What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

Panel: DOD needs experienced procurement people

A panel of defense experts today told a Senate committee the acquisition workforce must be an important and high priority if the Defense Department wants to improve its purchases.

Jacques Gansler, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics from 1997 to 2001, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that DOD's acquisition employees are undervalued and people considering the field are given little incentive to join it. The acquisition field offers few opportunities to advance to senior positions and departmental leadership, he said.

“Even if we pass all the laws in the world, we need the people who are going to be driving this process,” said Gansler, who leads the Defense Science Board Task Force on Industrial Structure for Transformation.

In 1990, DOD had about 500,000 acquisition employees and in 2006, the department had 200,000. However, most of them work in logistics and in military depots, not in contracting, Gansler said.

People won’t join the acquisition workforce if they don’t see the results of their work, said panelist Paul Kaminski, chairman of a National Research Council committee on systems engineering. To that end, DOD needs to shorten the time it takes to start a project and see it implemented, said Kaminski, who was undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology from 1994 to 1997.

“When programs are taking 15 to 20 years [to complete], many of those best and brightest people say what’s the difference,” and then they go elsewhere, he said.

The hearing focused on DOD’s acquisition strategies for buying major weapons systems and legislation committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced Feb. 23. The bill would require more oversight of systems engineering and independent assessments of a technology’s maturity and overall cost. The bill would also require DOD officials to award military and civilian personnel for well-done work in the acquisition of DOD products and services.

Gansler said DOD needs experienced acquisition people. Without experienced people, the government is left vulnerable because the acquisition decision-makers won’t know what questions to ask as they develop the major weapons systems.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a senior writer covering acquisition and procurement for Federal Computer Week. Follow him on Twitter: @matthewweigelt.

Reader comments

Sat, Mar 14, 2009 Glenn Colorado Springs

Gov't acquisition has evolved into gov't "work programs" rather than acquisition programs. Senior leaders are more concerned about securing and keeping the programs for the money flow to maintain their power and jobs for fiefdoms than to build working systems for soldiers. Failing or bloated programs are kept to maintain the work force rather than making right acquisition decisions based on performance. It’s no fun to “right size” or fire the inept. Acquisition training alone won’t fix this; you have to add good leadership which is properly incentivized.

Mon, Mar 9, 2009 james r watson

I have worked in government contracting in all its phases since 1975. Since leaving the Government in 1988, in fear of the revolving door statutes following "ill wind", I have been a general counsel in GE Aerospace, the Federal Counsel for Digital Equipment, the Director of Contracts for PriceWaterhoueCoopers and Deloitte. Yet, after I retired and wanted to return to public service at less than half the salary I faced a stone wall, there was absolutely no interest. All my friends had retired so I had no personal contacts left to circumvent the inept or the friends I did have said I would not be happy with the state of things and to forget it. So I returned to industry. If this is the reception that gray beards with the acumen and leadership necessary to deal effectively with industry on an equal footing; those not bound to a misreading of the regulations but a knowledge of the reasons underlying those regulations and a knowledge of GAO and Board constructions will never return and we will be gridlocked by congress and the administration as we were in the 80s.

Mon, Mar 9, 2009 Dandie Man Dan Wash, DC

"The Panel" speaks: "DOD needs experienced procurement people" Wowie zowie! An eye for the obvious with no concrete ideas on what's needed to fix the problems. Kinda like all thoses high-priced studies that tell us that poor people don't own as many computers as those with more money. I've been in Gov't procurement for 27 years, yet when I speak "truth to power" they don't want to hear it as they'd rather make the same mistakes anew. I remember the days I looked forward to coming to work with other dedicated folks. Now it's all about getting ahead and not worrying about how you do it and to whom you do it. (Golly gee! proper grammer!) Oh well, at least I stayed in the CSRS am thankful for a "defined benefit" retirement plan. My best wishes to the future and continuing efforts to fix things even if it's already working!

Mon, Mar 9, 2009 jeff Fort MOnmouth

Just goes to show you what an old boy network the Army Acquisition Corps is. Easy promotions to high rank and important Program jobs for Officers with no experience. Just look at the promotion list when it comes out for all the Program Managers. All O-5 and O-6s. Any you wonder why it is broke. They pad there position so they can get that comfy, high paying contractor job when they retire.Not quite as bad as the General Officers becoming high paid contractors at the companies they hand miliions to.

Mon, Mar 9, 2009 M

DoD Procurement is government at his flaming worst. They need to recognize the current model of having every agency, base, and office run their own procurements has not only complicated contracting, it has DEPLETED the qualified personnel and dispersed them very inefficiently. It is time to consolidate. Either within DoD at the DoD level. or they can make use of GSA and the DoI National Business Center or both. The current model serves not the taxpayer, but the bureaucrats. There is no solution that makes sense other than consolidation. Instead DoD continues to assume the national economy can deliver any quantity of qualified people as it's bureacrtas generate slots for. There was a short time between about 1992 and 2002 when this was recognized as bad government. I have no idea what happened, but it might relate to the countries other embarrassing woes today.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Editorial Webcasts

  • Desktop Virtualization: Better Management with Smaller Budgets Register Now

    This webcast will explore the benefits of desktop virtualization, and how the innovative technology can help agencies lower the cost of their IT infrastructure, improve end-user performance, while enabling a mobile workforce. A government expert will share real-life case studies of leveraging desktop virtualization solutions to enable secure telework policies, organization-wide IT infrastructure standards and extend the life of current hardware assets - Register Now!! Read more

Federal Computer Week eNewsletters

  • Subscribe to Newsletters Subscribe

    Federal Computer Week's eNewsletters deliver the latest policy and management news to your inbox.