Omar Messado sets a 90-day standard for evaluating procurement talent

Sep 22, 2026


Omar Messado is formalizing a short, structured review process he uses to judge whether a new procurement hire or a young team member is on track, and he is publishing the framework so other managers can use it.


New York City, New York Sep 22, 2026 (Issuewire.com) - Omar Messado has spent two decades in transportation procurement, most of it directing teams responsible for rolling stock acquisitions, operations, contract management, and design-build initiatives. Along the way he built a habit: instead of waiting for an annual review to decide if a new hire is working out, he checks in at 90 days.

He is now writing that habit down as a formal personal standard and sharing it publicly.

"I don't believe in waiting a year to find out if someone is set up to succeed," Messado said. "Ninety days is enough time to see how a person handles a real deadline, a difficult vendor, and a mistake. What I'm looking for isn't perfection. It's whether they know how to recover." 

It is also important to receive the new hire's input on the work itself and set a strong foundation to sustain employee retention. He has learned over years that the business of human resources is a very difficult field to manage and satisfy

What the 90-day check covers

The standard has three parts, each tied to a question Messado asks himself about a team member rather than a checklist he hands them.

Week one to four: does the work match the words. Messado monitors whether a new hire's actual output, contract drafts, vendor comparisons, cost analyses, lines up with how they described their own experience in an interview.

Week five to eight: how they handle a mistake. Every procurement program produces an error somewhere, a missed deadline, a bad number in a report, a vendor issue that surfaces late. Messado says the second month is when he watches how a person owns a problem rather than how they avoid one.

"Mistakes get made. That's not the issue," he said. "The issue is whether someone hides it or brings it to me early enough that we can fix it together."

Week nine to twelve: whether they can explain their own reasoning. By the third month, Messado expects a team member to walk them through why they made a sourcing recommendation or a contract call, not just what the recommendation was.

"If someone can only tell me what, they're not ready to run their own piece of a project yet," he said. "I need the why too."

Why he is publishing it now

Messado said he decided to put the standard in writing after years of using it informally with procurement staff on many capital programs and rolling stock initiatives.

"I've applied some version of this for a long time without ever calling it anything," he said. "Writing it down makes it something I can actually hand to another manager, instead of something that just lives in my head."

He said the standard is meant less as a scoring tool and more as a conversation starter between a manager and a new hire.

"A 90-day check isn't a test someone passes or fails," Messado said. "It's a conversation. I use it to figure out where I need to spend more time coaching, and where someone is already solid and just needs room to work."

Applying it beyond procurement

Messado said the same three-part structure holds up outside procurement work, in any role where someone is new to a team and learning how decisions get made.

"The details change depending on the job," he said. "But the pattern doesn't. Watch if the work matches the story. Watch how they handle the first mistake. Watch if they can explain their own thinking by month three. That tells you almost everything you need to know."

He said he plans to keep using the standard with his own teams going forward and will share more detail on how he applies it as procurement programs move through new hiring cycles.

To read more, visit the website here.

About Omar Messado

Omar Messado is a procurement professional based in New York, New York. He has spent more than 20 years in transportation procurement, including senior roles overseeing rolling stock acquisitions, operations, contract management, and design-build initiatives for major transit programs. He holds a BBA in finance from Iona College and an MS in transportation management from the Civil Engineering division of Polytechnic Institute of New York University.

Contact:

[email protected]

Source :Omar Messado

This article was originally published by IssueWire. Read the original article here.

More News

Democrats have big healthcare plans. The industry is preparing for a fight.

Oct 29, 2026

Democrats have big healthcare plans. The industry is preparing for a fight.

