CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Rene G. Rendon

Rene G. Rendon, D.B.A., is Associate Professor of Acquisition

Management in the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at
the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. His teaching
and research interests are in supply management, contract management,
and project management.

ABSTRACT
Critical success factors have a direct impact on an organization’s project
management and contract management processes as well as resulting
outcomes. This paper presents the results of survey-based research on
contract management critical success factors, derived from the responses
of approximately 400 contracting officers who represent 7 Department of
Defense (DoD) agencies. The principal contributions of this paper are to
show the similarities in both project management and contract
management critical success factors and the implications for the DoD.
The overall conclusion is that focusing on these critical success factors
can improve the DoD’s management of both projects as well as contracts.
The recommendation is that the DoD should focus on the common
knowledge areas and processes impacting project management and
contract management by addressing the identified critical success factors
in the areas of individual competencies and organizational structures and
processes.

INTRODUCTION

The United States federal government continues to increase its level of

public spending for supplies and services. Within the federal government,
the Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest contracting agency,
procuring approximately $370 billion in FY2009 (FPDS, 2010). This
was an increase from $133 billion in FY2000. The DoD acquisition
workforce professionals are responsible for managing over 3 million
contract actions for the procurement of critical supplies and services,
ranging from commercial-type supplies, professional and administrative
services, highly complex information technology systems, and major
defense weapon systems (FPDS, 2010).

1
The extent and amount of defense procurement spending necessitates
that these contract management processes be well managed (Thai, 2004).
However, this is not necessarily the case. Between 2001 and 2009, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued 16 reports related
to trends, challenges, and deficiencies in federal government contracting.
Also, between 2002 and 2008, the DoD Inspector General (DoD IG)
issued 142 reports on deficiencies in the DoD acquisition and contract
administration processes. These reports have identified project
management and contract management as some of the critical deficient
areas in DoD contracts. The essence of DoD contract management is the
proper planning, award, and administration of contracts and the oversight
of contractor performance (Rendon & Snider, 2008). The lack of
effective contract administration and contractor oversight increases the
government’s risk of jeopardizing the total value for the dollars spent on
supplies and services. GAO and DoD IG reports have consistently
identified contract administration and contractor oversight as problem
areas in the management of service contracts (GAO, 2005; GAO, 2007;
OIG, 2009). The DoD is at risk of paying higher prices than necessary
for supplies and services. Because of this, the GAO has identified DoD
contract management as a “high-risk” area since 1992 (GAO, 2009,
January). This “high-risk” status reflects the DoD’s challenges in
achieving desired outcomes in terms of meeting procurement cost,
schedule, and performance objectives.

In response to this high-risk rating, the DoD is placing an extensive

emphasis in the areas of education, training, and the development of
workforce competence models (Newell, 2007; GAO, 2009, March). In
addition to a focus on increasing individual contract management
competency, organizations are now focusing on increasing organizational
contract management competence through the use of organizational
process maturity models (Rendon, 2009b). Just as individual competence
will lead to greater success in performing tasks, organizational process
capability will ensure consistent and superior results for the enterprise
(Frame, 1999; Kerzner, 2001; Garrett & Rendon, 2005).

A stream of research has been generated on organizational contract

management process capability. The research is focused on assessing an
organization’s contract management process capability and using the
assessment results for determining and implementing process capability
improvement initiatives. A Contract Management Maturity Model
(CMMM) was first developed and then applied to an Air Force space
systems contracting agency (Rendon, 2003). The CMMM was then

2
applied at various Air Force, Army, and Navy contracting agencies for
the purpose of assessing contract management process capability and
identifying process improvements, as well as obtaining empirical data for
use in characterizing the state of contract management process capability
throughout the DoD (Rendon, 2008; Rendon, 2009b).

The CMMM organizational assessments have also resulted in obtaining

empirical data on contract management critical success factors. Critical
success factors have a direct influence on an agency’s project
management and contract management processes and resultant projects
and contracts.

Contract management and project management are integrally related.

The management of projects typically includes planning, awarding, and
administering contracts for the performance of the project-related effort.
Effective contract administration is integral to successful project
management. Contract administration has often been described as
“putting the teeth in project monitoring and control” (Rendon, 2009a, p.
70). Indeed, the close relationship between project management and
contract management is reflected in the Project Management Institute’s
Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)
(PMI, 2008) as well as the National Contract Management Association’s
Annotated Guide to the Contract Management Body of Knowledge
(CMBOK) (NCMA, 2006). The PMBOK Guide includes a discussion of
the procurement knowledge area, and the CMBOK includes a discussion
of project management aspects of managing contracts. The recent
reports from the GAO and the DoD IG identify both project management
and contract management as deficiencies in the DoD’s contracts. Thus,
both project management and contract management are critical processes
for the DoD. If successful project management and contract
management processes are critical for the success of the DoD’s
acquisition mission, how do critical success factors for project
management compare with critical success factors for contract
management? This is the focus of this research.

