSA is letting agencies use contracts other than its own when GSA assists a customer agency.

GSA is scrambling to get started on launching ways for agencies to get on board with the Obama administration’s emphasis on cloud computing. Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra and Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra are advancing the administration’s policy, while GSA’s role could be to make it easy for agencies to use cloud computing services.

“We see the administration’s requirements, we respond by initiating some kind of contract action and make it fast and easy for government agencies to use,” O’Hare said.

He even wants to make cloud computing services available to agencies using a credit card, especially when they’re in a pinch for time.

“You don’t have to go to the CIO, you don’t have to go plan it, you don’t have to go buy servers or digital maps or do a [certification and accreditation]," he said. O'Hare envisions an agency employee logging on to a Web site, answering a few questions, and “boom, check out, you got it.”

O’Hare’s Office of Integrated Technology Services has awarded all of its major contracts, such as Alliant and Networx, and they’re ready for business. "I’ve got to get out there and talk to people and try to convince them we’ve already got it,” he said.

And he wants to make GSA work “faster, better and cheaper” than other agencies can offer. “My job is to make it work,” he said.

Read the story: FCW.com News - GSA looks to corral former customers

Think twice before insourcing government work

A report says the Obama administation should be careful before taking jobs from contractors and giving them to agencies

The Obama administration and Congress should proceed cautiously as they attempt to take work away from contractors and hand it to agencies' employees, according to a report released today.

“A rush to insource thousands of positions, while trying to take on ever more government programs, can end in disaster,” wrote Raj Sharma, president of the Federal Acquisition Innovation and Reform Institute, in a report titled "The Move to 'Insourcing'…Proceed with Caution."

Agencies should concentrate first on removing contractors from jobs already defined as inherently governmental and duties central to agencies’ missions, the report states. At the same time, officials need to consider insourcing other jobs in longer-term phases, he wrote, adding that the government can handle the shifting load much easier in stages rather than all at once.

“Rushing to undo what has been in the making for years — perhaps decades — will be counterproductive,” Sharma wrote.

Moreover, taking work from contractors must be done deliberately and based on facts, not innuendo and rhetoric, he wrote.

President Barack Obama often depicts contractors as taking advantage of the government.

However, contractors are a major component of how the government operates, Sharma said, and they often perform work that requires specialized expertise, Sharma added.

“The current rhetoric that demonizes all contractors, instead of those few that are guilty of fraud and abuse, will only deter the best suppliers that we so badly need from competing for government business,” he wrote.

He added that an essential component of success for Obama’s plans for health care reform, energy independence and social innovation will be the technical expertise, innovation and scale that industry can bring.

Meanwhile, experts say experienced federal employees are attractive to private-sector companies, which often offer more to those employees than the government does. Also, a large number of government employees are nearing retirement, and agencies’ acquisition jobs are remaining vacant because few people are seeking those jobs.

Obama’s calls to join public service can only do so much to help find people to do the work, Sharma wrote. The government needs to reconsider its recruiting efforts, pay and professional development policies to make them competitive with the private sector before agencies dramatically insource jobs.

“While it may be feasible to hire thousands of people during the current economic downturn, it will be difficult to retain this talent unless systemic human-capital issues are addressed,” he wrote.

Sharma said officials should answer the following questions before bringing work in-house:

Which positions should be insourced?
How and when should they be insourced?
What will attract the people needed to do the jobs once they are brought in-house?
How will the government retain the employees who are doing the insourced jobs?

Read the story: FCW.com News - Report: Think twice before insourcing government work

Contractors need to closely watch procurement changes

Obama administration and Congress advocate for new era of contracting

Contractors had better dust off their federal rules books.

With the Obama administration concentrating on increasing transparency and reducing contracting costs through procurement reforms and tougher checks on vendors, contractors have plenty to keep track of.

The tone from the administration is often negative, and in some of his statements, President Barack Obama has described contractors as abusers, intent on lining their pockets with federal money.

But some experts say companies aren’t as alert as they should be about changing rules environment.

“Contractors have to be much more vigilant,” said Robert Burton, former deputy administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and now partner at Venable law firm. “But lots of people are slow to get the message.”

In late May, federal officials took steps to more closely regulate contractors. On May 22, Obama signed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act (S. 454), which includes tighter regulations on contractor conflicts of interest.

Under existing rules, the Defense Department and its subsidiary agencies must determine on a case-by-case basis how they can reduce conflicts of interest. However, Congress said DOD must strengthen those requirements. For instance, the department needs to make sure contractors give objective and unbiased plans to guard against any possible conflict, according to the congressional conference report on the legislation.

