This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-737 
entitled 'Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define and 
Track the Training of Their Employees' which was released on August 28, 
2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement 

Policy, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



July 2002:



Acquisition Workforce:



Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the Training of Their 

Employees:



GAO-02-737:



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



DOD Has a Broader Definition of Acquisition Workforce:



Every Agency Has Established Training Requirements:



Various Mechanisms Used to Ensure Training Requirements Met:



Agencies Were Able to Fund Current Training Needs but Some Cited 

Concerns:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Executive Action:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Scope and Methodology:



Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy:



Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy:



Appendix III: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration:



Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:



Tables:



Table 1: Key Acquisition Training Legislation and Administrative 

Actions:



Table 2: Personnel Included in Each Defined Acquisition Workforce 

Position within the Selected Agencies Reviewed:



Abbreviations:



ACMIS: Acquisition Career Management Information System:



COR: contracting officer representative:



COTR: contracting officer technical representative:



DAU: Defense Acquisition University:



DOD: Department of Defense:



DOE: Department of Energy:



FAI: Federal Acquisition Institute:



GSA: General Services Administration:



HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:



NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:



OFPP: Office of Federal Procurement Policy:



VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:



July 29, 2002:



The Honorable Tom Davis

Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives:



Dear Mr. Chairman:



Having the right people with the right skills is critical to ensuring 

the government receives the best value for the $200 billion it spends 

each year for goods and services. But achieving this has been 

difficult. Our work continues to show that some of the government’s 

largest procurement operations are not always run efficiently, either 

because requirements are not clearly defined, because prices and 

alternatives are not fully considered, or because contracts are not 

adequately overseen.[Footnote 1] At the same time, the ongoing 

technological revolution requires a workforce with new knowledge, 

skills, and abilities. Moreover, the nature of acquisition is changing 

from routine simple buys toward more complex acquisitions, such as 

information technology services, and toward new business practices, 

such as performance-based contracting and the use of purchase cards.



To ensure an adequate professional acquisition workforce, the Congress 

enacted a series of reforms in the 1990s, which required agencies to 

establish policies and procedures for effective management and training 

of their acquisition workforce, to include certain positions in the 

definition of the acquisition workforce, and to establish 

qualification, educational, and training requirements for positions 

identified as part of the acquisition workforce. You asked us to assess 

agency progress in this regard. Particularly, you asked us to determine 

whether agencies have 

(1) definitions of their acquisition workforces that include all 

significant acquisition-related functions as required by the Congress, 

(2) established training requirements for these workforces, (3) a means 

for ensuring that those requirements are met, and (4) allocated 

sufficient funding to provide required training.



Our review focused on the Department of Defense (DOD); the Departments 

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Departments of Veterans Affairs 

(VA), Energy (DOE), Health and Human Services (HHS); the General 

Services Administration (GSA); and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). These agencies represented 87 percent of total 

contract dollars obligated in fiscal year 2000 and employed 82 percent 

of the government’s contract specialists and purchasing agents, which 

are the primary career fields in the acquisition workforce.



Results in Brief:



DOD and the military services have adopted multidisciplinary, 

multifunctional definitions of their acquisition workforce.[Footnote 

2] The civilian agencies have not. DOD and the military services’ 

definitions include contracting officers,[Footnote 3] contracting 

officer representatives, and contracting officer technical 

representatives[Footnote 4] along with other disciplines that play a 

significant role in acquisitions, such as program managers, industrial 

specialists, and financial administrators. Civilian agencies generally 

include only contract and procurement specialists, contracting 

officers, and contracting officer representatives in their acquisition 

workforce definitions. Acquisition officials in two of the five 

civilian agencies we reviewed explained that use of a broader 

definition would be difficult given that they do not have the authority 

to establish and monitor training for other functional areas. However, 

other agencies with similar concerns have taken steps to address this 

issue. Also, in some cases, agencies established training for certain 

acquisition-related positions even though they were not formally 

included in their acquisition workforce definitions.



DOD and the civilian agencies have developed specific training 

requirements for their acquisition workforce. They have also developed 

a variety of mechanisms to track the training of acquisition personnel. 

Three of the civilian agencies are awaiting implementation of a more 

sophisticated Web-based governmentwide management information system 

to help them track training, but the deployment of this system has been 

delayed considerably. Lastly, all agencies we reviewed said they had 

sufficient funding to provide current required core training for their 

acquisition workforce; however, some expressed concerns about funding 

training for future requirements and career development, particularly 

because of budget cuts made recently at the Defense Acquisition 

University (DAU).[Footnote 5]



We are making recommendations to the Administrator of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) concerning identification of all 

acquisition-related positions and development of a management 

information system. In written comments on a draft of this report, the 

Administrator of OFPP generally concurred with our recommendations. We 

also received written comments from DOE, NASA, and VA and comments by 

e-mail from DOD, HHS, and GSA. All agencies generally agreed with our 

findings.



