Experts Propose New Acquisition Structure A former federal procurement leader is urging the Obama administration to give the Office of Management and Budget new authority over acquisition. Allan Burman, who headed OMB’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration, says that office should be renamed the Office of Federal Acquisition Policy, with authority over program managers as well as contracting personnel. That was one of a series of recommendations springing from an Acquisition Reform Working Group made up of government, academic and business experts. The group was convened by the IBM Center for Excellence in Government and George Mason University’s public administration program, where Burman is an adjunct professor. Strengthening the role of OFPP, Burman wrote, “would probably do more than anything to bring about the kind of collaboration between program and contract­ing staff that the Working Group saw as critical to effecting real acquisition reform across the govern­ment.” The change would require congressional approval. “There is no one either in the individual civilian agencies or looking across all the agencies that has the overall responsibility and authority to hold program management staff and contracting staff accountable for working together to get the best business results possible,” he said. In the Working Group’s view, the position of chief acquisition officer has not been effective in providing leadership, because many CAOs also hold other titles and have other responsibilities. Burman urged that CAOs be given authority over program management as well as contracting, to improve the development of requirements. Burman’s recommendations for the new administration include hiring more acquisition personnel and training them more effectively; emphasizing proper development of requirements before RFPs are issued; and better contract management. Many of the same recommendations were advanced by the congressionally chartered Acquisition Advisory Panel in 2007. Burman was a member of the panel. “Many observers feel the federal government’s contracting system is broken, mired in cost overruns, accountability lapses and questionable outcomes,” he wrote. “In addition, those operating within the system see the environment as ‘toxic,’ characterized by fear and mistrust, and with oversight bodies such as agency inspectors general second-guessing their every action.”