Defense Acquisition Workforce: Issues for Congress

Congressional research reportMar 11, 1999

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱ

ȱ¢ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱ

ȱŗŗǰȱŗşşşȱ

ȱȱȱ

ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ

ǯǯȱ

şŞȬşřŞȱ

ȱȱȱ

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

¢ȱ

In each of the past four fiscal years (FY1996-FY1999), Congress has directed the Administration

to reduce the size of the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition workforce—defined as the

employees who participate in the development and procurement of weapons, equipment, and

provisions for the military services. These mandates reflect a view in Congress that the workforce

has not been downsized in proportion to the decline in of the overall defense budget in general,

nor of the acquisition portion of the defense budget, in particular.

As Congress and the Administration have debated the future of the defense acquisition workforce,

participants have encountered basic questions: What, precisely, is the DOD acquisition

workforce? How many people are in it, and what, exactly, are their functions? At present, there is

no commonly accepted definition of the DOD acquisition workforce. Previous attempts, within

the decade, to define the workforce have produced estimates ranging from 25,000 to 582,000

personnel.

In early 1997, DOD hired the Jefferson Solutions Group, a private consulting firm, to define the

size and composition of the acquisition workforce. Jefferson Solutions issued its report in

September 1997. It estimated that the overall workforce included about 189,000 people, and that

the largest acquisition workforce group consists of scientists and engineers (about 43 percent),

followed by computer systems analysts and logistical and program managers (about 16 percent),

and contractors, purchasers, or procurement support personnel (about 15 percent). Notably, the

study did not address the issue or provide statistics on the extent to which DOD relied on privatesector contractors to perform acquisition-related functions.

In response to Section 912(b) of the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act, Deputy Secretary of

Defense (for Acquisition and Technology) Jacques S. Gansler issued a memorandum to defense

agencies on November 20, 1998, having determined that DOD would use a modified version of

the definition used by the Packard Commission Report. Each agency is required to conduct a

functional workforce analysis, revise its personnel count, and report findings by December 30,

1998.

Currently, two major questions confront Congress in regard to the acquisition workforce. First,

should the new definition constructed by the Jefferson Solutions Group be adopted formally? If

so, it will result in a significant reduction in DOD’s official count of acquisition personnel.

Second, to what extent will savings achieved through reductions be offset by additional,

unanticipated costs? Such costs may include: (1) hiring contractors to perform acquisition-related

functions previously performed by government employees; (2) separation costs, such as early

buyouts, retirements, and severance pay; and, (3) overtime costs due to both personnel shortages

and inexperienced personnel.

ȱȱȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Defining the Defense Acquisition Workforce.................................................................................. 3

A Historical Perspective............................................................................................................ 3

Current Approaches................................................................................................................... 5

Jefferson Solutions Report ........................................................................................................ 6

Pertinent Observations .............................................................................................................. 8

Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................................... 9

Adequacy and Usefulness of New Definition ........................................................................... 9

Secretary of Defense’s Report................................................................................................. 10

Funding Implications ...............................................................................................................11

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 12

Selected Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 12

Table 1. Previous Estimates of the Size of the DOD Acquisition Workforce.................................. 4

Table 2. Personnel Composition of the DOD Acquisition Workforce............................................. 7

¡ȱ

Appendix A. Title IX, Subtitle B - Additional Reductions in Defense Acquisition

Workforce................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix B. Title IX, Subtitle A - Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and

Support Workforce ..................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix C. Acquisition Position Categories ............................................................................... 18

Appendix D. DOD Acquisition Organizations .............................................................................. 19

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 20

ȱȱȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

In each of the past four fiscal years, Congress has directed the Administration to reduce the size

of the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition workforce—the DOD employees who

participate in the development and procurement of weapons and equipment for the military

services.

•

In the FY1996 defense authorization act, Congress directed the Administration to

reduce the workforce by 15,000 people by October 1, 1996, and by a total of 25

percent (compared to the 1995 figure) over a period of five years. The act also

required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on ways to restructure

functions among DOD’s acquisition departments and agencies.

•

In the FY1997 defense authorization act, Congress directed the Administration to

reduce the workforce by an additional 15,000 people by October 1, 1997, and

stipulated that this reduction was to be in the form of actual acquisition

personnel, not just acquisition positions.

•

In the FY1998 defense authorization act, Congress directed the Administration to

reduce the workforce by an additional 25,000 people by September 30, 1998, but

permitted the Secretary of Defense to waive a portion of this reduction if her

certifies to Congress by June 1, 1998 that such reductions would adversely

impact military readiness and acquisition efficiency. The act also required DOD

to submit a report to Congress by April 1, 1998 that provides a plan for future

acquisition policy, including future opportunities to restructure and streamline

DOD’s acquisition organizations, workforce and infrastructure.

•

In the FY1999 defense authorization act, Congress directed the Administration to

reduce the workforce by 25,000 acquisition personnel by October 1, 1999,

lowering it to 12,500 personnel if the Secretary of Defense certifies that such a

reduction would cause an adverse effect on military readiness or management of

the acquisition system.

These mandates to reduce the size of the DOD acquisition workforce reflected Congress’ view

that the workforce has not been downsized enough—that reductions continue to lag in proportion

to the decline in the size of the overall defense budget, in general, and the acquisition portion of

the defense budget, in particular. As a result, according to this view, DOD has spent more than is

necessary to administer its acquisition programs. Reducing the workforce has been viewed as a

necessary requirement for eliminating wasteful spending, and providing DOD with increased

funding for other priorities.