Background:



The Congress and others have been addressing the question of how to 

strengthen the acquisition workforce since 1974 when the OFPP was 

created to establish governmentwide procurement policies for executive 

agencies. One of the primary responsibilities of this office and its 

Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI)[Footnote 6] is to strengthen 

acquisition workforce training. The concern about the quality of the 

acquisition workforce deepened in the 1990s, as it became clear that 

the government was experiencing significant contracting failures partly 

because it lacked skilled personnel to manage and oversee contracts. 

There was also concern that program managers and other personnel 

integral to the success of the acquisition process were only marginally 

involved with the contracts. Two of the most significant steps taken in 

this regard were the passage of the Defense Acquisition Workforce 

Improvement Act in 1990 and the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996. The Defense 

Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, among other things, provided 

specific guidance on DOD’s acquisition workforce definition. The 

Clinger-Cohen Act required civilian agencies to establish acquisition 

workforce definitions. Those definitions were to include contract and 

procurement specialist positions[Footnote 7] and other positions “in 

which significant acquisition-related functions are performed.” The 

Clinger-Cohen Act also required civilian agencies to collect 

standardized information on their acquisition workforce and establish 

education, training, and experience requirements that are “comparable 

to those established for the same or equivalent positions” in DOD and 

the military services. Table 1 provides more details on this act and 

other legislation and federal agency initiatives.



Table 1: Key Acquisition Training Legislation and Administrative 

Actions:



The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act, P.L. 93-400, 

codified in 41 U.S.C. §401 et seq.; This act created OFPP within the 

Office of Management and Budget to provide governmentwide leadership 

for agencies other than DOD in procurement matters. The act was amended 

to establish FAI, which under the direction of OFPP, was to, among 

other things, (1) promote the development of the acquisition workforce, 

(2) analyze acquisition career fields to identify competencies for 

acquisition positions, and (3) develop training courses.



The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, P.L. 101-510, 

codified in 10 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.; This act recognized acquisition as 

a multidisciplinary career field for DOD comprised of 11 functional 

areas - program management; systems planning, research, development, 

engineering, and testing; procurement, including contracting; 

industrial property management; logistics; quality control and 

assurance; manufacturing and production; business, cost estimating, 

financial management, and auditing; education, training, and career 

development; construction; and joint development and production with 

other government agencies and foreign countries. The act also directed 

the Secretary of Defense to establish minimum education, training, and 

experience requirements, and a defense acquisition university 

structure.



OFPP Policy Letter 92-3; In implementing the acquisition workforce 

provisions of the OFPP Act, this guidance established a standard set of 

contracting competencies and identified specific training requirements 

for personnel in the contracting and purchasing occupational series and 

contracting officers.



The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, P.L. 104-106, codified in 41 U.S.C. §433 

et seq.; This act requires civilian agencies, in consultation with 

OFPP, to establish education, training, and experience requirements for 

civilian agencies’ acquisition workforce and to ensure uniform 

implementation of policies and procedures among components to the 

maximum extent practicable. The act also requires OFPP to establish 

minimum qualification requirements and to ensure that agencies collect 

and maintain standardized information on the acquisition workforce.



OFPP Policy Letter 97-01; In implementing provisions of the Clinger-

Cohen Act, this guidance requires agencies to (1) identify and publish 

model career paths and (2) establish education, core training, and 

experience requirements for enumerated acquisition personnel. The 

letter defined the “acquisition workforce” to include contracting and 

purchasing, contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs; it also stated that 

the Administrator of OFPP would “consult with the agencies in the 

identification of other acquisition related positions.” Furthermore 

this policy letter delegated to FAI the responsibility for developing, 

with the agencies and the Office of Personnel Management, a 

governmentwide management information system that would allow agencies 

to collect and maintain acquisition workforce information including the 

employees’ completion of all core training courses.



Source: GAO’s analysis.



[End of table]



OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 directs executive agencies to establish core 

training for entry and advancement in the acquisition workforce. 

Agencies normally establish specific core training required to meet the 

standards for certification in each career field in their acquisition 

workforce (e.g., contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs). For 

contracting officers, agencies usually establish several warrant 

levels,[Footnote 8] with specified contracting authority for each 

level.[Footnote 9] Agencies issue permanent warrants only to 

contracting officers who have completed the core training required for 

each warrant level and who have the necessary work experience and 

formal education. Because contracting officers’ warrant levels 

generally correspond to their grade levels, employees’ career 

development and advancement is dependent on attending and passing 

required core training courses. The OFPP policy letter also established 

continuing education requirements for contract specialists and 

contracting officers.



