Michael Fischetti is the executive director of the National Contract Management Association.
If innovation means creative acquisition solutions for today’s requirements (not an end-all legislative solution) and that necessary strategies already exist today, what are some specific ideas?
As mentioned before, innovation isn’t about IT or a new policy, regulation, or program, and the solution may not be new. Innovation is primarily a people issue, requiring risk-taking professionals willing to do some analysis, try some things differently, and document their solutions well. Along with the pre-award phase, a strong commitment to contract management (post-award) is absolute.
Related: What does innovation really mean?
Clarify who oversees what areas of acquisition. A review of the multiple overseers, such as internal agency approvals, inspector general, GAO, and others with authority but not necessarily responsibility for operational execution, must occur? Perhaps some resources involved with checking or validating contracting or program activities could be re-deployed to ensuring program delivery. Is our best human capital executing acquisition requirements, or are the highest organizational levels and minds involved instead with monitoring and oversight?
Liberalize the use of many potentially forgotten acquisition strategies, such as sealed bidding or two-step acquisitions. Reconsider our alternatives to full and open competition, permitting initial selection in complex acquisitions on technical approach without consideration of cost or price, allowing for detailed one-on-one negotiation with one only offeror once others are excluded; limiting protest jurisdiction exclusively to the GAO, which could cut the decision time substantially (which would require regulatory change) are all ideas with merit.
Review how helpful new technology really is to the contracting officer. Most acquisitions are not complex. A very respected colleague recently reminded me of the previous distinction between contract specialists and purchasing agents. Just as contract training perhaps overly embraced online versus in-classroom education at its outset, the advent of new technology may have provided an overdone response to eliminating the former procurement clerk, GS-1106 job series. This provided a potential training ground for aspiring contract specialists and contracting officers (after all, on-the-job training is the best available). The elimination of the procurement clerk dropped all administrative work onto the contract specialist, inhibiting their ability to engage in market research, acquisition planning, continuous learning, or industry interaction. The disappearance of contracting officer administrative support staff has not been commensurate with new labor-saving technology.
There may even be a reverse correlation, along with growing industry frustration. Contracting officers are overwhelmed with new internal reporting, file documentation, and other administrative (but necessary) tasks, all reliant on several (often unintegrated) IT tools. This activity takes away from strategically oriented tasks, including attending program and industry interaction. Contracting managers need more time to get out of the office to better support acquisition strategy development and the industry markets they must understand.
Review the success of the Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA). SARA intended the creation of professionally trained, highly organizationally placed and experienced chief acquisition officers (CAOs), commensurate to agency CFOs and CIOs. This hasn’t generally occurred. To ensure effective acquisition programs, senior-level acquisition officials must have a direct reporting chain to top agency heads.
Evaluate the use of various contract types on program effectiveness. Incentive contracts, such as fixed-price incentive (firm target), have their place under the right circumstances. But they may not always be the best response to program success. Agency and industry officials need complete understanding and proficiency in managing incentive contracts. Research suggests the effectiveness of such vehicles in controlling costs or improving performance isn’t always substantiated. The much-maligned award-fee contract incentives may be a better fit, if used properly. All contract types have their place with the right requirement.
Finally and most importantly, sustained government and industry acquisition workforce improvement must occur. This is more than new coursework; it’s a comprehensive cultural approach involving rigorous selection and advancement processes for today’s professionals. Employers must ensure that business and critical-thinking skills are job #1 in selection and promotion criteria. Along with today’s extensive socioeconomic selection criteria, writing samples, progressive interview techniques, casting wider nets for eligible candidates, including capability assessments beyond existing experience and training (including professional certifications such as NCMA certifications) is necessary. Placing more emphasis on professional competency standards applicable across industry and institutionalizing government on-the-job training and rotation programs will ensure our workforce can meet today’s complex, global acquisition challenges.
How to achieve real acquisition innovation
