DIFFERENT IS GOOD


Typically, the two divisions are fur- ther subdivided into sections or teams.


Te pros for this model are that it: º Provides personnel the opportunity to become subject-matter experts.


º Fosters repeated interaction between the customer and contracting professional.


Te cons for this model are that it: º May limit opportunities to gain experience in other facets of contracting.


º Features a routine or repeti- tive workload that may lead to job dissatisfaction.


• Cradle-to-grave. In this model, each contracting officer (KO) or section is responsible for all actions from receipt of the purchase request through


award, along with all responsibilities for administration throughout the life of the contract. Tis can effec- tively eliminate a level of


leadership


or management, as each section deals exclusively with its own PRs, contracts and workload.


Te pros for this model are that it: º Creates a sense of ownership rather than an “award-and- forget” mentality.


º May eliminate a level of management through a flat- ter organization.


Te cons for this model are that it: º Creates difficulties of continuity in a high-turnover organization.


º Increases the span of con- trol for the chief or deputy. º Increases the managerial


and reporting duties for each section lead.


º Tends to focus more on the pre- award phase than on contract administration, allowing adminis- trative actions to go unaddressed.


MODELS FOR SUBDIVIDING Te following are typical models for orga- nizing an office or division when using a meta-organizational model and establish- ing further divisions within that.


• Supplies, services and construction. Tis traditional model is based on the general classification of the type of pur- chase; within the office are divisions that handle a category of purchase, such as supplies, services or construction.


Te pros for this model are that it: º Leverages and sustains com- petencies at the lowest level.


º Creates efficiencies or reduc- tions in procurement acquisition lead time (PALT).


º Creates specialists within the organization.


Te cons for this model are that it: º May limit growth and experience- building in the workforce.


º May require a plan to rotate work- ers, to offset limitations on growth.


º May limit the development of a “jack of all trades” KO.


MAXIMIZE SKILL SETS SSG Inez Necker and SSG Richard Burns, contracting NCOs assigned to the 680th Contingency Contracting Team (CCT), 413th Contracting Support Brigade, review contract documents Oct. 18, 2013, at the 18th Contracting Squadron headquarters on Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. The organization of each contracting office should aim to maximize the skill sets and efficiencies of its people. (U.S. Army photo by SFC Howard Reed, 10th Regional Support Group)


• Customer-based. Tis is another tra- ditional model, in which teams or divisions support a unique customer or unit(s). In this model, the teams often may attend acquisition review boards and meetings with their cus- tomers for planning de-confliction and updates, creating more chances for acquisition education and man- agement of customer expectations as well as increasing KO awareness and


126 Army AL&T Magazine April–June 2014


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200