DOD Has a Broader Definition of Acquisition Workforce:



DOD includes a wide variety of disciplines--ranging from contracting, 

to technical, to financial, to program staff--in its acquisition 

workforce definition, but civilian agencies have employed narrower 

definitions that are largely limited to staff involved in awarding and 

administering contracts. Having a broader definition is important 

because it is one method to facilitate agencies’ efforts to ensure that 

training reaches all staff integral to the success of a contract. While 

most civilian agencies acknowledge that the acquisition process 

requires the efforts of multiple functions and disciplines beyond those 

in traditional contracting offices, few have broadened their 

definitions of the acquisition workforce to include them. Officials at 

two agencies we reviewed said that they had not broadened their 

definitions because officials responsible for managing the acquisition 

workforce did not have management responsibility for or control of the 

training of individuals in offices other than their own.



DOD Has a Multifunctional and Multidisciplinary Definition of 

Acquisition Workforce:



DOD is required by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act to 

include, at a minimum, all acquisition-related positions in 11 

specified functional areas in its definition of its acquisition 

workforce. It is also required to include acquisition-related positions 

in “management headquarters activities and in management headquarters 

support activities.” Therefore, DOD’s acquisition workforce includes 

contracting, program, technical, budget, financial, logistics, 

scientific, and engineering personnel.



DOD uses a methodology, known as the Refined Packard 

methodology,[Footnote 10] to identify its acquisition workforce 

personnel. Using the Refined Packard methodology, DOD now includes 

personnel in its acquisition workforce from three categories: (1) 

specific occupations that are presumed to be performing acquisition-

related work no matter what organization the employee is in,[Footnote 

11] (2) a combination of an employee’s occupational series and the 

organization in which the employee works, and (3) specific additions 

and deletions to the first two categories.[Footnote 12] DOD is 

currently coding the positions and employees identified by the Refined 

Packard methodology into its official personnel systems. DOD components 

and the military services’ estimate that the number of personnel 

included in the acquisition workforce will expand when the coding is 

completed in October 2002.



Civilian Agencies’ Acquisition Workforce Definitions Generally Limited 

to Contracting Functions:



All the civilian agencies we reviewed include personnel in the contract 

specialist and purchasing agent job series as specified by the Clinger-

Cohen Act. All agencies also include contracting officers and three 

include CORs and COTRs as required in OFPP’s policy enumerating 

acquisition-related positions. Every civilian agency includes 

additional positions in which contracting functions are performed, such 

as property disposal or procurement clerks. However, only VA and DOE 

include positions in which acquisition-related functions are performed 

(i.e., program managers). Table 2 shows how the agencies defined their 

acquisition workforces.



Table 2: Personnel Included in Each Defined Acquisition Workforce 

Position within the Selected Agencies Reviewed:



Agency: DOE; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing 

specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes; COR/ COTR: Yes; 

Other acquisition related positions: Financial assistant

 specialists

Property managers

Program managers [A].



Agency: GSA; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing 

specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes; COR/ COTR: Yes; 

Other acquisition related positions: Property disposal

Procurement clerks.



Agency: HHS; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing 

specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes [B]; COR/ COTR: 

No [C]; Other acquisition related positions: Procurement clerks.



Agency: NASA; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing 

specialists (GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes [B]; COR/ COTR: 

No [C]; Other acquisition related positions: Procurement clerks.



Agency: VA; Contract specialists (GS-1102): Yes; Purchasing specialists 

(GS-1105): Yes; Contracting officers: Yes [D]; COR/ COTR: Yes; Other 

acquisition related positions: Program managers

Procurement clerks.



[A] DOE commonly refers to program managers as project managers.



[B] All contracting officers are contract specialists (GS-1102) or 

purchasing specialists (GS-1105).



[C] COR and COTRs are not included in the acquisition workforce because 

they are not under the direct supervision of officials responsible for 

the acquisition workforce.



[D] VA includes purchase cardholders with contract authority above the 

micropurchase threshold in its Contracting Officer category.



Source: GAO’s analysis of agency provided data.



[End of table]



Agencies are aware of the need to expand their definitions to include 

all positions in which “significant acquisition-related functions are 

performed,” as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act. To assist agencies in 

this effort, OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 identified acquisition workforce 

positions, in addition to contracting and purchasing specialists, to 

include contracting officers, CORs, and COTRs. Furthermore, OFPP Policy 

Letter 97-01 stated that the Administrator would “consult with the 

agencies in the identification of other acquisition related positions.” 

All agencies include positions other than those enumerated in the 

Clinger-Cohen Act and OFPP policy, and GSA plans to do so. 

Specifically:



* VA includes program managers and procurement clerks in its 

definition.



* DOE includes program managers and property managers in its 

definition.



* HHS and NASA include procurement clerks in their definitions.



