Kevin and Paul have hosted a few episodes of the Contracting Officer Podcast that feature current and former government contracting professionals explaining what they wish they had known when they first entered the field. I don’t know that my schedule will permit a guest spot on the podcast anytime soon, so I thought I’d write a blog post on the subject.
The first topic I would like to discuss involves training, and specifically, the type and quality of training I received as a new entrant into the contracting career field. My frustrations with training are probably a result of my particular situation, and may not reflect the experiences most people have in their first contracting job. But it presented significant challenges to my development as an Acquisition professional, and shaped my early years as a contract specialist and eventually as a contracting officer.
My contracting background is heavily centered on Army and contingency contracting activities. In 2005, Army Contracting training consisted of a two-week block of instruction at a composite Acquisition Basic Course, intended to cover all of the DAU Contracting 100-level courses. The Army approach to training essentially boils down to “give ‘em a briefing, and then let ‘em figure it out.” And this course definitely fit that mold. We covered contracting concepts and definitions, at a high level, and did not waste any time addressing the “how’s, why’s, or wherefores” for any substantial issues. Learning the actual contracting job happened once we reached our first assignment, and depended largely on the senior contracting specialist that supervised the On-the-Job Training (OJT) for that office. Fortunate trainees got quality instruction from dedicated and caring individuals, and less fortunate trainees received marginal instruction and very little in the way of developmental understanding. My point is this – I would have much preferred a focused, dedicated orientation and training course that covered the FAR, the contract writing system, and simple contracting procedures. I believe the Army has improved its Acquisition training curriculum to cover these issues in a 9-week Basic Contracting Course, followed by a 6-week Advanced Contracting Course. So the fix has apparently been implemented – I just wish it had been available in my day.
My second topic concerns contract closeout and how I wish that process had been better explained and emphasized in my early career. I have been fortunate to work in both cradle-to-grave organizations as well as post-award Contract Administration offices, but neither activity placed sufficient emphasis on contract closeout until it reached crisis levels. Instead of ignoring closeout until it reaches critical mass, or dedicating one day per week or month specifically for contract closeout, I would rather have closeout be the natural last step of every contract action. I know it’s not sexy, and I understand the temptation to defer it in favor of focusing on pre-award activities (especially in September as the end of the fiscal year looms), but I think it would be a vast improvement if senior policy makers would enforce timely and thorough closeout upon successful conclusion of the performance requirements of the contract. A wise contracting officer once showed me the value of “clean as you go,” and I took it to heart. If more contracting offices and professionals adopted that simple philosophy, then contract closeout would not be the onerous burden and ugly statistic that it is today.
My last topic is more of a pet peeve, and concerns the occasional lapse between cooperating government agencies to ‘speak with one voice.’ Whether it is the requiring activity and the contracting officer, or the Contracting Officer’s Representative and the end-user and the contracting officer, or the contracting officer and the finance/disbursing office, it seems that often the government players forget that they ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM, and therefore need to speak in unity. Since it’s the contracting officer’s authority, and responsibility, that is directly involved with whatever the issue is, the best course of action usually involves the CO speaking on behalf of everybody, after the government has clearly established its position with the team. One of my bigger frustrations, and embarrassments, as a young contract specialist was to witness a government/contractor meeting in which the know-it-all COR completely ignored the importance of unity, and pointed out several flaws in the contract (according to him). While the contractor was probably happy with the resulting weakness in the government position, the CO was furious at the breach in protocol and the huge effort it would take to address those claims. Had the COR grasped the significance of everybody being on the same page, it would have prevented much frustration and heartache, and probably achieved some cost savings. That incident made a lasting impact on me, and I’ve made a point ever since of scheduling and chairing regular government-only meetings to make sure no one speaks out of turn with the contractor present.
In conclusion, there are many more tidbits that I’ve picked up over the years, but in general, my list of things I wished I had known at the beginning boils down to training, process discipline, and situational awareness within the government contracting team.