This research assesses the contract management process capability of the United States Special Operations Command's (USSOCOM) Special Operations Acquisition and Logistics Directorate of Procurement (SOAL-K). The assessment uses two cross-sectional surveys covering contract management processes and mentorship/informationsharing. The purpose of this research is to analyze SOAL-K's contract management processes, provide a current assessment of the contract management process maturity level for each procurement division within SOAL-K, and recommend areas for improvement through application of the Contract Management Maturity Model (CMMM) to SOAL-K's senior leadership. A mentoring/information-sharing survey is administered to examine the current mentoring/information-sharing practices of SOAL-K.

In July 1997, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) awarded three systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support contracts. Each contract has a $150 million ceiling over the 5-year contract life. The contractors were selected under a formal acquisition process. Some new strategies available under acquisition reform/streamlining were used in the solicitation and evaluation. The author's recent experience as the program manager for USSOCOM's SETA acquisition has shown her that, despite the drive for open government communication and despite the years of contractors competing under substantially the same rules (with some adjustments at the margin because of acquisition reform and streamlining), too many contractors continue to hold misapprehensions about the government competitive acquisition process, penalize themselves through lack of understanding of the process, and make tactical as well as factual mistakes in the proposal preparation and discussion processes.

This report focuses on the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) Global Battlestaff and Program Support (GBPS) contract. It determined whether USSOCOM properly administered task orders awarded under the GBPS contract, valued at approx. $231 million, as of Nov. 16, 2011. USSOCOM contracting officers did not properly administer GBPS task orders in accordance with Federal guidance. This occurred because contracting officers did not ensure task order terms complied with Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements to include clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes or review task orders for inherently governmental functions and elements of a personal services contract. USSOCOM personnel preferred unclear task order requirements to maintain flexibility and to support emerging tasks. In addition, contracting officers did not adequately support determinations of fair and reasonable pricing for 20 modifications, totaling approx. $38.8 million, as required by Federal guidance. Tables. This is a print on demand report.