* GSA is identifying and including other acquisition-related positions 

in its acquisition workforce and expects to include program managers 

and other positions in the future, but GSA has not established a firm 

time frame.



NASA asserted that managing a much wider range of acquisition 

personnel, including “other equivalent positions,” such as CORs and 

COTRs, would be much more difficult than current practice because 

agency managers responsible for acquisition workforce training did not 

have authority over personnel in offices other than theirs to require 

they take specific training courses. However, HHS, which has CORs and 

COTRs (which it refers to as project officers) not under control of the 

acquisition office, established regulations requiring the head of each 

contracting activity ensure their CORs and COTRs receive specified 

training. In addition, DOE, which has similar oversight concerns, has 

established an “umbrella” directive governing acquisition career 

development. Two offices, the Acquisition Career Development Program 

office and the Project Management Career Development Program office, 

monitor the training of employees in their respective career fields.



Every Agency Has Established Training Requirements:



Every agency we reviewed has established specific training requirements 

for each position identified in their acquisition workforce. The 

Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act 

established similar career management requirements, including 

education, experience, and training requirements employees must meet to 

qualify for each acquisition workforce position. These requirements are 

further defined, for DOD, by DOD regulations and other guidance, and 

for the civilian agencies by OFPP and the agencies’ own regulations. 

Two agencies also established training requirements for acquisition-

related positions not formally included in their acquisition workforce 

definitions.



The DAU develops curricula, approved by the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics), that include descriptions of the 

education, experience, and core training required to meet the standards 

for certification in each acquisition career field. In addition, DAU 

offers assignment-specific training. Annually, advisors from each DOD 

career field determine whether certification standards and assignment-

specific training requirements should be updated and whether training 

curricula are current. Any changes must be approved by the Director of 

Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development before they are 

published in the DAU catalog. The DAU curriculum includes courses 

identified by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & 

Logistics) as integral to the education and training of personnel in 

identified positions. These courses are intended to provide unique 

acquisition knowledge for specific assignments, jobs, or positions; 

maintain proficiency; and remain current with legislation, regulation, 

and policy. They also cover topics such as program management, systems 

acquisition, construction, and advanced contract pricing.



OFPP’s FAI develops training and career development programs for 

civilian agency acquisition workforce personnel. Specifically, FAI 

developed the contracting and procurement curriculum for the 

acquisition workforce, worked closely with DAU in its course 

development, and coordinated with colleges and universities to identify 

and develop education programs for the acquisition workforce. In 

addition, FAI is developing several Web-based courses for various 

acquisition personnel.



All DOD agencies follow the DAU curriculum. Some civilian agencies, 

including NASA and DOE, also follow the DAU curriculum for the 

contracting and purchasing functions. Other agencies, including GSA and 

VA, have developed training programs and courses that follow the 

curriculum established by FAI. While HHS has awarded contracts to teach 

courses for its own acquisition workforce, the curriculum and course 

contents are modeled on those developed by FAI.



The civilian agencies we reviewed all had policies describing the 

education and training requirements for each member of their 

acquisition workforce. Even when agencies do not include all positions 

that play a role in their acquisition process in their acquisition 

workforce, they established education and training requirements for 

those positions. For instance, NASA and HHS, which do not include COTRs 

in their acquisition workforce, established training requirements for 

that position.



Various Mechanisms Used to Ensure Training Requirements Met:



To ensure training requirements are being met, DOD and the military 

services use a centralized management information system that is 

automatically updated with training and personnel data. The civilian 

agencies use less sophisticated spreadsheet programs to collect and 

maintain information on the education, training, and continuing 

education received by their acquisition workforce. At least once a 

year, each agency collects data from its regional offices and/or 

contracting components and consolidates the data into its tracking 

system.



Although we obtained data from DOD and the civilian agencies to 

determine the various elements collected, we did not assess the 

reliability or adequacy of their systems. Our purpose was to ascertain 

that DOD and the civilian agencies maintained data on the training 

received by their acquisition workforce and not to validate the 

accuracy of that data. While we have reported weaknesses in the data 

maintained by VA and GSA,[Footnote 13] those agencies are taking action 

to improve the reliability and completeness of their tracking systems.



Civilian agencies said that they did not have centralized management 

information systems because they were awaiting development and 

implementation of OFPP’s proposed Web-based Acquisition Career 

Management Information System (ACMIS), expected to be available in 

September 2002. The civilian agencies, with the exception of VA, viewed 

their systems as being interim. As a result of not having a centralized 

management information system, these agencies must rely on the data 

submitted periodically by training coordinators in their various 

locations throughout their agencies. Also, this data is often 

maintained on unofficial manual records or on various spreadsheets, 

making it difficult for the responsible acquisition officer to verify 

its accuracy. Because of ACMIS development delays, VA developed its own 

management information system to alleviate these problems, and it is 

currently entering historical employee training data into the database.



