DOD Acquisition: Fiscal Year 1993 Waivers to Acquisition Workforce Requirements (Letter Report, 02/16/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-92). The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act, seeking to professionalize the Pentagon's acquisition workforce, imposes education, training, and experience requirements. The act allows DOD to waive qualification requirements for program managers and other acquisition personnel. During fiscal year 1993, the military granted a total of 30 waivers for 26 persons--three fewer than in the previous year. No waivers were granted for contracting officers. Significant differences exist, however, between the fiscal year 1992 and 1993 waivers. Compared to fiscal year 1992, the documentation supporting the waivers contained less information on the unusual circumstance or the individuals' qualifications that obviated the need to meet the standards. However, the Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development said that his office reviews the documentation to ensure compliance with the act. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: NSIAD-94-92 TITLE: DOD Acquisition: Fiscal Year 1993 Waivers to Acquisition Workforce Requirements DATE: 02/16/94 SUBJECT: Labor force Waivers Education or training Documentation Defense procurement Personnel management Military personnel Civilian employees Compliance Hiring policies IDENTIFIER: DOD Defense Management Review Defense Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development Program ************************************************************************** * This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO * * report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, * * headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions * * of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are * * identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end * * of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the * * document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page * * numbers of the printed product. * * * * No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure * * captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble * * those in the printed version. * * * * A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document * * Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your * * request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, * * Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders * * for printed documents at this time. * ************************************************************************** Cover ================================================================ COVER Report to Congressional Committees February 1994 DOD ACQUISITION - FISCAL YEAR 1993 WAIVERS TO ACQUISITION WORKFORCE REQUIREMENTS GAO/NSIAD-94-92 DOD Acquisition Abbreviations =============================================================== ABBREV DOD - Department of Defense Letter =============================================================== LETTER B-247174 February 16, 1994 The Honorable Sam Nunn Chairman, Committee on Armed Services United States Senate The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Chairman, Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives On November 5, 1990, the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (10 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) was enacted to address public and congressional criticism of the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of its acquisition programs. The intent of the act is to professionalize DOD's acquisition workforce. The act imposes education, training, and experience requirements, which take effect over a 3-year period, beginning in October 1991. The act permits DOD officials to waive specific qualification requirements pertaining to program managers and other acquisition personnel. It also requires that, through 1998, we annually report on DOD's compliance with the act's waiver provisions. This is our third report required by the act.\1 -------------------- \1 Defense Management: Implementation of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (GAO/NSIAD-92-97, Jan. 31, 1992); Acquisition Management: Waivers to Acquisition Workforce Training, Education, and Experience Requirements (GAO/NSIAD-93-128, Mar. 30, 1993). BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1 The quality and professionalism of DOD's acquisition workforce has been an issue for over 30 years. In 1986, the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (the Packard Commission) described the DOD acquisition workforce as "undertrained, underpaid, and inexperienced." In July 1989, DOD's Defense Management Review\2 reported many of the same problems and recommended a series of specific management initiatives to improve the acquisition process and more effectively manage DOD resources. The Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act is designed to improve the effectiveness and quality of DOD's acquisition workforce, which is composed of 11 functional career fields, such as program management, contracting, and logistics. Specifically, the act (1) establishes a management and career development structure headed by the Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development Policy, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense; (2) establishes qualification standards and assignment period requirements for the acquisition workforce; (3) requires the establishment of an acquisition corps, which consists of a group of selected senior civilian employees (GS-13 and above) and military personnel (O-4 and above) from the acquisition workforce; and (4) requires the designation of critical acquisition positions, which are generally to be filled by civilians in grades GS-14 or above or military personnel in grades O-5 and above. Membership in an acquisition corps is a prerequisite for future appointments to critical acquisition positions. Qualification requirements for acquisition personnel are not new. Since 1987, program managers have been required by law to complete the Defense