At the bill signing ceremony, the president reiterated his view on contractors and why DOD needs to augment its conflict-of-interest restrictions.

“When it comes to purchasing weapons systems and developing defense projects, the choice we face is between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are simply designed to make a defense company or a contractor rich,” Obama said.


Target: Conflicts of interest

The conflict-of-interest provision in the new law highlights Congress’ push to close the lid on any contractors’ fingers before they reach into the federal cookie jar. But the Federal Acquisition Regulation has few details about conflicts of interest, and last year, Congress ordered OFPP officials to review the FAR to see if it needs more guidance. The subtle undertone in the order, which is in the fiscal 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, reveals that lawmakers believe in tougher regulations on conflicts of interest, but they aren’t sure how to apply them.

The complications of mandatory reporting rules stretch beyond actions on a single contract. Even if there is no clause mentioning ethics guidelines or reporting of overpayment or potential fraud, allegations of wrongdoing in this area can result in damage to a company's reputation that might be hard to shake. For one, there’s a government database that lists companies that have been accused of failing to act or adhere to contracting rules.

It’s a new era of mandates, Burton said. “That’s what’s changing acquisition now.”

However, some contractors are lax because they don’t think this affects them, especially if their contract has no specific clause, Burton said.

These days, with transparency and scrutiny in tandem, contractors need to be aware even of standard rules.

Exec pay draws attention

Beyond requiring a company to have an ethics program, officials are skeptical of excessive executive pay. In March, Obama said the government shouldn’t line the pockets of contractors. But agencies, particularly DOD, must direct tax dollars to fulfill the nation’s priorities.

On May 21, a day before the president signed the acquisition reform act, OFPP updated the maximum amount the government will reimburse companies’ overhead costs included in fiscal 2009 contracts to compensate an executive. In fiscal 2009, a company can charge the government up to $684,181 per contract in those costs to pay their top employees. That’s $72,000 more than in fiscal 2008.

Although it’s a standard annual update, one government contracting expert said companies need to be more aware of the dollar figure and similar requirements.

“I will say that this figure is taking on added importance with the Obama administration taking a hard look at what government contractor executives make,” said Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement.

“Coupled with the transparency mandate and the [stimulus]-related pay disclosures, I think a lot more companies need to be aware of what the government ‘limit’ is,” he said.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which Obama signed in February, also requires greater disclosure of how a contractor spends the stimulus money. It also forces contractors to offer access to the government overseers, such as inspectors general, while protecting whistle-blowers.

If a contractor doesn’t follow the rules, it will be exposed under the new regulations, said Ray Bjorklund, senior vice president and chief knowledge officer at FedSources, a market research firm.

“The contractor is taking the brunt” of the new rules, he said. “That’s just the way it is.”

Read the story: WashingtonTechnology.com - Contractors need to closely watch procurement changes

GSA nominee faces Senate panel and charms 'em

Senators say nominee Martha Johnson has plenty of private-sector and government experience

Martha Johnson, President Barack Obama’s nominee to be administrator of the General Services Administration, seems to be a shoo-in for the job.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said at Johnson’s confirmation hearing June 3 that he would work to quickly get her nomination approved by the committee and then the Senate.

He also said Obama made a wise choice in nominating her. “GSA, the president and the government need you to be at your desk,” he told Johnson.

Other senators mentioned Johnson’s qualifications and experience in the nonprofit and private sectors and the federal government, particularly as chief of staff at GSA in the 1990s when David Barram was administrator.

Johnson said she’s thrilled to go back to GSA. “‘Thrilled’ is actually a code word for me and for the agency,” she said.

Johnson said her highest priorities are to:

1. Demand, model and secure an uncompromising demonstration of ethical behavior and an organizational culture of values and trust.
2. Guarantee consistent, prompt and high-value performance for GSA’s customers.
3. Work to meet the demands of the economic stimulus law.
4. Support the Obama administration’s promise of a more transparent government.
   
5. Build and nurture strong leadership.

Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the committee’s ranking member, told Johnson that agencies have turned from GSA to do their own procurements because they’re skeptical of GSA's services.

“Some agencies have lost confidence in the ability of GSA to provide the best products and at the best prices and have begun to negotiate their own contracts that duplicate services offered by GSA,” Lieberman said. “That defeats the purpose of GSA.”