This paper presents the results of survey-based research on contract

management critical success factors, derived from the responses of
approximately 400 contracting officers who represent 7 DoD agencies.
An analysis of the survey responses is conducted to identify similarities
between the survey responses and the critical success factors identified in
the project management and contract management literature. The
purpose of this paper is to compare the project management and contract

3
management critical success factors as identified in the literature with the
contract management critical success factors indentified in our survey-
based research. The principal contributions of this paper are to show the
similarities in both project management and contract management critical
success factors and to discuss the implications for the DoD in terms of
individual and organizational competence. The overall conclusion is that
focusing on these critical success factors can improve the DoD’s
management of both its projects and its contracts.

This paper is organized in four sections. The remainder of this first

section provides a brief background on the theoretical framework and a
literature review on identifying critical success factors in project
management and contract management. In the second section, I discuss
the research methods, followed by the third section on research findings
and results. Finally, in the fourth section I present a discussion of the
identified critical success factors and compare them with the literature.

Theoretical Framework

Academic research in contract management is founded on several

economic and management theories, the most often referred to is agency
theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). A contract between the government and a
contractor reflects a principal-agent relationship. The principal
(government) contracts with the agent (contractor) to perform some level
of effort, such as developing or manufacturing a product or providing a
service. In this relationship, the government’s objectives include
obtaining the product or service at the right quality, right quantity, right
source, right time, and at the right price (Lee & Dobler, 1971). The
federal government also has the additional objective of ensuring the
product or service is procured in accordance with public policy and
statutory requirements (FAR, 2010).

Contractors, on the other hand pursue the objectives of earning a profit,

ensuring company growth, maintaining or increasing market share, and
improving cash flow, just to name a few. Because of the different and
conflicting objectives between the principal and agent, each party is
motivated and incentivized to behave in a certain manner. This behavior
includes either withholding or sharing information. In principal-agent
relationships that involve higher levels of uncertainty, which result in
higher risk (such as developing an advanced technology weapon system),
the information available to the government and contractor is typically
asymmetrical.

4
Agency theory is concerned with the conflicting goals between the
principal and agent in obtaining their respective objectives and is focused
on mechanisms related to obtaining information (for example, about the
marketplace, the supply or service, or the contractor), selecting the agent
(to counter the problem of adverse selection), and monitoring the agent’s
performance (to counter the effects of moral hazard). Thus, how
contracts are planned (for example, competitive or sole source),
structured (fixed price or cost reimbursement, with or without incentives),
awarded (based on lowest priced, technically acceptable offer, or the
highest technically rated offer), and administered (centralized or
decentralized, level and type of surveillance, and use of project teams…),
has its basis in agency theory and the principal-agent problem. Agency
theory can also be applied to project management, specifically in the
management of government projects (Moe, 1984). In government
projects, the same principal-agent model exists. The principal, in this
case the project manager, is faced with the problem of ensuring the
agents, in this context the members of the project team, will choose to
pursue the principal’s best interests.

Critical success factors have a direct relationship on an organization’s

processes and resulting outcomes, such as projects and contracts. Thus,
their importance is crucial to an organization’s process improvement
efforts. The next section of this paper will present a literature review on
critical success factors for project management and contract management.
Literature Review

This literature review will first focus on the basics of critical success
factors and then transition to success factors in project management and
contract management.

There has been much written on the identification and value of critical
success factors in business organizations. Daniel (1961) discusses
critical versus non critical elements of a business leading to success.
Rockart (1979) identifies the use of critical success factors in helping
executives define their information needs. He identifies critical success
factors as the “limited number of areas in which results, if they are
satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the
organization” (1979, p. 85). Rockart also discusses an interview method
for determining a manager’s critical success factors. Bullen and Rockart
(1981) differentiate critical success factors from other organizational
management terms such as “strategy,” “objective,” “goals,” “measures,”

5
and “problems.” They also identify five prime sources of critical success
factors (industry, competitive strategy/industry position, environmental
factors, temporal factors, and managerial position) and a classification
scheme for critical success factors (internal versus external and
monitoring versus building/adapting), as well as a hierarchy of critical
success factors (industry, corporate, sub-organization, and individual)
(Bullen & Rockart, 1981).