Congressional interest in reducing the size and associated costs of the DOD acquisition workforce

has been energized by certain outside reports. The May 1995 report of the DOD Commission on

Roles and Missions, for example, noted that while private-sector defense contractors had

undertaken large-scale reorganizations adjusting to a reduced level of defense spending, little

corresponding reduction had been made in the number of DOD acquisition organizations or

personnel.1

U.S. Department of Defense. Directions for Defense: Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed

Forces, in accordance with Section 954(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994.

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

ŗȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

Congress and DOD are presently at odds over the need for further reductions in the defense

acquisition workforce. DOD now believes that it has exceeded its congressional mandates to

reduce the acquisition workforce, and that further acquisition personnel reductions will have an

adverse impact. This concern was expressed in a 1997 report to Congress, required by the

FY1996 defense authorization act. DOD stated that, in FY1996, it had reduced the acquisition

workforce by 23,802 personnel (military/civilian, excluding certain depot trade skill personnel)

employed by or assigned to its acquisition organizations—8,802 more than mandated by

Congress for that year. DOD stated that without the depot skill-trades exemption, it reduced

personnel in acquisition organizations by 30,377 in FY1996. In its report, DOD estimated a twoyear reduction by the end of FY1997, of over 56,000 people—a 13.2 percent reduction. 2

DOD’s current position is that mandated acquisition personnel reductions have undercut its effort

to manage the acquisition workforce, and have adversely impacted military readiness. In appeals

to the FY 1999 defense authorization bill3, DOD asked Congress to reconsider House Section 901

which requires that, by October 1, 2001, DOD would phase-in reductions of an additional 70,000

defense acquisition personnel. DOD believed that Section 901 excluded about 80,000 civilian

personnel performing acquisition functions at depot maintenance depots. In its appeal, DOD

strongly opposed these reductions, having stated that “personnel cuts enacted outside the

manpower planning, programming and budgeting system are inconsistent with cost-effective

management and will require Reductions-in-Force separations, creating associated

unprogrammed separation costs.”4

In the past, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has examined issues facing DOD’s acquisition

workforce. In a 1995 report, before congressionally-mandated personnel reductions began, GAO

concluded that “Even with declines in both the defense procurement budget and the civilian

workforce since 1990, the number of acquisition organizations remains relatively constant.” 5 A

1997 GAO report, using data from the Defense Manpower Data Center, stated that for the period

ending March 31, 1997, DOD reduced its acquisition workforce from the 1995 baseline by

50,334 full-time equivalent personnel (FTEs), or 20,223 more than required by Congress.6

In 1998, the House National Security Committee asked GAO to review DOD’s progress in

achieving a 25-percent reduction in the acquisition organizations’ workforce, examine the

potential savings associated with such reductions, determine the status of DOD efforts to redefine

the acquisition workforce, and examine DOD’s efforts to restructure acquisition organizations.

GAO concluded that:

(...continued)

Washington, 1995, pp. 3-16, 3-17.

U.S. Department of Defense. Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology). Right Sizing the

Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce: A Report to the United States Congress. Washington, 1997. (January

28, 1997,) p. 2. This report was required by Section 906 of the FY1996 Defense Authorization Act. Additional

information was contributed by Dr. James McMichael, Director of Acquisition, Education, Training, and Career

Development, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition &Technology).

Department of Defense Appeals to the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Bill. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

(Comptroller), Plans & Systems Directorate. July 2, 1998.

Selected DOD Appeals to FY-99 Defense Authorization Conference. Inside the Pentagon. July 9, 1998, pp. 11-12.

U.S. Congress. General Accounting Office. Defense Acquisition Organizations: Changes in Cost and Size of Civilian

Workforce, GAO/NSIAD-96-46, November 1995. Washington, 1995. p. 2.

U.S. Congress. General Accounting Office. Defense Acquisition Organizations: Reductions in Civilian and Military

Workforce. Washington, 1997. (GAO/NSIAD-98-36R, October 23, 1997) p. 2.

ȱȱȱ

Řȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

DOD has been reducing its acquisition workforce at a faster rate than its overall workforce

and is on schedule to accomplish a 25-percent reduction by the fiscal year 2000. However,

potential savings from these reductions cannot be precisely tracked in DOD’s budget. In

addition, some of the potential savings from acquisition workforce reductions may be offset

by other anticipated costs. Such costs include those for contracting with private entities for

some services previously performed by government personnel (i.e., substituting one

workforce for another.7

Such conflicting opinions on the size of the defense acquisition workforce, and the potential

savings to be achieved, stem from an inability to define it. Over the past three years, as Congress

and the Administration have debated the future of the defense acquisition workforce,

policymakers have sought to answer the basic question: What, precisely, is the DOD acquisition

workforce? How many people are in it, where in DOD are they located, and what, exactly, are

their functions?

ȱȱȱȱȱ

There is no commonly accepted definition of the DOD acquisition workforce. This has led to

confusing and contentious discussions about the workforce, its size and composition, the

significance of reductions DOD has made, and the potential impact of carrying out further

reductions.

ȱ ȱȱ

There have been at least seven attempts in recent years by Congress and DOD to define what

constitutes the defense acquisition workforce. Each attempt was based on a study which used

differing combinations of occupational and organizational codes and produced estimates of the

size of the workforce ranging from 25,000 to 582,000 personnel. It is important to note that these

studies were performed over a period of more than a decade—a period during which there have

been significant changes in the size of the defense budget, the size of the procurement portion of

the defense budget, the number of uniformed military personnel, and the total number of DOD

civilian employees. An estimate of the acquisition workforce that appears large or small in an

absolute sense should be considered in light of the defense policy changes that have occurred.