System Management College's program management course or a comparable course. Since 1990, program managers and general or flag officers have been required to have 8 years experience in the acquisition, support, and maintenance of weapon systems, including at least 2 years in a procurement command. The current act expands upon these provisions by including other acquisition disciplines and more stringent experience requirements. The effective dates for the act's qualification requirements are staggered from 1991 through 1993. Beginning October 1, 1991, the act required that newly appointed program managers of major and significant nonmajor defense acquisition programs complete the program management course (or an equivalent course) at the Defense Systems Management College, possess acquisition experience: at least 8 years for major defense programs (2 of which are in a systems program office or similar organization) and at least 6 years for significant nonmajor programs, and agree to a tenure requirement that they remain in their position until the completion of the first major milestone closest in time to the date they have served 4 years and sign a written agreement to remain on active duty (or in federal service) during this period. Beginning October 1, 1992, deputy program managers must have 6 years of acquisition experience and, along with program executive officers, have attended the program management course. In addition, before being assigned as a program executive officer and before general and flag officers and civilian equivalents are assigned to a critical acquisition position, they must have 10 years experience in acquisition positions. Four years of this experience must have been in a critical acquisition position. Senior contracting officials must have 4 years experience in contracting in order to fill a critical position in contracting. Beginning October 1, 1993, specific qualification requirements went into effect for contracting officers. They must have (1) completed all mandatory contracting courses; (2) gained at least 2 years of contracting experience; and (3) received a baccalaureate degree with at least 24 semester hours in business disciplines, or passed an equivalency exam along with additional requirements established by the Secretary of Defense. In addition, each service must have established an acquisition corps, and individuals serving in critical acquisition positions must be corps members. According to DOD policy, waivers to the above qualification requirements may be granted by the service secretary or his or her designee if (1) unusual circumstances justify the waiver or (2) the individual's qualifications obviate the need for meeting the standards. -------------------- \2 On the basis of the Packard Commission findings, the President directed the Secretary of Defense to review DOD's management and develop a plan to fully implement the Commission's recommendations. In response, the Secretary established the Defense Management Review in February 1989. RESULTS IN BRIEF ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2 During fiscal year 1993, the military services granted a total of 30 waivers for 26 individuals--3 fewer than fiscal year 1992. Most of the waivers were for program managers. No waivers were granted for contracting officers. As in fiscal year 1992, DOD agencies did not grant any waivers in fiscal year 1993. There were some significant differences between the fiscal year 1992 and 1993 waivers. Compared to fiscal year 1992, the documentation provided to support the waivers contained less information regarding the unusual circumstances that existed or the individuals qualifications that obviated the need for meeting the standards. However, the Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development stated that his office reviews the documentation to assure compliance with the act. WAIVERS ISSUED ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3 During fiscal year 1993, the military services granted a total of 30 waivers for 26 individuals (23 program managers, a deputy program manager, a program executive officer, and a general officer). No waivers were granted for contracting officers. Ten of the 30 waivers granted were for individuals, both military and civilian, who lacked the required program management course. Four waivers were for individuals lacking the required acquisition experience, and 16 waivers were for those who did not meet the tenure requirement. Twenty-two (85 percent) of the 26 individuals receiving waivers were military personnel, 7 of whom were general officers. As in fiscal year 1992, DOD agencies did not grant any waivers in fiscal year 1993. Table 1 summarizes the waivers approved by each service. Table 1 Summary of Waivers Approved for Fiscal Year 1993 Reason waiver was Air needed Army Navy Force Total -------------------- -------- -------- -------- ======== No program 2 4 4 10 management course Insufficient 3 1 0 4 acquisition experience Did not fulfill 3 6 7 16 tenure ============================================================ Total 8 11 11 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Three fewer waivers were granted in fiscal year 1993 compared to fiscal year 1992, even though the act's requirements expanded in fiscal year 1993 to include specific qualification requirements for contracting officers. Data were not available on the proportion of waivers granted in fiscal year 1992. There were some significant differences between the fiscal year 1992 and 1993 waivers. For example, in fiscal year 1992, 3 of the 33 waivers granted were for not completing the tenure requirement. In fiscal year 1993, waivers to the tenure requirement accounted for 16 of the 30 waivers granted. In fiscal year 1992, the Army issued a disproportionately higher number (about 70 percent) of the waivers. As shown in table 1, waivers were more evenly distributed among the services in fiscal year 1993. Also in fiscal year 1992, the majority of waivers were for general officers, whereas in 1993 the majority were for field grade officers. WAIVERS TO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COURSE ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1 The primary explanation for granting the 10 waivers to the program management course was that the individuals were otherwise qualified based on education and/or experience. Four waivers were for civilians; six were for military officers, four of whom were general officers. Program management course waivers decreased from fiscal year 1992, when they accounted for a majority of the waivers issued. The high number of program management course waivers in fiscal year 1992 reflected an increased demand for the course--a demand that was created by the act's requirement. This demand, coupled with the course's limited availability at the Defense Systems Management College in Virginia, led to a sizable backlog. To help reduce the course backlog, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense declared in August 1992 that the Naval Post Graduate Course in California would also satisfy the program management course requirement. This decision allows former and future graduates to fulfill the course requirement. Like the program management course in Virginia, this course offers instruction in a variety of acquisition issues, including financial, technical, life-cycle, and contract management. WAIVERS TO ACQUISITION EXPERIENCE ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2 As shown in table 1, three Army waivers and one Navy waiver were granted to individuals who lacked the required acquisition experience. All four waivers were given to military officers, two of whom were general officers. In contrast to fiscal year 1992, individuals waived in fiscal year 1993 came closer to meeting the experience requirement. For example, some individuals waived in 1992 had no acquisition experience at all; others lacked several years of experience. In 1993, only one individual had a significant shortfall in experience--49 months. Two other individuals lacked only 3 and 6 months of experience, respectively. The fourth waiver was for a program executive officer who did not have the requisite program manager/deputy program manager experience. TENURE WAIVED ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3 Sixteen waivers were granted to individuals who failed to fulfill the tenure requirements. Five of these waivers were for people retiring, and three were for those being promoted. Eight individuals were being reassigned. The waiver justification data did not explain why these reassignments were necessary. WAIVER JUSTIFICATIONS REVIEWED ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4 The act requires a written rationale for each waiver. The written rationales provided in fiscal year 1992 contained more specific information about the education and experience qualifications of individuals receiving waivers than those provided in fiscal year 1993. In some cases, the waiver justifications did not contain detailed information on the unusual circumstance or the individual's qualifications. The Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development stated that his office screens the waivers submitted from the services and follows up when necessary to ensure that they are consistent with the requirements of the act. AGENCY COMMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5 In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred with the report. However, DOD pointed out that new provisions susceptible to waivers have been added each year and therefore comparisons between the years are of limited value. We believe that a comparison of waivers between fiscal years adds perspective to the number of waivers granted and indicates the impact of added provisions. Also, waiver comparisons between fiscal years can identify potential problems or trends that may require explanation and/or management attention. DOD also stated that the information provided on the waiver forms meets the requirements of the act. DOD noted that the waiver forms indicate that the waiver was granted either because of unusual circumstances or that a determination was made by an authorized official that the individual's qualifications obviated the need to meet the requirements. We believe having a signed waiver form represents the minimum compliance with the law that calls for a written rationale for each waiver. DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix I. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6 Our review covered the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense; and the other DOD agencies. We obtained the 1993 waiver documentation from officials in the Office of the Director, Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development. For those waivers submitted and approved, we assessed the justification for the waivers using criteria contained in the act; DOD Instruction 5000.52, Defense Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development Program, dated October 25, 1991; and the Under Secretary of Defense's October 25, 1991, policy memorandum, which was superseded by DOD Instruction 5000.58, "Defense Acquisition Workforce," dated January 14, 1992. This review was conducted between June and December 1993 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1 We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force and to other interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-4587 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. David E. Cooper Director, Acquisition Policy, Technology and Competitiveness Issues (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ============================================================== Letter (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) Now on pp. 2-3. (See figure in printed edition.) Now on pp. 3-5. Now on pp. 5-6. (See figure in printed edition.) MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT ========================================================== Appendix II NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C. James F. Wiggins, Associate Director CINCINNATI REGIONAL OFFICE Rae Ann Sapp, Issue Area Manager Myra A. Watts, Evaluator-in-Charge Norbert Trapp, Senior Evaluator