The project management literature also provides some insight on critical

factors for project success. However, for a discussion on different
perceptions of what is considered project success, see Pinto and Slevin
(1989). Rubin and Seeling (1967) introduce success and failure factors
for projects and conclude that a project manager’s performance is
determined more by the size of projects previously managed as opposed
to the project manager’s experience. Avots (1969) identifies project
manager selection, project termination, and top management support as
factors related to project failure. Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1983)
propose using perceived performance as the measure for project success,
instead of the usual triple constraints of cost, schedule, and performance.
Others such as Hughes (1986) and Morris and Hough (1987) identify
various factors related to project failure or success. Schultz, Slevin, and
Pinto (1987) identify categories of project success factors (strategic and
tactical) and the impact these factor categories have on the project during
the various project management phases. Baccarini (1987) develops a
logical framework method for defining project success that consists of
four levels of project objectives (goal, purpose, output, and input) and
differentiates between product success and project management success.
Belassi and Tukel (1996) propose a new framework for determining
project critical success factors, grouping them into four categories—
project-related, project team/manager related, organization-related, and
external environment related.

Specifically related to organizational success factors, Frame (1999)

identifies seven key elements that lead to organizational competence in
project management: 1) clearly defined and well-formulated procedures
for performing work, 2) access to information needed to perform work
effectively, 3) sufficient quantities of human and material resources, 4)
opportunities for training and education, 5) clearly defined visions of
where the organization is headed, 6) a culture of openness, and 7)
institutionalization of project management. Crawford (2002) analyzes
and compares many of the results of the previous studies of project
success factors and identifies the top six factors: 1) planning

6
(integrative); 2) monitoring and control (integrative), team selection, and
technical performance; 3) communication, leadership, strategic direction,
and team development; 4) monitoring and control (risk), organizational
support, and stakeholder management (other); 5) organizational
structure; and 6) project definition and stakeholder management (client).
Finally, in a survey of over 150 project management professionals,
Baccarini and Collins (2003) identify fifteen critical factors for project
success. These factors, listed in Table 5, will be discussed later in the
paper.

The literature on contract management critical success factors is not as

extensive as on project management. There are studies on critical success
factors for specific aspects of procurement. For example, Trent and
Monczka (1994) identify critical success factors for cross-functional
sourcing teams such as organizational resources, involvement of
suppliers, decision-making authority, team leadership, and team effort.
Monczka, Petersen, Handfield, and Ragatz (1998) identify the following
success factors in strategic supplier alliances: trust and coordination,
interdependence, information quality and participation, information
sharing, joint problem solving, avoiding the use of severe conflict
resolution tactics, and a formal alliance selection process. Gottschalk and
Solli-Saether (2005) researched various management theories and
identify core competence management and stakeholder management as
the most theory-based critical success factors for information technology
outsourcing. Finally, Angeles and Nath (2007), in their research on
success factors for implementing business to business e-procurement
practices, identify three success factors: supplier and contract
management, end-user behavior, e-procurement business processes, and
information and e-procurement infrastructure.

Although the literature did not indicate research specifically on critical

success factors for government contract management, a literature search
did identify best practices and lessons learned in federal government
contract management. Cohen and Eimicke (2008) identify twenty
problems in government contracting that fall into five categories: 1)
problems relating to letting contracts, 2) communication issues, 3)
contractor internal management issues, 4) government contract
management issues, and 5) environment or external issues. Additionally,
in empirical studies of DoD contracting agencies, Rendon (2009b)
identifies five organizational contract management process best practice
categories---1) process strength, 2) successful results, 3) management
support, 4) process integration, and 5) process measurement.

7
In the next section, I discuss this paper’s research methods and the
research results. A discussion of the research findings compared to the
literature will then be presented.

METHODS

The overall objective of this research is to develop a comprehensive

understanding of the critical success factors in public contract
management. The specific objective and the research question posed
were driven by the findings of the GAO and DoD IG reports, as well as
by the survey of academic literature discussed earlier. Consequently, this
study is focused on answering the following research question: What are
the critical success factors needed by DoD contracting agencies to
accomplish their mission? The methodology for this research is similar
to accepted techniques (Baccarini & Collins, 2003) and involves the use
of a web-based survey instrument with open-ended questions. The survey
included the following open-ended question: What are the critical
success factors needed to allow your organization to achieve its mission?
The focus of the analysis is to compare the survey responses with the
literature to identify any similarities or differences. (The web-based
survey also contained questions related to organizational contract
management process capability. An analysis of those responses is the
subject of a separate paper.)

The survey used a purposeful sampling method, designed to acquire data

on critical success factors in government contract management.
Purposeful sampling ensures samples are knowledgeable and informative
about the phenomena being researched, thus increasing the utility of the
information obtained from small samples (McMillan & Schumacher,
2001; Creswell, 2003). Therefore, the survey was only administered to
warranted contracting officers and fully qualified contract specialists.
The sampling in this research consisted of agency employees either
designated as warranted contracting officers or individuals that were
considered fully qualified in the government contracting career field, in
accordance with the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act
(DAWIA). Warranted contracting officers are those individuals that have
specific authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and
make related determinations and findings on behalf of the United States
Government (FAR, 2010). Full qualification in the contracting career
field is interpreted to mean achievement of Level 2 certification in
contracting under DAWIA. Level 2 certification requires completion of a

8
baccalaureate degree with at least 24 semester hours of coursework in
accounting, law, business, finance, contracts, purchasing, economics,
industrial management, marketing, quantitative methods, and
organization and management; two years of contracting experience; and
completion of the required contract training courses (DAWIA, 2009).