ACMIS is to be a federal Web-accessible database of records to track 

acquisition workforce training and education. It is expected that the 

data in ACMIS will be used in making budgeting, staffing, and training 

decisions and monitoring the status of staff warrants. The baseline 

data for ACMIS will come from the Office of Personnel Management’s 

Centralized Data Personnel File and agency workforce databases. Those 

records will then be supplemented with education, training, warrant, 

and certification data provided by individuals in the acquisition 

workforce. In addition, the system is to provide for computer-to-

computer interfaces for bulk and automated data transfers (i.e., 

updates from agency personnel files or updates of multiple employee 

records with a common set of data, such as the completion of a course).



The development of the new system, however, has experienced 

considerable delays. Although OFPP tasked FAI to develop the system in 

September 1997, it has not yet been implemented. In 2000, we reported 

that delays in developing the system were largely attributable to 

difficulties in obtaining agreement on the requirements for the system. 

Since our report, FAI, under OFPP direction, has published functional 

specifications and data requirements for the system. In December 2001, 

FAI contracted for development of the system, and FAI officials said 

the contractor was on track to meet the September 2002 implementation.



Agencies Were Able to Fund Current Training Needs but Some Cited 

Concerns:



While DOD and the agencies we reviewed had varying degrees of funding 

available, all reported that they managed to meet their acquisition 

workforces’ current required training needs. However, we did not review 

or validate acquisition workforce training budget and obligation data. 

Officials explained that knowing what training courses employees will 

need, determining the courses that will be provided to meet training 

needs, and knowing the costs of providing each course, including 

related travel costs, allowed them to establish the funding required 

for needed training. DOD employs a centralized approach in determining 

its funding requirements for acquisition workforce training for its 

services and components.[Footnote 14] Using its management information 

system and estimated costs, DOD and the military services and 

components go through the iterative process of reconciling course 

needs, class size, instructor availability, and other costs, such as 

travel. DAU funds (1) the cost of developing and presenting the courses 

and (2) the travel expenses for DOD employees attending the courses. 

The civilian agencies we reviewed employ similar procedures relying on 

the data available to them in their interim systems comprised of 

spreadsheets and unofficial manual records.



DOD, the military services, and civilian agencies stated they had 

sufficient funds to meet their current minimum core training 

requirements. NASA and HHS reported making acquisition workforce 

training a priority and earmarking sufficient funds for it. Other 

agencies-GSA and VA--said that because they use revolving funds to pay 

for their training, they also had sufficient funds earmarked for their 

acquisition workforce training. However, DOE, which reported having 

limited funds for training, often relied on DOD and NASA courses 

provided free of charge, on a space available basis, for much of its 

acquisition training.



Although they could fund current core training, DOD, the military 

services, and DOE-because they rely on DAU for much of their training-

expressed concerns with their ability to meet future required training 

and career development needs of their employees, since DAU faces budget 

reductions.[Footnote 15] A DOD official noted that fiscal year 2001 

budget reductions combined with 2 years of “straight-line” budgets have 

precluded DAU from providing all the courses requested by the DOD 

components. Also, while all employees received core training for their 

current positions and grades, they were often unable to receive core 

training needed to obtain warrants at the next higher level to allow 

them to work on larger contracts and to be competitive for promotion to 

a higher grade. Army and Navy officials cited similar concerns 

regarding DAU’s budget reductions. Air Force officials stated that 

anticipated increases in the acquisition workforce, because of the 

implementation of the Refined Packard methodology, the replacement of 

retirees, and its planned increases in cross training between 

acquisition specialties to meet strategic objectives, would require 

additional funding for core training in the future.



A DOE official said that DAU’s budget cuts also potentially affect 

DOE’s ability to meet its future training requirements because of its 

reliance on DAU-provided courses. The official also noted that DOE’s 

limited training funds have curtailed funding tuitions for college 

courses, intern programs, continuing education, as well as management 

and leadership development programs, which could have an impact on the 

acquisition workforce’s career development. Other agencies reviewed did 

not indicate concerns about future training and career development.



Conclusions:



DOD and the military services have a more broadly defined acquisition 

workforce, including functions beyond the traditional contracting 

function. Civilian agencies’ definitions are narrower. Regardless of 

whether or not an agency determines to include a particular position in 

its acquisition workforce, each agency needs to take active steps to 

identify all those positions that have a role in the acquisition 

process important enough to warrant specific training. This knowledge 

can be fed into the agencies’ strategic planning efforts and increases 

their ability to provide human capital strategies to meet their current 

and future programmatic needs. The challenge for civilian agencies 

ensuring their acquisition workforce is receiving the proper training 

has been made more difficult by OFPP’s slow progress in implementing 

ACMIS. Continued delays in implementing this system will increase the 

time in which agencies have to use less sophisticated tools for 

tracking acquisition workforce training.



