Battlefield rotations could be bad for contract management

As defense officials have tried to get a grasp on its mismanaged contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan through the years, one factor that has emerged is the rotation of federal and contractor personnel into and out of the war zone.

Uniformed personnel, federal civilian employees and even contractors are coming and going to the war zone frequently. The new arrivals have to get acquainted with the all-new issues they’re dealing with, which they may not have faced in the past, Moshe Schwartz, specialist in defense acquisition at the Congressional Research Service, said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing Sept. 12.

“Often someone who gets to theater has never engaged in a counterinsurgency, and it takes them a learning curve” to get up to speed, he said.

Contracting in wartime is fundamentally different from contracting in peacetime. In peacetime, a contracting officer considers cost, schedule and performance as the primary factors in choosing the best vendor. In the war zone, the officer has different concerns. Threats are greater and different. Contract officials have to keep closer tabs on materials, so that the government is getting all that it has paid for. They also have to think about the impact the contract’s work would have on the local population.

By the time the employees and personnel finally begin to understand operations and what’s happening, they’re just months from heading home.

“That definitely has an impact on continuity and common-sense issues,” he added.

The rotation cycle hits data management as well, Schwartz said. Some incoming workers aren’t familiar with the data systems in use. The outgoing wokers sometimes fail to connect with their incoming counterparts to pass along important information about the system and about collecting data.

“Sometimes, the person collecting the data has the book on the shelf, and the next person didn’t know it was there,” he said.

In light of the mismanagement and other contracting problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, Defense Department officials have worked to develop a cadre of acquisition employees who know contracting in both peacetime and wartime.

In 2009, the department established the Joint Contingency Acquisition Support Office as an on-call group to coordinate and even integrate aspects of operational contract support. Further, the Defense Acquisition University has seven contingency-related training courses, primarily geared toward the acquisition profession, Alan Estevez, assistant secretary of defense for logistics and materiel readiness, told the committee.

DOD has made numerous other organizational changes to get a hold of its mismanagement problems. Estevez said the department realizes that operational contracting support and DOD’s reliance on contractors, which makes them a vital ingredient in contingency operations, won’t go away.

“We have worked hard to improve our oversight and management of this very critical area and have no intention of losing focus,” Estevez said.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is a freelance journalist who writes about acquisition and procurement.

The 2014 Federal 100

Get to know the 100 women and men honored this year for going above and beyond in federal IT.

Reader comments

Mon, Sep 17, 2012

My instinctive problem solving mind goes into hyper drive with this article.

I think we have the technology to fix it. The question is do we have the management discipline to do so.

For instance:

We have the cloud and electronic data management systems.

The Contracting officer's (KO) must document EVERYTHING.
pre-solicitation market research and understanding of the challenge
details of the decision making process
all conversations and steps

These steps are already required. Enforcing them is the challenge. I work with a Contracting Officer who prints every email and details every conversation. His files are 3 times thicker than anyone elses, BUT, it's all there.

IF the onsite KO was required to post everything to the central data storage site, even if it was notes about conversations, meetings, inspections, etc., then:
A stateside KO could review, request/require information for clarity and push for (require as a Supervisor??) the addtional data.
A stateside team could become the resident experts and develop the expertise by working the projects all the time to provide overlap, transition, and continuity.

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.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above