Currently, the most commonly accepted estimates agreed upon by Congress and DOD range from

about 106,000 to 270,000 personnel; the first is an estimate of personnel whose positions fall

under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). DAWIA is the basis for

nearly all of DOD’s education, training and career development programs for the acquisition

workforce. Congress enacted DAWIA in the FY1991 Defense Authorization Act.8 It is codified in

Chapter 87, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and has been amended several times since enactment. The

most recent estimate comes from the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 105-85),

and counts 270,000 personnel.

U.S. Congress. General Accounting Office. Defense Acquisition Organizations: Status of Workforce Reductions.

Report to the Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives. GAO/NSIAD-98-161. June 1998.

20 pages.

Public Law 101-510, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Title XII, Defense Acquisition

Workforce Improvement Act, November 5, 1990.

ȱȱȱ

řȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

Table 1. Previous Estimates of the Size of the DOD Acquisition Workforce

(Arranged by date)

Source of Estimate

Date of

Estimate

Methodology for estimate—

who is counted

Number of

personnel

FY1999 National Defense

Authorization Bill (Public Law 105261

Enacted into Law,

October 17, 1998

Undetermined

Defense Acquisition Workforce

Improvement Act (DAWIA),

Public Law 101-510, FY1991

Defense Authorization Act, Title

XII, Defense Acquisition

Workforce Improvement Act,

November 5, 1990

Acquisition Corps, enacted in Title

10, Section 1732, U.S. Code

1998 Annual Report

to the President and

the Congress, from

Secretary of

Defense William

Cohen

Military and civilian personnel (other

than civilian depot personnel) who are

assigned to, or employed in, DOD

acquisition organizations as specified

by DOD 5000.58a

All 14 acquisition-related positions

(see Appendix C for a complete

listing)

FY 1998 National Defense

Authorization Bill (Public Law 10585)

1998 Annual Report

to the President and

the Congress, from

Secretary of

Defense William

Cohen

Enacted into law,

November 18, 1997

FY 1997 National Defense

Authorization Bill (Public Law 104201)

Enacted into law,

February 10, 1996

GAO Report, NSIAD-96-46,

“Defense Acquisition

Organizations: Changes in Cost

and Size of Civilian Workforce

DOD Instruction 5000.58

Nov. 13, 1995

Defense Management Report,

from the Defense Manpower Data

Center

The President’s Blue Ribbon

Commission on Defense

Management (Packard

Commission Report)

Revised, Jan. 14,

1992

June 1989

April 1986

105,544

A subset of the DAWIA workforce;

persons who have qualified for

membership

22,641

Military and civilian personnel (other

than civilians who are employed at a

maintenance depot) in acquisition

organizations

Military and civilian personnel in

acquisition organizations, with the

exception of personnel who possess

technical competence in trade-skill

maintenance and repair positions

involved in performing depot

maintenance functions

All personnel in DOD acquisition

organizations and the Defense

Contract Audit Agency

270,000

All personnel in DOD acquisition

organizations

All personnel described in the Packard

Commission Report and all in DOD

acquisition organizations

Some civilian occupations in all

organizations, acquisition

organizations and corresponding

military organizations

355,000

320,000

464,000

582,000

150,000

Unless otherwise noted, data in this table were derived from Dr. James S. McMichael, Director of

Acquisition Education, Office of the Secretary of Defense. According to Dr. McMichael, the Defense

Management Report estimated the workforce count at 582,000 in June 1989; DOD and the Defense

Management Data Center have used the same algorithm to arrive at the figure of 582,000; when needed, they

apply this algorithm to the database to obtain a comparable count. DOD’s current estimate is 375,000.

Sources:

ȱȱȱ

Śȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

This definition also includes organizations which the Secretary of Defense may determine to have a

predominately acquisition mission.

ȱȱ

In DOD’s personnel system, members of the acquisition workforce can be identified by using any

of three basic approaches, either alone or in combination:

(1) Identification by occupational codes, such as GS-1102, Contracting Specialist. Contracting

specialists are most often thought of as “the acquisition workforce.” They are the “public face”

that is most often associated with directly buying DOD goods and services, from aircraft carriers

to “$600 toilet seats.” Some contracting specialists directly purchase goods and services; others

manage the buying process between DOD and defense contractors; still others develop, supervise,

and monitor DOD contracting policy. Not all occupational codes, however, can be neatly

classified as either inside or outside the acquisition workforce. Some managers, engineers, and

scientists, for example, are involved in acquisition-related activities, but also perform other

functions. For example, a manager may be primarily responsible for base operations and serve as

a critical support for the day-to-day running of the military installation.

(2) Identification by organizational codes, which reflect the mission of the office in which the

person works, such as the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), which is

responsible for DOD’s surplus and excess property programs. DRMS workers routinely acquire

goods and services for disposal within federal agencies; these goods and services are no longer

needed by DOD. Throughout the defense establishment, some workers are directly involved in

buying and selling, while others support this process. For example, auditors may have some

oversight authority for the financial management process within a military installation, but have

no responsibility for the contracting process. They may not be involved with the actual “buying”

or “selling,” either directly or indirectly. There are also personnel that perform “acquisitionrelated” functions in organizations that do not have an acquisition mission, while other personnel

are assigned to an organization with an “acquisition-related mission,” but are not involved in the

acquisition process. For example, a child care worker responsible for the installation’s day care

center would be unlikely to have responsibility for procuring goods and services. Thus, the

organizational codes are not always an undisputed identifier.