The wave of interagency contracts is a market gesture against GSA’s performance, Johnson said. But another major underlying issue that has driven agencies to do their own procurements is the freedom to not use GSA. Legislative changes made the 1990s, including the Clinger-Cohen Act, lifted rules that made GSA the primary source for buying certain products and services. As a result, agencies decided to take the work into their own hands. They could more tightly control and tailor contracts to suit their needs, she said.

Although the competition among contracts often brings better value and lower prices, too much overlap can have the opposite effect, Johnson said, adding that she doesn’t believe GSA should be a monolithic source for purchasing.

Read the story: WashingtonTechnology.com - GSA nominee faces Senate panel and charms 'em

Acquisition work a tough sell

Bureaucracy, lack of prestige drive away potential workers

With the summer hiring season getting under way, the federal government would appear to be in a perfect position to expand the ranks of its acquisition workforce, if only it could stop driving away potential hires.

The good news is that the job market is swamped with college graduates looking for work — and some seasoned professionals who are re-entering the job market for financial reasons.

The federal government, which some workers might have avoided in years past, should be an attractive employer because it offers something many companies cannot: stability.

But then there is the bad news: The federal government is still a bureaucracy. New employees are likely to be frustrated by their lack of decision-making authority and little opportunity to try innovative ideas.

“The federal government is sitting in a pretty good place right now,” said Steve Kempf, assistant commissioner of acquisition management at the General Services Administration’s Federal Acquisition Service. “But I’m not sure we’re going to stay there.”

Several years ago, Congress gave agencies some help by granting them direct-hire authority for acquisition-related positions. That means managers can hire new employees themselves rather than going through the cumbersome process at the Office of Personnel Management.

Congress has also allocated money for agencies to set up booths at job fairs, making it possible to reach potential hires who might not have considered government work.

Once the new employees have been hired, officials often take them on field trips. A visit to a Coast Guard cutter or air traffic control tower shows the new recruits how their work helps the government and country. Many experts say people take more pride in their jobs when they know what their participation brings the government.

However, the thrill of such visits fades fast, leaving new employees wondering what the future holds for them. “You have to have a path to success, and right now the government doesn’t provide that,” said Max Stier, president and chief executive officer of the Partnership for Public Service. There are a number of barriers to success, he added.

The acquisition field has some unique obstacles, experts say. At most agencies, contracting officers are considered less important than they once were, giving the job less prestige and visibility despite its importance to agencies’ success, said Kempf, a career acquisition employee.

“I think we’ve lowered them in the food chain,” he said. When Kempf entered the field two decades ago, contracting officers were revered and had their own offices. Today, they’ve been downgraded to cubicles, he said.

That demotion leaves the contracting officer as simply another step in the purchasing process. But procurement skills should be a core competency because they involve negotiating prices, researching the marketplace, reviewing proposals and awarding contracts on a basis that will withstand protests, said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council.

However, once they’ve chosen the acquisition field, employees have no incentive to pursue a career in government procurement, experts say.

“Frankly, they have every reason to fear for their careers,” said Steven Schooner, an associate law professor and co-director of the Government Procurement Law Program at George Washington University.

Congress, watchdog groups and the news media criticize the acquisition community and pounce on mistakes regardless of whether they are fraud or honest errors.

“Competing with the environment we have now, we will find every way to push them out the door,” Kempf said. Bosses will criticize acquisition employees for every mistake they make, even when they’re still learning, he said. The employees who were wowed at the job fair by the stories of being the United States’ buyer will find they don’t have the job that had piqued their interest. Agency managers won’t trust them to judge situations and will instead give them less challenging work, he added.

Younger workers recognize that situation and are not attracted to acquisition.

“The jobs just don’t smell good,” Schooner said.

Meanwhile, young employees can easily be attracted by the private sector’s portrayal of opportunities for leadership, excitement and playing a part in something that’s going to change the world. Companies can woo them with more money and benefits, too.

Beyond the younger generation, the government retirement system creates incentives for experienced career employees to leave for the private sector, taking their knowledge with them, said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a member of the congressional Smart Contracting Caucus and ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

As the government faces that workforce shortage, its spending has increased dramatically in recent years — nearly doubling since 2000 — and the size of the workforce has increased only minimally. As a result, contracting officers’ jobs now require getting as much done as possible in a short time, despite the fear of a news-making mistake, experts say.

“Their incentive is volume,” said John Needham, director of acquisition and sourcing management at the Government Accountability Office.

Read the story: FCW.com News - Acquisition work a tough sell