Recommendations for Executive Action:



In an effort to ensure agencies succeed in defining a multifunctional 

and multidimensional acquisition workforce, we recommend that the 

Administrator of OFPP work with all the agencies to determine the 

appropriateness of further refining the definition of the acquisition 

workforce and to determine which positions, though not formally 

included in the acquisition workforce, nonetheless require certain 

training to ensure their role in the acquisition process is performed 

efficiently and effectively.



We also recommend that the Administrator of OFPP continue to monitor 

the ACMIS contract milestones to ensure that the contractor and FAI 

complete and implement the proposed governmentwide system on schedule.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



We received written comments on a draft of this report from the 

Administrator of OFPP. She generally concurred with our recommendations 

and made observations about OFPP’s efforts regarding the acquisition 

workforce (see appendix I). However, the Administrator took issue with 

our conclusion that delays in implementing the ACMIS system caused 

difficulties in ensuring the civilian agencies acquisition workforce is 

trained. The Administrator noted that, despite the absence of a 

centralized system, the agencies are responsible for managing the 

training of their workforce. Our recommendations are intended to help 

ensure that all staff integral to the success of agencies’ acquisition 

efforts receive appropriate training. Also, as we noted in the report, 

the civilian agencies said they had not developed centralized 

management information systems because they were awaiting the 

implementation of OFPP’s proposed governmentwide system that OFPP 

originally tasked FAI to develop in September 1997.



We also received written comments from DOE, NASA, and VA and comments 

via e-mail from DOD, HHS, and GSA as discussed below. All agencies 

generally agreed with our findings.



DOE concurred with our findings and offered additional technical 

comments regarding the inclusion of financial assistant specialists in 

its acquisition workforce and the status of certification and training 

requirements for personnel in its acquisition workforce. We 

incorporated these comments where appropriate. DOE’s comments appear in 

appendix II.



NASA noted that it included procurement clerks in its acquisition 

workforce. We changed the report to reflect this. NASA also provided 

additional specific information regarding the training required of 

those acquisition personnel not included in its acquisition workforce 

definition. NASA’s comments appear in appendix III.



VA concurred with our findings and noted the release of its Procurement 

Reform Task Force Report, which addresses the need for acquisition 

workforce enhancements. VA’s comments appear in appendix IV.



DOD provided several technical comments and suggestions to clarify our 

draft report. We incorporated these comments and suggestions where 

appropriate.



HHS concurred with our findings and provided technical comments. HHS 

noted that although certain acquisition personnel are not under the 

control of its acquisition office, that office has established 

regulations to ensure they receive required training. We believe our 

report adequately reflects their concerns.



GSA stated it had reviewed our report and had no comments.



Scope and Methodology:



To accomplish the objectives, we reviewed policies and procedures, 

examined records, and interviewed acquisition personnel, training, and 

budget officials at DOD, Army, Navy, Air Force; VA, DOE, HHS, GSA, and 

NASA. However, we did not attempt to determine the adequacy or 

timeliness of the training these agencies provided their employees. 

These agencies are the largest in terms of their annual expenditures 

and among the largest in terms of the number of people in their 

acquisition workforce. In fiscal year 2000, their acquisition workforce 

included almost 25,000 contract specialists and purchasing agents (the 

primary career fields in the acquisition workforce), who were 

responsible for nearly $200 billion in federal obligations for goods 

and services.



To obtain information on the oversight and guidance provided to federal 

agencies, we reviewed legislation, regulations, directives, and 

policies and interviewed officials at OFPP and FAI.



We conducted our review between October 2001 and June 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 

days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to 

other interested congressional committees, the secretaries of Defense, 

Army, Air Force, Navy, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Veterans 

Affairs; and the administrators of General Services Administration and 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy. We will also make copies available to 

others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.



Please contact me at (202) 512-4125 or Hilary Sullivan at (214) 777-

5652 if you have any questions regarding this report. Major 

contributors to this report were Thom Barger, Cristina Chaplain, Susan 

Ragland, Sylvia Schatz, and Tanisha Stewart.



Sincerely yours,



David E. Cooper

Director

Acquisition and Sourcing Management:



Signed by David E. Cooper:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Comments from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy:







EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503:



OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY:



July 23, 2002:



Ms. Hilary Sullivan:



Assistant Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management General 

Accounting Office - Central Region - Dallas Office 1999 Bryan Street, 

Suite 2200

Dallas, TX 75201-6848:



Dear Ms. Sullivan:



This letter is in response to your e-mail requesting OFPP’s comments on 

GAO draft report, GAO-02-737, “Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to 

Better Define and Track the Training of Their Workforce.”:



OFPP recognizes the importance of the acquisition workforce having the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to execute the Government’s 

acquisition processes in an effective and efficient manner. Our staff 

actively engages with the acquisition leadership of Executive agencies 

and their staffs to understand the challenges they face and to identify 

where OFPP’s assistance could improve agencies’ ability to manage their 

operations. The efforts of the Federal Acquisition Institute to define 

required workforce competencies and to reshape training standards to 

reflect current training needs are examples of our commitment to 

ensuring a qualified acquisition workforce is executing the 

Government’s business.