(3) Direct identification, in which DOD performs a “desk audit” of the actual performance of

tasks by one worker, and compares it with a description of tasks and duties that make up

“acquisition-related functions,” and determines that, based on empirical evidence, the worker

should be considered as part of the acquisition community. The data is then entered into an

information system, and DOD counts that individual as performing acquisition-related functions.

The direct identification method may be considered the most reliable, but it is also the most timeconsuming.

According to DOD, military and civilian positions that are categorized as part of the DOD

acquisition system fall into one of 14 acquisition position categories as established by the

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Each acquisition position category

has standards set according to its level of complexity. Definitions of each category of acquisition

positions can be found in DOD Instruction 5000.58-R and DOD Manual 5000.52-M9.

The following regulations prescribe policies and procedures governing career management activities of the acquisition

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

śȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

Although the definition of each acquisition position category appears in DOD Instruction

Manuals, the number of positions made it difficult for Congress to determine just how many

different individuals occupied each position, as well as what duties each individual performed

within the framework of defense acquisition. Congress sought an objective source for a definition

of what constituted the defense acquisition workforce, and directed DOD to create a new

definition that would answer these questions.

ȱȱȱ

At a 1997 hearing on the DOD acquisition workforce before the military procurement and

readiness subcommittee of the House National Security Committee (HNSC),10 DOD was asked to

create a new definition of the acquisition workforce that could be accepted and used by all

participants in the debate. To carry out this task, DOD hired the Jefferson Solutions Group, a

management consulting firm based in Washington, DC, and headed by Dr. Allan V. Burman, a

former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP.)

Jefferson Solutions issued its report in September 1997. The report used data gathered from the

Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) and from interviews with officials from the Office of

the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, Defense Manpower Data Center, Defense

Logistics Agency, staff from the Senate Armed Services Committee (SAC) and the House

National Security Committee (HNSC), and analysts from the General Accounting Office (GAO)

and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The report examined two approaches for classifying

acquisition workforce personnel: (1) identifying personnel serving in acquisition organizations

identified in DOD Instruction 5000.58-R, and (2) identifying personnel designated as part of the

Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). The report reached the following

conclusions:

•

Relying exclusively on acquisition organizations resulted in too broad a

definition, as it included employees that do not perform acquisition-related

functions (such as police officers, firefighters, health care personnel), or who

perform a variety of functions that are not limited to acquisition.

•

Excluding organizations that did not qualify as acquisition organizations would

overlook personnel within these organizations that perform acquisition-related

functions (such as contractors, auditors, and quality assurance experts).

•

Since there are only 105,544 acquisition personnel whose positions fall within

statutory requirements for inclusion under DAWIA, using DAWIA as an

identifier would exclude many personnel who perform acquisition-related

functions.

(...continued)

workforce within DOD organizations: DOD Instruction 5000.58-R, “Defense Acquisition Workforce,” January 14,

1992; DOD Directive 5000.52, “Defense Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development Program,” October

25, 1991; and, DOD 5000.52-M, “Career Development Program for Acquisition Personnel” November 1991,

authorized by DOD Directive, 5000.52, October 25, 1991. For additional information on the defense acquisition

workforce, please contact the Director, Acquisition Career Management, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

(Acquisition), Room 2A330, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-2200.

Jefferson Solutions. Review of the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce. Prepared for the Department of

Defense. DASW)1-97-M-1847. 55 p.

ȱȱȱ

Ŝȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

The Jefferson Solutions Report adopted a definition for the acquisition workforce that revised and

expanded on the definition used by the 1986 Packard Commission. (See Table 1) The new

definition includes (1) all personnel employed in certain defense acquisition occupations,

regardless of the mission of the particular defense agency in which they work; and, (2) all

personnel in acquisition organizations who are employed in certain “acquisition support”

occupations.

The report recommended that DOD adopt this new definition of the acquisition workforce, ensure

that the definition is applied in a “uniform and consistent” manner across DOD and the services,

and validate the data results through an independent agency, such as the DMDC. To ensure that

the data is accurate and complete, the report recommended that DOD be given an opportunity to

adjust the personnel count on a case-by-case basis. The report also recommended that DOD

broaden its definition of employees covered by DAWIA to include all members of the newlydefined defense acquisition workforce.

As illustrated in the following table, the various occupational codes included in the new definition

contained a total of 177,613 people. The study group increased this figure by 6.5 percent to

account for administrative and clerical support that the study group believed were underestimated

in the data, bringing the total defense acquisition personnel estimate to 189,158, as illustrated in

the following table.11

Table 2. Personnel Composition of the DOD Acquisition Workforce

Occupational

Specialty

Science/Engineering

Engineering

Physical Sciences

Math and Statistics

Program Management

Computer Systems

Logistics Management

Supply Program Management

Computer Science

General Program Management

Procurement/Contracting

Contracting

Purchasing

Procurement Clerical

Percentage of

DOD Acquisition Workforce

Total

Personnel

42.5%

80,448

71,969

5,700

2,779

30,486

13,235

10,798

2,783

2,217

1,453

27,934

19,963

2,751

4,680

16.1%

14.5%

This table includes 13 occupational specialties not included in the 1986 Packard Commission report. Jefferson

Solutions applied the original Packard definition to the current workforce; most personnel were employed in

acquisition organizations (as defined by DOD Instruction 5000.58).

ȱȱȱ

ŝȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

Occupational

Specialty

Auditing/Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance

Auditing

Business/Industry/Finance

General Business & Industry

Budget Analysis

Production Control

Industrial Specialist

Property Disposal

Industrial Property Mgmt.

Clerical/Administrative Support

Other

Percentage of

DOD Acquisition Workforce

Total

Personnel

8.2%

15,596

8,453

7,143

13,969

4,207

3,480

3,055

1,582

1,099

546

11,545

972

7.4%

6.1%

5.1%

Total Acquisition Personnel

189,158

Source: Burman, Allan V., Cavallini, Nathaniel M., Harris, Kisha N. Review of the Department of Defense Acquisition

Workforce. Jefferson Solutions. DASW01-97-M-1847. September 1997, p. 40.

ȱȱ

The Jefferson Solutions Report was narrowly focused on the task of developing a workable

definition of who and what constituted the acquisition workforce. The study combined both

occupational and organizational data elements. Most of the occupations selected for the

acquisition workforce were also located in acquisition organizations. The study revealed that the

largest acquisition workforce group consisted of scientists and engineers (about 43 percent),

followed by computer systems analysts and logistical and program managers (about 16 percent),

and contractors, purchasers, or procurement support personnel (about 15 percent).

Notably, the report did not provide statistics on the extent to which DOD used private-sector

contractors to perform acquisition-related functions. Lack of this information could handicap the

task of estimating the total cost of acquisition-related activities carried out for DOD, and could

hinder policymakers in getting a complete understanding of the workforce composition. In its

1996 report on the defense acquisition workforce, GAO pointed out that savings resulting from

staff reductions in acquisition organizations, particularly reductions of engineering, architectural

or computer personnel, may have been offset by increases in spending on private-sector

contractors.12 GAO reached the same conclusions in a 1998 report on defense acquisition

organizations—that since 1995, DOD support service contracts increased for occupational fields

with the largest personnel reductions, and that any potential savings may be offset by contracting

for services previously performed by government personnel.13

Defense Acquisition Organizations: Changes in Cost and Size of Civilian Workforce, op. cit., p. 2, 22.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Defense Acquisition Organizations: Status of Workforce Reductions. Report to the

Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives. GAO/NSIAD-98-161. June 1998. p. 2-6.

ȱȱȱ

Şȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

Since the military services also rely on contractors to varying degrees,14 the lack of data on

contractor support could complicate the task of making cross-service comparisons. It raises the

possibility that a simple across-the-board reduction in the DOD acquisition workforce could

impact the military services disproportionately.

Due to the congressional mandate to develop a workable definition for the defense acquisition

workforce, DOD must decide whether to use the recommendations of the Jefferson Solutions

Report. A further observation is that DOD must consider whether the methodology used in the

report can be tracked and duplicated by the Defense Management Data Center (DMDC). If it can,

it will be easier for DOD to audit the data, and keep abreast of the rate of growth and/or attrition

of both acquisition personnel and positions within DOD and the military services. Regularly

recurring audits, by DMDC, would permit DOD to report on the cumulative effects of reducing

the acquisition workforce by tracking the movement of displaced workers throughout DOD.

ȱȱȱ

In the wake of the Jefferson Solutions Report and legislation in the FY 1998 and FY 1999 defense

authorization bills, Congress will confront a number of important issues regarding the defense

acquisition workforce, including the following:

¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ

Should Congress adopt the definition of the defense acquisition workforce presented in the

Jefferson Solutions Report? If so, it will result in a significant reduction in the DOD’s official

count of defense acquisition personnel. If it is not adopted, the debate on just how many

acquisition personnel exist will be prolonged, and probably put DOD further behind in its efforts

to streamline the workforce.

How much will the new definition help DOD and Congress to identify redundancies, streamline

the workforce, and achieve savings? They must determine, to their satisfaction, that the findings

of the Jefferson Solutions Report are accurate and thorough. They will presumably seek

agreement on the overall number of acquisition workforce personnel as well as the diversity of

skills represented. Whether the process based on this particular definition of the workforce will

ultimately achieve savings depends on a variety of factors, including the fate of personnel and

positions classified as “non-acquisition-related.” Will savings be achieved through attrition,

reductions-in-force, removals, early buyouts, or retirements? Or will personnel shortages result in

an unexpected rise in overtime costs? Will newer, less experienced workers result in greater

inefficiencies, with ultimately increased personnel costs? Will individuals be usefully absorbed

into non-acquisition-related functions within DOD? Will potential savings be offset by associated

administrative costs, as well as costs of increased service contracts for work previously performed

by government personnel? 15

The Air Force, for example, has comparatively fewer acquisition workforce personnel because it chooses to use rely

extensively on private-sector contractors, while the Department of the Navy traditionally has relied more heavily on its

own in-house acquisition organizations.

For further discussion on the potential impact of DOD acquisition workforce reductions, see GAO Report to the

Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, Defense Acquisition Organizations: Status of

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

şȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

Once a new definition is accepted, DMDC—the defense agency responsible for the collection and

maintenance of automated databases on manpower, personnel, training and financial movement—

can collaborate with DOD to provide further analyses and recommendations to Congress. With

DMDC’s assistance, the findings of the Jefferson Solutions Report could be validated, thus

enabling DOD to make reasonable adjustments to the personnel figures, if such adjustments prove

necessary. Coordinating this function with DMDC would make it easier for DOD to perform

periodic audits, keeping abreast of the rate of growth and/or attrition of both acquisition personnel

and positions within DOD and the military services.