Protesters in Minnesota advocate for universal healthcare. | David Berding/Getty Images for People's Action Institute Americans want changes to their healthcare, and the candidates in this year’s midterms are making bold promises about how they are going to improve it: Medicare-for-all, or a public health insurance option, or free primary care for everyone. If Democrats win big this year, they could build up momentum to control Congress and the White House in 2029, which could leave them well-positioned to take on the thorny problem of how to fix the US health system. History suggests that this won’t be easy. For every Affordable Care Act, you have the failed attempt to repeal it or the calamity of the Clinton-era healthcare initiative. Americans want change — but they fear it, too. I’ve spent years reading healthcare polls, talking to voters, attending focus groups. The public’s opinion of the healthcare industry has grown more and more sour, and distrust of the medical establishment is at an all-time high. People are sick of having a broken health system, but they worry that big changes could end up being bad for them.  Even though a meaningful attempt at reform is still years away and universal health care in any form might seem like a progressive pipe dream, the industry is not sitting idly by.  As Democrats have started to roll out policy proposals in anticipation of winning back Congress, the industry has been there to start making its case. In some campaigns, that means backing Republicans, but it also means lobbying Democratic Party leaders to hold the line against their more progressive members who want to push for far-reaching changes.  The question now is: Will their old playbook work? Can the industry convince Democrats to scale back their policy ambitions, or is their grip on Congress loosening? “The next two years are actually quite pivotal, for doing the groundwork and all the necessary socializing, consensus-building,” said Kim Monk, a former congressional healthcare staffer who co-founded the private-sector research firm Capital Alpha Partners. “That’s the work that gets you to a point where either party decides, okay, this will be on our platform — or not.” That will be the tug-of-war of the next two years: a PR battle waged between health companies with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal on one side and progressive lawmakers, activists, and patient advocates on the other that will ultimately determine what’s possible in the next phase of American healthcare. The healthcare industry doesn’t want Democrats to win too big In the short term, the industry is hedging its bets in the face of a Democratic wave.  Private enterprise has historically backed the Republican Party, but that’s starting to shift. What the healthcare industry values above all else is balance. Democrats operating without any constraints are more likely to impose government regulations on medical companies. But full GOP control comes with its own risks, like the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts passed as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has already led to clinics and hospitals laying off staff or even closing facilities altogether. Sign up for the Good Medicine newsletter Our political wellness landscape has shifted: new leaders, shady science, contradictory advice, broken trust, and overwhelming systems. How is anyone supposed to make sense of it all? Vox’s senior correspondent Dylan Scott has been on the health beat for a long time, and every week, he’ll wade into sticky debates, answer fair questions, and contextualize what’s happening in American health care policy. Sign up here. “At least for the short term, I imagine the healthcare industry would welcome control of Congress by Democrats, creating more predictability, forestalling more cuts in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, and potentially reversing or delaying some of the cuts that have already been made,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. “The longer-term political calculus for the healthcare industry is more complicated. Many Democrats are pushing for a bigger role for government in health care.” In other words, while healthcare companies might welcome a Democratic House as a check on President Donald Trump’s unpredictability, they aren’t necessarily hoping for a massive blue wave that could make significant reforms a serious possibility if Democrats were to win the White House in 2028.  The industry’s MO when it looks like a wave election is brewing is to balance the scales: I reported in 2016 how, in what was looking like a good year for Democrats, the drug industry poured money into the campaigns of Republican candidates by a 6-to-1 margin in competitive races, hoping to stifle the agenda of presumed President Hillary Clinton. (Of course they, like the rest of us, are still susceptible to being wrong.) And that’s how the industry has been approaching the 2026 election: In many of the pivotal House and Senate races, they are backing the GOP.  As healthcare journalist Merrill Goozner reported last week, the American Hospital Association PAC and PhRMA, a drug industry trade group, have given a combined $14,500 to Republican incumbent Jon Husted and none to his Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown in the historically expensive Ohio Senate race. In Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins has received donations from all of the major healthcare trade groups — hospitals, pharma, insurers, and doctors — while her opponent, Democrat Troy Jackson, got none. (He also has sworn off corporate PAC money.) Even in an open race without an incumbent, like the Iowa Senate campaign, the Republican candidate has scored donations from hospitals and pharma, but the Democrat has not, Goozner reported. If Democrats take the House but not the Senate, that would immediately put a damper on their healthcare reform plans — whereas winning a Senate majority would allow them to start drafting and debating bills in both chambers with an eye toward what could actually pass if they win in 2028 too. “If there is actually a blue tsunami next week and Democrats get 51-plus [members] in the Senate, that’s a really big deal,” Monk said. “You can’t just say this doesn’t matter because Trump’s going to veto it, because I think it very much becomes a 2028 issue.” And even as they work to push the next Congress more to their ideological liking, the healthcare industry is preparing for the fight that comes after. The industry is prepping its counterattacks on ambitious healthcare proposals After the midterms wrap up, the next two years in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail will be crucial. The industry is already working to set the terms of the debate and push back against big changes. Each subset of the industry has its own versions of this argument: Pharma warns that price controls could stifle innovation, insurers warn that coverage mandates will increase premiums, hospitals warn that constraints on their funding could lead to closures and job losses. (There’s a well-known saying among DC insiders that every congressional district has a hospital, making every member potentially susceptible to the industry’s message that new healthcare legislation could result in their own constituents losing their jobs.) They’ve started by trying to discredit the more sweeping health policy proposals before new members ever arrive in Washington, DC. In Texas, for instance, Republican groups have leaned on an industry-commissioned study to attack Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico for supporting Medicare-for-all, warning that it would lead to cuts for rural hospitals — at least according to an analysis produced by the Partnership for America’s Future, a coalition of industry groups that exists explicitly to oppose Medicare-for-all or a public option. They ran a similar ad against Democrat Janelle Stelson, who’s trying to topple incumbent Rep. Scott Perry in Pennsylvania.  The industry is trying to plant the idea in voters’ minds that these big, bold proposals may sound superficially appealing, but carry significant risks: You could lose your plan, you could lose your doctor, you could pay higher taxes. (And they often have their own studies to back those arguments, like the one cited in this year’s campaign, to counter the evidence offered by advocates in support of reform.) And it might work exactly like it has in the past. As John McDonough, a former congressional healthcare staffer and author of America’s Wrong Turn: US Health Care in the Neoliberal Era, put it to me, the history is clear: “Every comprehensive effort, defeat, and every incremental effort succeeds.” That is in part because of the healthcare industry’s influence and its success in framing the debate. On top of trying to sway the competitive races, the industry is also trying to keep its most important allies within both parties happy ahead of the midterms. As the Center for Health and Democracy’s data shows, the health insurance industry PACs alone have given tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic and Republican leaders, as well as senior members of the healthcare-focused House and Senate committees. It’s another hedge, an attempt to keep the members who will decide what’s on the agenda next year on their side. The industry supports reversing the GOP’s massive Medicaid cuts and increasing funding for the ACA marketplaces, two top-priority items for Democrats if they win Congress in the midterms. But they are hoping the party’s leaders will steer their members away from some of their more radical ideas for overhauling healthcare. Because while individual sectors within healthcare may squabble over smaller-scale reforms, the entire industry is united against plans to fundamentally change the US health system. (They are also increasingly owned by the same parent company, as consolidation in the medical sector becomes more and more common.) “The healthcare industry is al

YOUR NEWS, OUR NETWORK.

Do you have Great News you want to tell the world?

Be it updates about your business or your community, you can make sure that it’s heard by submitting your story to our network reaching hundreds of news sites across 6 verticals.

The Daily Feeder

A leading news network dedicated to keeping you up-to-date on the world's most important political, business, and cultural news into a three-minute read.

NEWSLETTER