GAO is making two recommendations with which OFPP generally concurs. 

The first recommendation calls for OFPP to review how it has defined 

the acquisition workforce and to determine if additional training may 

be required for other positions that have a role in the acquisition 

process. We believe our past efforts, which focused primarily on the 

contracting field, properly targeted the career field that is central 

to the acquisition process and, therefore, ensured the highest return 

on investment. Our discussions with agency acquisition leaders 

indicated that diverse organizational structures and agency-unique 

approaches to conducting business would render impractical attempts to 

identify other occupational series as part of a government-wide 

acquisition workforce. However, we understand the need to maintain an 

awareness of changing roles demanded of different functional 

disciplines as our business processes continue to evolve. We will 

continue to engage agency leadership to identify opportunities for 

contributing to effective and efficient management of the acquisition 

process and agencies’ acquisition workforce.



The second recommendation calls for OFPP to monitor completion of the 

Acquisition Career Management Information System (ACMIS). We disagree 

with GAO’s conclusion that OFPP is responsible, due to delays in 

implementing ACMIS, for causing agencies difficulty in ensuring their 

workforce is trained. Agencies are accountable for training their 

workforce. While a centralized tracking system such as ACMIS increases 

visibility of information at all levels within an agency, agencies are 

able to manage training even with decentralized manual records. The 

absence of a centralized system is not an acceptable excuse. 
Nonetheless, 

OFPP has pursued ACMIS to take advantage of the benefits offered by a 

centralized, standardized system and continues to monitor its progress. 

Our staff has been, and will continue to be, involved with the Federal 

Acquisition Institute and the contractor team in reviewing the ACMIS 

development product, and we are confident the system will be available 

for deployment as scheduled later this year.



OFPP appreciates the interest of GAO and the Congress in improving the 

acquisition process and the acquisition workforce. We look forward to 

continued cooperation toward a more effective and efficient government.



Sincerely yours,



Angela B. Styles

Administrator:



Signed by Angela B. Styles:



[End of section]



Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy:



Department of Energy:



Washington, DC 20585:



July 19, 2002:



Ms. Hilary Sullivan Assistant Director U.S. General Accounting Office 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management Central Region - Dallas Office:



1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6848:



Dear Ms. Sullivan:



Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report for code 

120085 entitled “Acquisition Workforce: Agencies Need to Better Define 

and Track the Training of Their Workforce” (GAO-02-737), and offer the 

following comments.



On page 2, Results in Brief, the second sentence in the paragraph, “The 

civilian agencies have not [adopted multi-disciplinary, multi-

functional definitions of their acquisition workforce]” is misleading, 

given that some of the civilian agencies have defined their workforce 

to include acquisition-related functions. That sentence would be more 

accurate if it stated, “Some civilian agencies have not.” This 

correction should also be reflected in the statement “Civilian agencies 

generally include only contract and procurement management...” by 

rewording it to “Some civilian agencies include only...”:



Page 6, the second bullet under the first full paragraph, states that 

the “DOE includes program managers and property managers in its 

definition, but it is still finalizing the certification and training 

requirements for these positions.” To be accurate, this bullet should 

be revised to read: “DOE defines its acquisition workforce to include 

financial assistance specialist, property managers and program/project 

managers. A training and certification program for financial assistance 

specialists was implemented in December 2001. A training requirement 

for property managers has been in place since October 1, 1999, with 

certification requirement under development. A training and 

certification program for program/project managers is currently being 

developed and is expected to be implemented by January 2003.”:



We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft report for code 

120085. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact 

Mrs. Cynthia Yee of my staff, at 202-586-1140.



Sincerely,



Richard H. Hopf, Director Office of Procurement and Assistance 

Management:



Signed by Richard H. Hopf:



cc:



Merley L. Lewis, ME-1.1:



[End of section]



Appendix III: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration:



National Aeronautics and Space Administration:



Office of the Administrator Washington, DC 20546-0001:



July 18, 2002:



Mr. David E. Cooper Director:



Acquisition and Sourcing Management United States General Accounting 

Office Washington, DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Cooper:



NASA has reviewed the draft GAO report “Acquisition Workforce: Agencies 

Need to Better Define and Track the Training of Their Workforce” 

(120085) and thanks you for the opportunity to provide comments. The 

information gathered from your report should help us improve NASA’s 

identification, tracking, and training of our acquisition workforce.