¢ȱȱȂȱȱ

Section 912(b) of the FY1998 Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Defense to

submit to Congress a report on acquisition workforce reductions made since FY1989, by fiscal

year, as well as specify definitions used to describe the defense acquisition workforce. Congress

required the Secretary to come up with a definition of the workforce that could be applied

uniformly throughout DOD.

Section 912(c) directed the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on the reorganization of the

defense acquisition workforce. The purpose was to provide a “road map” for future defense

acquisition policy, including future opportunities to restructure and streamline DOD’s acquisition

organizations, workforce, and infrastructure. DOD was directed to identify areas where overlap,

duplication, and redundancy existed among the various acquisition organizations, and to present

alternative consolidation options, methods for performing industry oversight and quality

assurance and ways to shorten the procurement cycle for goods and services. Section 912(c) also

required DOD to explore new opportunities for building cross-service and cross-functional

arrangements within the military services and defense agencies, consider current and future needs

for acquisition personnel, including hiring systems that provided an alternative to the current civil

service, and make recommendations for legislative remedies that would be necessary to

implement policy and procedural changes.

The Secretary was also required to provide an assessment of the recommendations in the

Jefferson Solutions Report, as well as a discussion of potential legislative changes viewed

necessary to implement policy changes.

In April 1998, the Secretary of Defense submitted to Congress the report required by Section

912(c). The report, titled Actions to Accelerate the Movement to the New Workforce Vision,

proposed the establishment of five categories of new initiatives, described in the report as part of

the Secretary of Defense’s “vision”16 for the future acquisition workforce. They are: (1)

restructure research, development, and testing, (2) restructure sustainment, (3) increase

acquisition workforce education and training, (4) integrate paperless operations, and (5) other

future focus areas.

Rather than provide a comprehensive review of acquisition organizations and functions, as

mandated in Sections 912(c) and (d), the Secretary proposed the formation of future task forces

(...continued)

Workforce Reductions, GAO/NSIAD-98-161. June 1998, 20 pages.

Actions to Accelerate the Movement to the New Workforce Vision. Secretary of Defense Report to Congress. April

1, 1998, p. 2.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŖȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

and focus groups to study these issues. The report did not propose legislative remedies, nor

clarify the various definitions of the defense acquisition workforce; nor did it propose a new

definition but cite the Jefferson Solutions estimate, based on the revised Packard Commission, as

one measure of defining the defense acquisition workforce. DOD stated that it did not endorse the

report, nor its recommendations. One of the factors for DOD to consider is whether the

methodology used in the study can be tracked and duplicated by DMDC; this would make it

easier for DOD to perform periodic audits, keeping abreast of the rate of growth and/or attrition

of both acquisition personnel and positions within DOD and the military services. Auditing by

DMDC would permit DOD to report on the cumulative effects of reducing the acquisition

workforce and track the movement of displaced workers throughout DOD.

On November 20, 1998, Deputy Secretary of Defense (for Acquisition and Technology) Jacques

S. Gansler issued a memorandum to defense agencies on his review of the recommendations of

the Acquisition Workforce Identification Working Group. This group was formed in response to

requirements in Section 912(b). 17 The “new” workforce definition includes Science and

Technology organization personnel. The Jefferson Solution study gave DOD a broader view of

the breadth and depth of acquisition-related activities in the total life cycle of weapon acquisition

programs; henceforth, the acquisition workforce will be referred to as the “acquisition and

technology workforce.” Secretary Perry determined that DOD would use a definition of the

acquisition workforce based on a modification of the Packard workforce definition. He required

each agency to conduct a workforce analysis based on the modified Packard definition, revise the

personnel count, and report their findings by December 30, 1998.

ȱ ȱ

The Jefferson Solutions Report recommended that DOD seek to broaden the definition of what

personnel are covered under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), and

include all members of the newly-defined defense acquisition workforce. If DOD agrees with the

report’s recommendations, the decision could have potential funding implications since DAWIA

is the vehicle for nearly all of DOD’s acquisition-related education, training and career

development programs. In FY1998, DOD requested a budget of $100 million for DAWIA;

Congress appropriated $95 million. To broaden the membership of DAWIA, from 105,544

personnel to 189,183 personnel, suggests that Congress will have to appropriate more funds for

acquisition-related education, training, and career development programs.

There are advantages and disadvantages to increasing DAWIA membership; it will cost more

money, initially. In the long run, however, the investment should eventuate in a better trained

DOD acquisition workforce. Under DAWIA, DOD has developed an organized and systematic

approach to career development and training opportunities, with appropriate benchmarks at each

level of complexity within each program category. By identifying DAWIA’s certification

requirements as the benchmark for all acquisition personnel training and development activities,

it appears that all acquisition support personnel (many of whom have been historically excluded

from training and development due to DAWIA certification and requirements) will have greater

For the full text of the recommendations of the Acquisition Workforce Identification Working Group and DOD’s

response to the requirements of Section 912(b), see the Defense Acquisition Reform Home Page Web Site, located at

http://camaro.acq.osd.mil/ar/ar.htm, and review the “Memorandum on the Modified Packard Acquisition and

Technology Workforce Identification.” Issued by the Deputy Secretary of Defense (for Acquisition and Technology)

Jacques S. Gansler. November 20, 1998. 26 pages.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŗȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

access to opportunities for promotion, advance, and growth; the theory holds that this should

conduce toward a superior in-house, defense acquisition workforce.

Congress will determine, perhaps through the oversight process, if DOD has met both the “letter

of the law” and the “spirit of the law” as described in Section 912(c) of the FY1998 Defense

Authorization Act, or Section 931 of the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Act. Notably, DOD

leaders, who have called for a “revolution in business affairs,” have been legislatively required to

explore innovative and significant changes to make its acquisition process more efficient. This

includes exploring potential overlap and duplication of processes within DOD’s acquisition

organizations, in the various defense agencies and military services (listed in Appendix D).

Ultimately, it is Congress that will decide if such changes have been undertaken and, if so,

whether the size and composition of the acquisition workforce have been adjusted appropriately.

ȱ¢ȱ

U.S. Congress. General Accounting Office. Defense Acquisition Organizations: Status of

Workforce Reductions. Report to the Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of

Representatives. GAO/NSIAD-98-161. June 1998, 20 pages.

Department of Defense. Actions To Accelerate The Movement To The New Workforce Vision. A

Report to Congress. April 1, 1998. 19 p.

—Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces. Washington, 1995. May

1995.

—Right-Sizing the DoD Acquisition Workforce (Section 906 Report). A Report to Congress.

January 28, 1997. 36 p.

General Accounting Office. Defense Acquisition Organizations: Reductions in Civilian and

Military Workforce. GAO/NSIAD-98-36R DOD Workforce Reductions. Washington, 1997.

October 1997. 8 p.

Jefferson Solutions. Commissioned by the Department of Defense. Review of the Department of

Defense Acquisition Workforce, DASWO1-97-1847. Washington, 1997. September 1997. 55 p.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŘȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

¡ȱǯ ȱ ǰȱȱȱȬȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱ

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998, (PUBLIC LAW 105-85),

TITLE IX, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND

MANAGEMENT, SUBTITLE B- DEFENSE PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT, ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS IN DEFENSE

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE, SECTION 912

SEC. 912. DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.

(a) REDUCTION OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

(1) The Secretary of Defense shall accomplish reductions in defense acquisition

personnel positions during fiscal year 1998 so that the total number of such

personnel as of October 1, 1998, is less than the total number of such

personnel as of October 1, 1997, by at least the applicable number

determined under paragraph (2).

(2)(A) The applicable number for purposes of paragraph (1) is

25,000. However, the Secretary of Defense may specify a lower

number, which may not be less than 10,000, as the applicable number

for purposes of paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines, and

certifies to Congress not later than June 1, 1998, that an

applicable number greater than the number specified by the

Secretary would be inconsistent with the cost-effective management

of the defense acquisition system to obtain best value equipment

and would adversely affect military readiness.

(B) The Secretary shall include with such a certification a

detailed explanation of each of the matters certified.

only be delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `defense

acquisition personnel’ means military and civilian personnel (other

than civilian personnel who are employed at a maintenance depot)

who are assigned to, or employed in, acquisition organizations of

the Department of Defense (as specified in Department of Defense

Instruction numbered 5000.58 dated January 14, 1992).

(b) REPORT ON SPECIFIC ACQUISITION POSITIONS PREVIOUSLY

ELIMINATED- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment

of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a

report on reductions in the defense acquisition workforce made

since fiscal year 1989. The report shall show aggregate reductions

by fiscal year and shall show for each fiscal year reductions

identified by specific job title, classification, or position. The

report shall also identify those reductions carried out pursuant to

law (and how the Secretary implemented any statutory requirement

for such reductions, including definition of the workforce subject

ȱȱȱ

ŗřȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

to the reduction) and those reductions carried out as a result of

base closures and realignments under the so-called BRAC process.

The Secretary shall include in the report a definition of the term

‘defense acquisition workforce’ that is to be applied uniformly

throughout the Department of Defense.

ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS

(1) Not later than April 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense

shall submit to Congress a report containing a plan to

streamline the acquisition organizations, workforce, and

infrastructure of the Department of Defense. The Secretary shall

include with the report a detailed discussion of the

recommendations of the Secretary based on the review under

subsection (d) and the assessment of the Task Force on Defense

Reform pursuant to subsection (e), together with a request for the

enactment of any legislative changes necessary for implementation

of the plan. The Secretary shall include in the report the results

of the review under subsection (d) and the independent assessment

of the Task Force on Defense Reform pursuant to subsection (e).

(2) In carrying out this subsection and subsection (d), the

Secretary of Defense shall formally consult with the Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of Program Analysis and

Evaluation, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the

Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology.

(d) REVIEW OF ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS AND FUNCTIONSThe Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of the organizations

and functions of the Department of Defense acquisition activities

and of the personnel required to carry out those functions. The

review shall identify the following:

(1) Opportunities for cross-service, cross-functional

arrangements within the military services and defense agencies.

(2) Specific areas of overlap, duplication, and redundancy

among the various acquisition organizations.

(3) Opportunities to further streamline acquisition processes.

(4) Benefits of an enhanced Joint Requirements Oversight

Council in the acquisition process.

(5) Alternative consolidation options for acquisition

organizations.

(6) Alternative methods for performing industry oversight and

quality assurance.

(7) Alternative options to shorten the procurement cycle.