During 2008 and 2009, the survey website link was emailed to the
contracting officials for the following DoD contracting agencies:

US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)

US Navy Command Fleet Industrial Supply Center (COMFISC)

Army Contracting Command Joint Munitions & Lethality

Contracting Center (ACC JM&L)

Army Contracting Command National Capital Region

Contracting Center (ACC NCR)

Army Contracting Command Aviation and Missile Command

Contracting Center (ACC AMCOM)

US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)

Department of Defense Educational Activity (DoDEA)

The survey was then forwarded to the eligible contracting personnel for
completion. Reminder emails were sent approximately two weeks into
the survey period. (For TRANSCOM, the surveys were administered via
video-teleconferencing, completed hard-copy, and returned by mail.) The
survey instrument included the appropriate confidentiality and protection
of human subject provisions.

Below are profiles of the contracting agencies that participated in the

survey.

US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM). The US Transportation

Command’s (TRANSCOM) mission is to provide air, land, and sea
transportation for the Department of Defense, both in times of peace and
times of war. In support of this mission, USTRANSCOM acquires
distribution and transportation services for global movement in support
of the warfighter. The directorate of acquisition provides acquisition

9
support of USTRANSCOM’s mission. The directorate typically
processes approximately 6,000 contract actions, with an annual spend of
approximately $6 billion (USTRANSCOM, 2009).
Navy Command Fleet Industrial Supply Centers (COMFISCS).
COMFISCS is comprised of the following seven individual FISC
commands: FISC-San Diego, FISC-Norfolk, FISC-Puget Sound, FISC-
Pearl Harbor, FISC-Yokosuka, FISC-Sigonella, and FISC-Jacksonville.
COMFISCS is responsible for supplying the Navy fleet with a wide
variety of supplies and services, including appliances, information
technology equipment, office furniture, and ship copiers. Services
procured include ship repair, husbanding functions, laundry, consulting,
and tugboats. In FY 2008, COMFISCS had completed 89,343
contracting actions that obligated a total of $4.2 billion (Bautista & Ward,
2009).

Army Contracting Command Joint Munitions & Lethality

Contracting Center (ACC JM&L). Part of the Army Contracting
Command, the Joint Munitions & Lethality (JM&L) Contracting Center
is responsible for providing procurement support for lifecycle program
management of armaments and munitions. Some of the systems procured
by JM&L include research and development prototypes to major weapon
systems, such as the Army’s 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range
Artillery Projectile known as Excalibur, XM982. The total JM&L
contract dollars obligated in FY2008 was $3.5 billion (Puma & Sherr,
2009).

Army Contracting Command National Capital Region (ACC NCR).

The Army Contracting Command National Capital Region Contracting
Center consists of the Contracting Center of Excellence (CCE) and the
Information Technology, E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting
Center (ITEC4). CCE provides contracting support to the Army
Secretariat and the Army Staff for the procurement of telecommunication
equipment and services, advertising, training, and studies. The ITEC4
provides worldwide information technology contracting support and
procures enterprise information technology support and equipment for
Army and other DoD activities. During FY2009, CCE awarded 3663
actions totaling approximately $1.2 billion. ITEC4 awarded 6,526
actions totaling approximately $2.5 billion during fiscal year 2009
(Jeffers, 2009).

Army Contracting Command Aviation and Missile Command (ACC

AMCOM). The Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) is

10
responsible for lifecycle management of Army missile, helicopter,
unmanned ground vehicle, and unmanned aerial vehicle weapon systems.
These weapon systems include the Patriot air defense missile system,
Hellfire and Javelin missile system, and Apache, Black Hawk, and
Chinook helicopters. The AMCOM Contracting Center provides
acquisition and contracting support for these weapon systems. In FY2008,
the AMCOM Contracting Center processed approximately 23,600
contract actions and obligated approximately $20.6 billion (AMCOM,
2009).

US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). USSOCOM Special

Operations Acquisition and Logistics Center, Directorate of Procurement
procures systems and services in support of the USSOCOM. These
systems and services include research and development, equipment-
related services, knowledge-based services, medical services,
construction services, transportation services, and facility-related
services. The systems procured include such items as SILENT KNIGHT
Radar, Ground Penetrating Radar, Multi-role Anti-armor Anti-personnel
Weapon System, Anti-structure Munitions, Advanced Lightweight
Grenade Launcher, Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radio, and the Dynamic
Optimal Tag System. In providing support for USSOCOM, the
directorate procures a myriad of systems and services. In Fiscal Year
2007, the directorate spent $737 million on systems and $1.143 billion
on services (Anglin & Good, 2009).