Although there were no formal recommendations, NASA is cognizant of the 

fact that the report noted its narrowly defined definition of 

acquisition workforce. The report recognizes the fact that we include 

personnel in the contract specialist and purchasing agent job series, 

as specified by the Clinger-Cohen Act. However, it also highlights the 

fact that NASA does not include additional positions in which 

contracting functions are performed, such as property disposal or 

procurement clerks. In fact, we do include procurement clerks in our 

definition of acquisition workforce.



During the course of the review, NASA asserted that managing a much 

wider range of acquisition personnel, including “other equivalent 

positions,” such as Contracting Officer Representatives and Contracting 

Officer Technical Representatives, would be much more difficult than 

current practice. Agency managers responsible for acquisition workforce 

training did not have authority over personnel in offices, other than 

theirs, to require they take specific training courses. Although NASA’s 

Acquisition Career Development Program only covers employees in the 

1102 job series, there are other programs in place to assure that 

program/project managers receive adequate training necessary to carry 

out their functions. The Academy of Program and Project Leadership 

(APPL) and the NASA Project Management Development Process (PMDP) are 

examples of programs currently in place to train program/project 

managers. Although the Assistant Administrator for Procurement does not 

have the authority to require program/project managers to attend the 

acquisition training classes, acquisition training is part of the core 

APPL and PMDP Programs.



If you have any questions, or require additional information, please 

contact Tom Luedtke, Assistant Administrator for Procurement at (202) 

358-2090.



Cordially,



Michael D. Christensen

Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions:



Signed by Michael D. Christensen:



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:





THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WASHINGTON:



July 18, 2002:



Ms. Hilary Sullivan Assistant Director Acquisition and Sourcing 

Management U. S. General Accounting Office:



1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6848:



Dear Ms. Sullivan:



The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed your draft report, 

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE: Agencies Need to Better Define and Track the 

Training of Their Workforce (GAO-02-737). The report adequately 

captures the current status of management, training, and funding 

programs for ensuring the professionalism of VA’s acquisition 

workforce.



In May 2002, VA released its Procurement Reform Task Force Report, 

which addresses the continual need for acquisition workforce 

enhancements to further optimize VA’s acquisition system. 

Implementation of the report’s key recommendations and action steps is 

being closely monitored to ensure successful goal attainment.



VA appreciates the opportunity to comment on your draft report.



Sincerely yours,



Anthony J. Principi:



Signed by Anthony J. Principi:



FOOTNOTES



[1] See U.S General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update, 

GAO-01-263, (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001). 



[2] DOD officially refers to its acquisition workforce as the 

acquisition technology and logistics workforce. 



[3] Contracting officers are federal employees with the authority to 

bind the government by signing a contract. This authority is delegated 

to them through “warrants” issued by the head of their contracting 

activity. 



[4] Contracting officer representatives (CORs) and contracting officer 

technical representatives (COTRs) are federal employees designated by 

the contracting officer to perform certain contract administration 

duties. 



[5] The DAU is the primary provider of acquisition training for DOD and 

the military services and, in some cases, provides training for 

civilian agencies. 



[6] FAI, under OFPP’s direction, is charged with supporting and 

continuing the development of a competent professional civilian 

acquisition workforce. 



[7] Specifically, the act identified positions in the General Schedule 

Contracting series (GS-1102) and in the General Schedule Purchasing 

series (GS-1105). 



[8] Warrants are the contracting officer’s certificate of authority to 

enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related 

determinations and findings. 



[9] Contracting authority is the dollar amount a contracting officer is 

authorized to obligate the government for purchasing goods and 

services. 



[10] The methodology was based on an earlier approach developed in 1986 

for the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, 

otherwise known as the Packard Commission. 



[11] Civilian personnel (General Schedule) positions in this category 

are: GS-246 Contractor Industrial Relations, GS-340 Program Management, 

GS-1102 Contracting, GS-1103 Industrial Property, GS-1105 Purchasing 

Specialist, and GS-1150 Industrial Specialist. 



[12] In making its determinations, DOD looked at the function--such as 

planning, design, production deployment, or logistics support---and the 

duties involved---such as documenting mission needs, establishing 

performance goals, prioritizing resource requirements, and planning and 

executing acquisition programs. 



[13] See U.S. General Accounting Office. Acquisition Reform: GSA and VA 

Efforts to Improve Training of Their Acquisition Workforces, GAO/

GGD-00-66, (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2000). 



[14] The term “DOD components” refers to agencies not within the 

military services, such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the 

Defense Contract Management Agency, and the Defense Logistics Agency. 



[15] Congress reduced DAU’s fiscal year 2002 budget of $100 million by 

$5 million. The Office of the Secretary of Defense cut another $5 

million. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & 

Logistics) plans to supplement DAU’s budget by $3.5 million. 



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: