06 Aug08 Ballard Final

Army Contracting CommunityTHINK TANK &WORKFORCE TRENDS: 

“Our Army at War – Relevant and Ready…Today and Tomorrow” Army Contracting Community THINK TANK & WORKFORCE TRENDS July 14, 2006 Ms. Tina Ballard Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy & Procurement)

Slide2: 

Members: Ms. Tina Ballard COL K.C. Jones Ms. Carol Lowman Mr. Paul Michaels Mr. Jeff Parsons Mr. Parag Rawal Ms. Sandy Sieber Mr. Lee Thompson Mr. Jim Warrington Army Contracting Think Tank Strategic Thinking Three year commitment Meet semi-annually or as needed

Slide3: 

Think Tank Products VISION STATEMENT STRATEGY PRIORITIES PARC CONFERENCE ACTIONS

Slide4: 

THINK TANK PRODUCT Develop the Army Contracting vision VISION One Army Contracting Community Serving Our Soldiers Serving Our Nation

Slide5: 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY HQ Army Materiel Command (AMC) U.S. Army Communications- Electronics Command HCA Estab 19 Jun 2003 ACA Northern Region ACA Southern Region Army Contracting Organizations FY 05 Totals: $94B, 371K actions, 6137 people (110 military & 6027 civilian) Jun 2006//SAAL-PP EHC

Slide6: 

THINK TANK PRODUCT Develop the Army Contracting strategy Strategy Focus on workforce and business practices so we can execute mission in an increasingly constrained environment Scope our effort Set priorities

Strategic Focus Priorities: 

Strategic Focus Priorities BUSINESS PRACTICES Spend Analysis Knowledge Management Source Selection Acquisition Planning Pricing & Negotiations Contract Administration WORKFORCE Training Symposium Creed Mission Statement Workforce Roadmap Workforce Governance Board

Slide8: 

Strategy Implementation Process EXECUTE THINK TANK PARCs - PLAN STRATEGY EXECUTION CONSENSUS DOCUMENT WAY AHEAD/DECISION BRIEF MEASURE/CHECK “One bite…” “one step at a time” THINK TANK REVIEW & DECISION ENGRAINED BUSINESS PRACTICE END

Slide9: 

THINK TANK STRATEGY Scope Effort Set Priorities PARC Conference Actions Completed In-work

Slide10: 

History Future Source: Contract Data- Federal Procurement Data Base Personnel Data- Defense Manpower Data Center Deflators- FY 2005 Army Green Book 1100 series Workforce declined by 23% Actions Grew by 80% $$ Grew by 116% In 1995, 1 Action = ~$1B; in 2004, 1 Action =~$1.5B Army Contracting Trends -2004 Dollars -Obligated Value -2004 Dollars -Obligated Value *Personnel in thousands FY 2005 Workforce Net increase of 136 1102s and $ increased to $94 B Assuming the next five years behave as the previous 5 years for contracting and previous 3 years for personnel we can expect: 1100 series workforce continues to decline and Actions and $$ will grow except in the most conservative estimate.

Slide11: 

Army 1102 Years of Service Profile

Slide12: 

FY 2005 Size - 5,394 49% 17% 13% 21% Source: Defense Manpower Data Center Retirement loss data from Fed Scope By 2009 if no action is taken the workforce is projected to lose 38% FY 2009 Size - 3292 FY 2005 1102 Workforce Projected through FY 2009

Years of Service: 

Years of Service We have leveraged our experience to meet the demands of today… But our bench is too thin to overcome the expected demands of the future without significant change 2019 2004

YEARS OF SERVICEFY 2004 AND FY 2005 : 

YEARS OF SERVICE FY 2004 AND FY 2005 Years of Service 5 and under 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 and over

Slide15: 

1102 Years of Service Across DoD Similar trends across DoD

Slide16: 

Workforce Retirement Plans Portable Benefits

Slide17: 

Army 1102 – Through FY 2020 475 Annual Gains 0% Growth 532 Annual Gains 10% Growth

Slide18: 

[I]t should be obvious that the federal government lacks a sufficient acquisition workforce to obtain the best value for the money it spends on goods and services . . . [R]eforms cannot achieve their potential absent a workforce that is both appropriately qualified and sufficiently numerous to implement the reforms. Government Executive, July 1, 2006 Media Reports “Increased demands on the acquisition workforce have led to vulnerabilities in contract pricing and competition and in the selection of the most appropriate contracting techniques,” according to the report, which was requested as part of this year’s defense budget to assess the Pentagon’s vulnerability to fraud, waste and abuse. The Washington Post, July 10, 2006

What We Need: 

What We Need

Slide20: 

WE NEED