Department of Defense Educational Activity (DoDEA). DoDEA

provides education to eligible DoD military and civilian dependents from
pre-kindergarten through 12th grade; it consists of the Department of
Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) located overseas and the
Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary
Schools (DDESS) located in the United States and its territories and
possessions. DoDEA procures supplies and services such as textbooks
and other educational materials, playground equipment, school bus
transportation, information technology, school band uniforms, sports
equipment, and anything else needed by a typical public school system.
DoDEA’s annual procurements are typically in excess of $10 million
(Neely, 2009).

Although each of these DoD agencies procures different supplies and

services, they all comply with the federal contracting statutes and DoD
contract management regulations and policies. In addition, they all

11
follow, to some extent, the same contract management lifecycle (Rendon
& Snider, 2008).

RESULTS

The survey was deployed to the seven agencies discussed in the previous
section. Table 1 shows, for each organization, the number of eligible
responders from the organization, the number of actual responders, the
response rate, and the number of actual responses. Of the total 821
eligible survey participants, 425 completed the survey, generating a
response rate of approximately 59%. The 425 survey participants
submitted a total of 1,531 responses to the open-ended question on
critical success factors.

Table 1

The responses to the survey question were analyzed to determine

similarities and, based on the analysis, were grouped into eight categories.
Table 2 provides the ranking of the critical success factor categories
along with the percentage of responses.

Table 2

12
 DISCUSSION

The qualitative content analysis provides the following insight on critical

success factors for these DoD contracting agencies:

Workforce (37%)
The Workforce category reflects the largest percentage of survey
responses. Common responses included statements related to having an
adequate number of personnel; proper staffing of vacant positions;
continuous hiring and recruitment of personnel; and a trained,
experienced, and competent workforce.

Also included in this category were responses related to the need for
specific workforce expertise (such as price analyst, quality assurance
personnel, policy specialists, and procurement analyst) and the
establishment of specific organizational entities (such as a contract
administration team, contract closeout team, full-time policy section,
separate small purchase section).

Other common responses related to promotion of deserving personnel,

removal of non-productive personnel, mentoring of interns and junior-
level personnel, and empowerment of employees.

The Workforce category constituted 566 of the 1,531 responses. Of

these 566 responses, this category could be broken down into
subcategories of Training (222 responses), Organizational Realignment
(33 responses), Experience (28 responses), Promotion (15 responses),
and Mentoring (8 responses), as reflected in Table 3. Table 4 provides a
sample of survey responses related to this category.

Table 3

13
Table 4

14
Processes (16%)
The Processes category constituted 251 of the 1,531 responses.
Responses included statements related to having documented,
standardized, consistent, efficient, effective, enforced, and streamlined
contracting processes. The most prominent response specifically related
to having standardized processes (39). Also included in this category
were responses related to flexible processes, sufficient time to perform
specific processes such as procurement planning, risk management, and
the integration of processes throughout the organization, and price and
cost analysis processes. This category also includes responses related to
the use of templates, and processes that were measured and continuously
improved through the establishment of lessons learned and best practices.
Processes specifically identified in the responses included procurement
planning (28), contract administration (16), source selection (15),
solicitation (10), contract closeout (4), and solicitation planning (3). In
addition, risk management (2) and project management (2) were also
identified as critical processes. Table 5 provides a sample of survey
responses related to this category.

15
Table 5

16
Relationships (15%)
The survey results provided 237 of the 1,531 responses related to
the Relationships category. Responses within this category included
statements concerning cooperation among acquisition team members and
end-users, coordination and support from program offices, good working
relationships with contractors, trust, and collaboration.

This category was also broken down into subcategories of

Communication, Teaming, and Customers, as reflected in Table 6.
Responses related to Communication numbered 73 of 237 for this
category. These responses included open communication,
communication at all levels, communication up and down the chain, and
more and better communication from higher headquarters. Teaming was
another major subcategory, contributing to 53 of the 237 responses. This
category included responses related to promoting teamwork, team focus,
use of integrated product/process teams (IPTs), being a team player, and
teaming with customers. Customers was also a significant subcategory,
constituting 38 of the 237 responses. These responses related to having a
customer focus, providing customer training, educating the customer,
and understanding customer needs. Table 7 provides a sample of survey
responses related to this category.