(8) Alternative acquisition infrastructure reduction options

within current authorities.

(9) Alternative organizational arrangements that capitalize

on core acquisition competencies among the military services

and defense agencies.

(10) Future acquisition personnel requirements of the

Department.

(11) Adequacy of the Program, Plans, and Budgeting System in

ȱȱȱ

ŗŚȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

fulfilling current and future acquisition needs of the

Department.

(12) Effect of technology and advanced management tools in

the future acquisition system.

(13) Applicability of more flexible alternative approaches to

the current civil service system for the acquisition workforce.

(14) Adequacy of Department of Defense Instruction numbered

5000.58 dated January 14, 1992.

ȱȱȱ

ŗśȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

¡ȱǯ ȱ ǰȱȱȱȬȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱ

STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999,

(PUBLIC LAW 105-261),TITLE IX, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT,

SUBTITLE A- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OFFICERS AND ORGANIZATIONS, SECTION 931

SEC. 931. FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT

WORKFORCE.

(a) REDUCTION OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT WORKFORCE- The

Secretary of Defense shall accomplish reductions in defense acquisition and support

personnel positions during fiscal year 1999 so that the total number of such personnel as

of October 1, 1999, is less than the total number of such personnel as of October 1, 1998,

by at least the applicable number determined under subsection

(b) REQUIRED REDUCTION

(1) The applicable number for purposes of subsection (a) is 25,000. However, the

Secretary of Defense may specify a lower number, which may not be less than 12,500, as

the applicable number for purposes of subsection (a) if the Secretary determines, and

certifies to Congress not later than May 1, 1999, that an applicable number greater than

the number specified by the Secretary would be inconsistent with the cost-effective

management of the defense acquisition system to obtain best value equipment and with

ensuring military readiness.

(2) The Secretary shall include with such a certification a report setting forth a detailed

explanation of each of the matters certified. The report shall include

(A) a detailed explanation of all matters incorporated in the Secretary’s determination;

(B) a definition of the components of the defense acquisition and support positions; and

of those positions.

(3) The authority of the Secretary under paragraph (1) may only be delegated to the

Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Secretary shall implement this section so that the core defense acquisition workforce

identified by the Secretary in the report submitted pursuant to section 912(b) of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat.

1860) is reduced proportionally no more than the other occupational elements included

as defense acquisition and support positions in that report.

(d) DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL DEFINED- For purposes

of this section, the term `defense acquisition and support personnel’ means military and

civilian personnel (other than civilian personnel who are employed at a maintenance

depot) who are assigned to, or employed in, acquisition organizations of the Department

of Defense (as specified in Department of Defense Instruction numbered 5000.58 dated

ȱȱȱ

ŗŜȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

January 14, 1992), and any other organizations which the Secretary may determine to

have a predominantly acquisition mission.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŝȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

¡ȱǯ ȱȱȱ

ACQUISITION POSITION CATEGORIES,

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSTRUCTION 5000.58,

REVISED, JANUARY 14, 1992

F. PROCEDURES

1. Acquisition functions, position categories, career fields and position category

descriptions are as follows:

a. Acquisition Functions, Career Fields, and Position Categories. There

are seven acquisition functions, 12 career fields, and 14 position categories in the

DoD Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development Program, as

depicted in the chart below. Each function consists of a career field(s) and a

position category(ies). Two position categories, Program Management Oversight

and Education, Training, and Career Development are not career fields and

therefore do not have separate education, training and experience standards

specified in DoD 5000.52-M (reference (g)). Personnel in these positions will

come from the other career fields and must meet those career development

requirements. One position category, Education, Training, and Career

Development, does not belong in any of the seven functions. Personnel in this

position category may belong in either an acquisition or a non-acquisition

function.

Acquisition Functions

Acquisition Management

Procurement & Contracting

Systems Planning, Research, Development,

Engineering, and Testing

Production

Acquisition Logistics

Business, Cost Estimating, and Financial Management

Auditing

ȱȱȱ

Position Categories

Program Management, Program Management Oversight,

Communications-Computer Systems

Contracting, Purchasing, Industrial Property Management

Systems Planning, Research, Development and Engineering,

Test and Evaluation Engineering

Manufacturing & Production, Quality Assurance

Acquisition Logistics

Business, Cost Estimating, and Financial Management

Auditing

Education, Training, and Career Development

ŗŞȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

¡ȱǯ ȱȱ£ȱ

DOD ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONS,

DOD INSTRUCTION 5000.58, REVISED JANUARY 14, 1992

DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

Army

Army Acquisition Executive

Army Information Systems Command

Army Materiel Command

Army Strategic Defense Command

Navy

Assistant Secretary of Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition

Office of the Chief of Naval Research

Naval Air Systems Command

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Navy Program Executive Officer/ Direct Reporting Program Manager Organization

Naval Sea Systems Command

Navy Strategic Systems Program Office

Naval Supply Systems Command

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

Marine Corps

U.S. Marine Corps Research, Development and Acquisition Command

Air Force

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Air Force for Acquisition

Air Force Materiel Command

Air Force Program Executive Organization

Department of Defense-Wide

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition & Technology)

Ballistic Missile Defense Office

Defense Logistics Agency

U.S. Special Operations Command, Acquisition Center (SOAC)

ȱȱȱ

ŗşȱ

ȱȱǱȱ ȱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

(name redacted)

Specialist in Defense Acquisition

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

ȱȱȱ

ŘŖȱ

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.