Limited Identification of Non-DAWIA Personnel with Acquisition-related Roles and Responsibilities

Non-DAWIA personnel are assigned responsibilities in critical phases of  the acquisition process, but no DOD organization has systematically  identified these personnel and the acquisition-related competencies they  require or been designated the responsibility of overseeing this group—as   has been done for the personnel who are members of the DAWIA  workforce. Identifying non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related  responsibilities is challenging, but DOD is working to identify a portion of  this population—requirements personnel for major weapon systems—and  provide specific training. DOD is not required to identify non-DAWIA  personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities, and senior officials  stated that DOD has not established criteria or a process to do so across  the department or among organizations in DOD that have a role in  helping to manage issues focused on services acquisitions. DAU data suggest  that demand for training has increased, but DOD has limited metrics to  gauge the current size and future demand for training of the population in  the long term or the effectiveness of current training that is available. In 2006, 2008, and 2010  DOD recognized the importance of some non-DAWIA personnel with  acquisition-related responsibilities in several memoranda requiring that  CORs be properly trained and appointed before contract performance  begins on a services acquisition to address weaknesses in this key  function that the DODIG and we identified. DOD Has Taken Some Steps to Address Previous Recommendations

DOD has made some progress in implementing the outstanding  recommendations from the Panel on Contacting Integrity, our previous  reports, and other reports that raised issues related to training for non- DAWIA personnel. DOD  concurred with the four relevant recommendations, has fully implemented  three, and has taken action on the other. Finally, the House Armed Services Committee and the Defense Science  Board recently issued reports including recommendations related to  training for those who are responsible for requirements development for  services acquisitions and non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related  responsibilities but the recommendations were made too recently for us to  assess the status of implementation. For example, in March 2010, the  House Armed Services Committee Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform  Report reported that DOD was not ensuring that personnel with  responsibilities for acquisition outcomes acquire the skills, training, and  experience needed to properly write, award, and oversee performance of  services acquisitions, which could pose a different set of challenges than  those associated with the procurement of goods. Challenges in identifying non-DAWIA  personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities exist, in part, because  the personnel are dispersed throughout the department, come from a  variety of career fields, and are often involved in acquisitions as a  secondary duty. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that training and development efforts for non-DAWIA  personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities are deliberate and  contribute to successful services acquisitions—meaning DOD buys the  right thing, the right way, while getting the desired outcomes—we  recommend the Secretary of Defense take the following three actions:    establish criteria and a time frame for identifying non-DAWIA  personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities, including  requirements officials;    assess what critical skills non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition- related responsibilities might require to perform their role in the  acquisition process and improve acquisition outcomes; and     designate an organization that has the responsibility to track DOD’s  progress in identifying, developing, and overseeing non-DAWIA  personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities to help ensure they  have the skills necessary to perform their acquisition function. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included a  provision requiring that GAO report on the Department of Defense’s  (DOD) training for its acquisition and audit workforce.1 Our October 2010  report addressed training provided by the Defense Acquisition University  (DAU) to the DAWIA workforce.2 In addition to that report, we agreed to  review training provided to non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related  responsibilities in a noncontingency environment. To accomplish this, we  assessed the extent to which (1) DOD knows the composition of the  population of non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related  responsibilities, (2) non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related  responsibilities are taking acquisition training, and (3) selected  recommendations related to non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition- related responsibilities from previous reviews have been implemented. The COR represents and is nominated by the requiring  organization and designated by the contracting officer. In 17 of 29 contracts,  there was more than one COR assigned. We differentiated between recommendations that  specifically mention training from those that did not, as well as  recommendations in which training was involved in the implementation of  the recommendation.
Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal year 2010, more than half of the $367 billion dollars the Department of Defense (DOD) spent on contracts was spent on services. Buying services is fundamentally different than buying weapon systems, yet most acquisition regulations, policies, processes, and training remain structured for acquiring weapon systems. Over the last decade, reports from GAO, DOD, and Congress have raised issues about services acquisitions and have also highlighted the importance of acquisition training. GAO previously reported on the training provided to the acquisition workforce as defined by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). This report addresses personnel working on services acquisitions who were outside the DAWIA acquisition workforce--termed non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities--and the extent to which (1) DOD knows the composition of this population, (2) this population is taking acquisition training, and (3) DOD has implemented past recommendations related to this population. To complete this work, GAO reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 29 service contracts, relevant policies, and recommendations from previous reports and met with key DOD officials.

What GAO Found

Non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities represented more than half of the 430 personnel involved in the 29 services acquisition contracts in this review. Several organizations have been tracking and managing the DAWIA workforce, but no DOD organization has systematically identified non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities, the competencies they need to conduct their acquisition duties, or been designated responsibility for overseeing this group. DOD is not required to identify these personnel and has not established a process to do so. Identifying this population is challenging, partly because, as DOD officials noted, it is a transient one that is dispersed across many DOD organizations. Additionally, these people come from a variety of career fields and are often involved in acquisitions as a secondary duty. DOD has taken action to identify part of this population and provide them training--requirements personnel for major weapon systems--but has not done this for all non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities. Most non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities in GAO's sample received some acquisition training. The required training was varied and limited and applied largely to contracting officer's representatives (CORs) and not to other non-DAWIA personnel such as requirements officials, technical assistants, or multifunctional team members. For example, the Air Force required two Air Force-specific phases of training, while the Navy and Marine Corps policy did not specify what training was required. Demand for acquisition training courses by non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities has been increasing in the past few years at the Defense Acquisition University, but DOD has limited information to gauge the current and future demand for training this population in the long term or the effectiveness of the current training that is available. DOD has taken short-term actions to require training and provide resources for some non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities. For example, DOD recognized the importance of CORs in several memoranda requiring that they be properly trained and appointed before contract performance begins on services acquisitions. DOD has made some progress in implementing the recommendations of reports from the Panel on Contracting Integrity and GAO that related to management and training of the COR--a portion of non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities. For example, for the four relevant GAO recommendations--which are related to training, assignment, and oversight of the CORs--DOD fully concurred with all of them, has fully implemented three, and is implementing a COR tracking system to address the remaining recommendation. The House Armed Services Committee and the Defense Science Board issued reports since 2009 that made recommendations that were relevant to this population but were made too recently for GAO to assess their implementation. For example, the House Armed Services Committee Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform report recommended DOD reform the services requirements process in order to address the different set of challenges services acquisitions pose compared to the procurement of goods. Among other things, GAO recommends that DOD establish criteria for identifying non-DAWIA personnel with acquisition-related responsibilities and assess the critical skills needed to perform their role in the acquisition process. DOD concurred with the recommendations.