Table 6

17
Table 7

18
 Resources (9%)
The Resources category consisted of 134 of the 1,531 responses. The
responses in this category included a wide variety of various resources
needed in the contracting process such as automated contract writing
systems, contract tracking tools, and other information technology
resources. Also included in this category were facilities, equipment,
supplies, technical support, and logistical support, as well as adequate
travel funds. Table 8 provides a sample of survey responses related to
this category.
Table 8

19
Leadership (9%)
The Leadership category accounted for 132 of the 1,531 responses.
These responses were all related to the need for strong, empowered
leadership and management support, quick decision-making, clear lines
of authority, and people-oriented management. This category also
included responses related to recognition of and support of contracting
officers, and managerial ability and experience. Table 9 provides a
sample of survey responses related to this category.

Table 9

20
Policies (4%)
The Policies category made up 66 of the 1,531 responses. This category
included responses such as updated, clear, concise, uniform guidance,
directions, and regulations. This category also included proper
dissemination of headquarters policies and the enforcement and concise
interpretation of policies. Also included in this category were responses
related to reducing unnecessary reviews and approvals (such as peer
reviews) and having realistic milestones and goals. Table 10 provides a
sample of survey responses related to this category.

Table 10

21
Requirements (3%)
Respondents provided 48 of the 1,531 responses within the Requirements
category. The Requirements category consisted of statements related to
complete, timely procurement request packages; complete, clear, defined
and timely procurement requirements; proper technical reviews; and
well-written statements of work (SOW), performance work statements
(PWS), and justification and approvals (J&A). Also included in this
category were responses related to complete and accurate budgets, stable
funding, and adequate procurement funding. Table 11 provides a sample
of survey responses related to this category.

Table 11

22
Comparison with Literature Review Findings

A comparison of these research results with the literature review findings

provides some interesting insight on project management and contract
management critical success factors. The contract management critical
success factors identified from this survey were similar to those
identified as critical success factors for project management, as found in
the literature review. Table 12 provides a comparison of the contract
management critical success factors identified in this research study with
the project management critical success factors identified in the literature.
This comparison is discussed below.

Table 12

The government contract management critical success factor category of

Workforce (including Training, Organizational Setting, Experience,
Promotions, and Mentoring) was also identified in project management
by Crawford (Team Development and Organizational Structure), Frame
(Human and Material Resources, and Training and Education), and
Baccarini and Collins (Competent Project Team, Project Manager
Authority, Problem Solving Abilities).

The critical success factor category of Processes was also identified by

Crawford (Planning, Monitoring and Control), Frame (Defined
Procedures) and Baccarini and Collins (Realistic Time and Cost

23
Estimates, Adequate Project Control, Risk Management, Project
Planning).

The critical success factor category of Relationships (including

Communication, Teaming, and Customers) was also common to
Crawford (Team Selection, Communication, Stakeholder Management),
Frame (Culture Of Openness), and Baccarini and Collins
(Communication, Client Involvement, Teamwork, Top Management
Support, Stakeholder Involvement).

The critical success factor category of Resources was also identified in

the literature by Frame (Human and Material Resources) and Baccarini
and Collins (Resources). Additionally, Resources could also be implied
in Crawford’s findings (Organizational Support), Frame’s findings
(Access to Information), and Baccarini and Collins’ findings (Top
Management Support).

The Leadership category was common to Crawford’s findings

(Leadership, Strategic Direction, Organizational Support) and Baccarini
and Collins’ findings (Top Management Support). Leadership could also
be implied in Frame’s findings (Organizational Vision and
Institutionalization of Project Management).

Although the Policies category was not identified by Crawford, per se, it
could be implied in the Strategic Direction factor. The Policies category
was identified by Frame (Defined Procedures), and could also be implied
by Frame’s Organizational Vision and Institutionalization of Project
Management, as well as by Baccarini and Collins’ finding of Top
Management Support.

The final critical success factor category, Requirements, is related to the

procurement process and the need for complete procurement
requirements (project scope, established budget and sufficient funding,
and cost and schedule estimates). These same factors were also
identified by Crawford (Project Definition) and Baccarini and Collins
(Project Understanding, Realistic Time and Cost Estimates). This factor
could also be implied by Frame’s Access to Information factor.

We can also see similarities between the contract management critical

success factors identified in this research and the contract management
lessons learned and best practices identified from the literature. It is
interesting to note that Cohen and Eimicke’s five categories of

24
government contracting problems 1) problems relating to letting
contracts, 2) communication issues, 3) contractor internal management
issues, 4) government contract management issues, and 5) environment
or external issues are similar to the identified contract management
critical success factors identified in this research. This also holds true for
Rendon’s five organizational contract management process best practice
categories: 1) process strength, 2) successful results, 3) management
support, 4) process integration, and 5) process measurement. The final
section of this paper will present conclusions and recommendations
based on my research findings.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research has shown that the contract management critical success
factor categories identified in the survey results are similar to critical
success factor categories for project management identified in the
literature. These research findings of similar success factors for both
project management and contract management can provide valuable
recommendations for improving organizational success in managing
projects and contracts.

Project management and contract management have considerable overlap

in terms of knowledge areas and processes, as described by the Project
Management Institute and the National Contract Management
Association. The research findings show that project management and
contract management may also share organizational critical success
factors as well. Both project management and contract management are
considered high-risk areas in the DoD, due to lack of successful
outcomes and results. The DoD’s approach to improving project
management and contract management treats each area as a separate field,
requiring separate individual competencies (education, training,
experience, etc.) and organizational competencies (structures, processes,
metrics, etc.). This is true even among the various military departments
and among different types of projects and contracts within each
department. DoD project managers, and those involved in DoD project
teams, such as technical managers, financial managers, and logisticians,
have different training requirements than DoD contracting officers. A
quick survey of DoD project management training curricula finds
minimum coverage of contract management knowledge areas. A similar
review of DoD contracting officer training curricula finds minimal
coverage of project management knowledge areas.

25
These research findings suggest that the DoD should focus on the
common knowledge areas and processes impacting project management
and contract management by addressing the critical success factors of
Workforce, Processes, Relationships, Resources, Leadership, and Polices.
The DoD should consider combining some of the training and education
provided to project managers and contracting officers, as well as
consider integrating organizational structures and processes for
managing both projects and contracts. Because of the direct relationship
critical success factors have on an organization’s processes and resulting
outcomes, the DoD should address the critical success factor categories
identified in this research in improving its management of projects and
contracts.

26
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of recent graduates of
the Naval Postgraduate School Contract Management degree program
who contributed to this research: LCDR Romeo O. Bautista, US Navy;
Capt. Christopher J. Anglin, US Air Force; Major Jason D. Good, US
Army; LCDR Carl R. Ward, US Navy; Kevin P. Puma, Department of
the Army; Beth A. Sherr, Department of the Army; Ralph M. Neely,
Department of Defense; and Dina T. Jeffers, Department of the Army.

27
REFERENCES

Angeles, R., & Nath, R. (2007). “Business-to-Business E-procurement:

Success Factors and Challenges to Implementation.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 12 (2): 104-115.

Anglin, C. J., & Good, J. D. (2009). Contract Management Process and

Mentorship Analysis of United States Special Operations Command's
(USSOCOM) Special Operations Acquisition and Logistics Directorate
of Procurement (SOAL-K). MBA Professional Report, Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM). (2009). AMCOM

Units and Command. [On-line]. Available at
www.amcom.redstone.army.mil/. [Retrieved August 26, 2009]

Avots, I. (1969). “Why Does Project Management Fail?” California

Management Review, 12: 77-82.

Baccarini, D. (1987). “The Logical Framework Method for Defining

Project Success.” Project Management Journal, 30 (4): 25-32.

Baccarini, D., & Collins, A. (2003). “Project Success—A Survey.”

Journal of Construction Research, 5 (2): 211-231.

Baker, B. N, Murphy, D.C., & Fisher, D. (1983). “Factors Affecting

Project Success.” In D. I. Cleland and W. R. King (Eds.), Project
Management Handbook (pp. 669-685). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.

Bautista, R. O., & Ward, C. R. (2009). Analysis of Contract Management

Processes at Fleet & Industrial Supply Centers (FISC) Worldwide.
MBA Professional Report, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). “A New Framework for Determining
Critical Success/Failure Factors in Projects.” International Journal of
Project Management, 14 (3): 141-151.

Bullen, C. V., & Rockart, J. F. (1981). A Primer on Critical Success

Factors (CISR No. 69, Sloan WP No. 1220-81). Cambridge, MA: Center
for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

28
Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W. (2008). The Responsible Contract Manager:
Protecting the Public Interest in an Outsourced World. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.

Crawford, L. (2002). “Profiling the Competent Project Manager.” In D. P.

Slevin, D. I. Cleland, and J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Frontiers of Project
Management Research (pp. 151-176). Newton Square, PA: Project
Management Institute.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and

Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daniel, D. R. (1961). “Management Information Crisis.” Harvard

Business Review, 39 (5): 111-121.

Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), USC.

(1990) Title 10, Chapter 87. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). “Agency Theory: An Assessment and

Review.” Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 57-74.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). (2010, January). Washington DC:

US Government Printing Office.

Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). (2010). [On-line]. Available

at www.fpds.gov/. [Retrieved January 7, 2010]

Frame, D. L. (1999). Project Management Competence: Building Key

Skills for Individuals, Teams, and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Garrett, G. A., & Rendon, R. G. (2005). Contract Management

Organizational Assessment Tools. McLean, VA: National Contract
Management Association.

Gottschalk, P., & Solli-Saether, H. (2005). “Critical Success Factors

from IT Outsourcing Theories: An Empirical Study.” Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 105 (6): 658-702.

29
Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2005, March). Contract
Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on Department of
Defense Service Contracts (GAO-05-274). Washington, DC: Author.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2007, January). Defense

Acquisitions: Improved Management and Oversight Needed to Better
Control DoD’s Acquisition of Services (GAO-07-832T). Washington,
DC: Author.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2009, January). High-Risk

Series: An Update (GAO-09-271). Washington, DC: Author.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2009, March). Department

of Defense: Additional Actions and Data Are Needed to Effectively
Manage and Oversee DOD’s Acquisition Workforce (GAO-09-342).
Washington, DC: Author.

Hughes, M. W. (1986). “Why Projects Fail: The Effects of Ignoring the

Obvious.” Industrial Engineering, 18: 14-18.

Jeffers, D. T. (2009). Contract Specialist Turnover Rate and Contract

Management Maturity in the National Capital Region Contracting
Center: An Analysis. MSCM Joint Applied Project, Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA.

Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic Planning for Project Management: Using

A Project Management Maturity Model. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lee, L., & Dobler, D. W. (1971). Purchasing and Materials

Management: Text and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education: A

Conceptual Introduction. New York: Addison-Wesley, Longman.

Moe. T. M. (1984). “The New Economics of Organization”. American

Journal of Political Science, 28, (4): 739-777.

Monczka, R. M., Petersen, K. J., Handfield, R. B., & Ragatz, G. L.

(1998). “Success Factors in Strategic Supplier Alliances: The Buying
Company’s Perspective.” Decisions Sciences, 29 (3): 553-577.

30
Morris, P. W., & Hough, G. H. (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects.
New York: John Wiley & Sons

National Contract Management Association (NCMA). (2006).

Annotated Guide to the Contract Management Body of Knowledge
(CMBOK). Ashburn, VA: Author.

Neely, R. M. (2009). Analysis of the Department of Defense Education

Activity (DODEA) Using the Contract Management Maturity Model
(CMMM). MSCM Joint Applied Project, Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CA.
Newell, E. (2007). Report: Contracting Workforce Needs More Training.
Government Executive. [On-line]. Available at
www.govexec.com/mailbagDetails.cfm?aid=38356. [Retrieved January 4,
2008]

Office of the Inspector General (OIG). (2009, April 22). Summary of

DoD Office of Inspector General Audits of Acquisition and Contract
Administration (DoD IG Report No. D-2009-071). Washington, DC: US
Department of Defense.

Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). “Critical Success Factors in R&D

Projects.” Research Technology Management, 32 (1): 31-35.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008). A Guide to the

Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide).
Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Puma, K. P., & Sherr, B. A. (2009). Assessing Contract Management

Maturity: U.S. Army Joint Munitions and Lethality Contracting Center,
Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal. MSCM Joint Applied
Project, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Rendon, R. G. (2003). A Systematic Approach to Assessing

Organizational Contract Management Maturity. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, School of Business, Argosy University, Orange County, CA.

Rendon, R. G. (2008). “Procurement Process Maturity: Key to

Performance Measurement.” Journal of Public Procurement, 8 (2): 200-
214.

31
Rendon, R. G. (2009a). “Contract Changes Management.” In G. A.
Garrett (Ed.), Contract Administration: Tools, Techniques and Best
Practices (pp. 69-87). Riverwoods, IL: CCH.

Rendon, R. G. (2009b). Contract Management Process Maturity:

Empirical Analysis of Organizational Assessments (Technical Report
NPS-CM-09-124). Acquisition Research Program, Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA.

Rendon, R. G., & Snider, K. F. (Eds.). (2008). Management of Defense

Acquisition Projects. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.

Rockart, J. F. (1979). “Chief Executives Define Their Own Data Needs.”

Harvard Business Review, 57 (2): 81-93.

Rubin, I. M., & Seeling, W. (1967). “Experience as a Factor in the

Selection and Performance of Project Managers.” IEEE Trans Eng
Management, 14 (3): 131-134.

Schultz, R. L., Slevin, D. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1987). “Strategy and Tactics
in a Process Model of Project Implementation.” Interfaces, 17 (3): 34-46.

Thai, K. (2004). Introduction to Public Procurement. Herndon, VA:

National Institute of Governmental Purchasing.

Trent, R. J., & Monczka, R. M. (1994). “Effective Cross-Functional

Sourcing Teams: Critical Success Factors.” International Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, 30 (4): 3-11.

United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). (2009).

USTRANSCOM Organization. [On-line]. Available at
www.transcom.mil/organization2.cfm. [Retrieved August 26, 2009]

32