Industry ’ s Survey Results on Enhancing Contract Efficiencies

1. Industry’s Survey Results onEnhancing Contract Efficiencies Presented by NDIA IPT at SSC/NDIA Executive Forum August 2nd, 2011

2. IPT Charter Stand up a team made up of large and small business industry partners interested in developing feedback from an industry perspective reflective of issues that could potentially promote the effectiveness of Government contracting.  Specifically the kinds of feedback that may be of value include:         - any action that would result in industry's ability to decrease cost and improve performance;         - areas where the Government's acquisition strategies, to include solicitation composition, source selection criteria, statement of work, or supporting contract terms and conditions impede industry’s ability to propose and deliver the best services in the most cost effective manner;         - how could the Government better define or deploy contracting strategies or performance requirements in a manner that would promote best value to the Government: drive down costs, increase competition and industry’s capability  to deliver?

3. Members of the Team • Joe Bulger, Lockheed Martin • Mary Gmitruk, SSC Pacific • Jim Lasswell, INDUS Technology • Terry McKearney, The Ranger Group • Gerry Nifontoff, SAIC • Robert Pennoyer, SAIC • Robin Phillips-Nordberg, Epsilon Systems

4. Our Process • Develop a questionnaire to guide input • Based on three areas of interest in charter • Statements of work • Contract terms and condition • Source selection criteria and performance criteria • Validate questionnaire with SSC, chapter leadership • Host seminar discussion to gather ideas • About 40 representatives of our membership • Large, medium, small, businesses • Facilitated discussion to capture ideas • Plus questionnaire • No attempt at statistical validity • Small numbers • Good ideas may be “outliers”

5. What Industry Wants You to Know • Developing a proposal costs • Money • Time • Personnel • May tie key personnel to waiting effort • Consistency within solicitation really helps • Advance notice is important • Helps us put together the best team and proposal • Small business needs more time • Short notice implies “the fix is in”

6. SOWs in General • Of varying quality • Consistency in format would be appreciated • Should be focused, concise • Specific systems • Updated on re-competes • Advance notification • Draft about 90 days • Industry Days generally well received • Time to build teams • Should be detailed in terms of effort • So new competitors can gauge effort per tech requirement • Detailed SOWs need more room to respond • Larger page limits

7. SOWs in General (cont.) • Need to be clear as to personnel qualifications • Labor categories defined and consistent within solicitation • Same qualifications, titles between SOW, sections L&M • Equivalencies stated and consistent throughout • Should state who will use the contract • And funding type(s) • Consistent estimation of effort • Hours vs. FTE vs. LOE • Can commit Key Personnel for finite period • 180 days about right • Questions • Frequently asked • Would like 24 hour turn around • Unused ceiling • Leads to inaccurate pricing

8. Performance-based Awards • PWS needs to be more explicit about performance objectives, measures • Often looks like other SOWs • Allow contractor latitude in work associated with performance-based contracts • Don’t specify people • May need more space to respond in PWS solicitation

9. Terms and Conditions • Consistency between Section L & M • Need to “map” • Consistency in price/cost requirements • SOW, Sections B, L, M • Escalation rates • If specified, should be honored • Use DCAA approved if possible • EVMS requirements only when necessary • OCI • Varied opinions, but many felt need for more definition, simpler rules, consistency • Fee on OCDs, materials • Should be allowed • Needs clarification

10. Source Selection • Orals • Need to be timely • Holding Key Personnel • Need to include a large enough team • For complex questions asked • Weighting factors need to be clear and consistent • “Best value” needs definition • Consistent criteria between sections of solicitation • Stick with CPARS • Use memorandum of negations to update bid, price • As opposed to completely new price proposal submission • No new restrictions, conditions in the award

11. Task Orders • At least 10 days for solicitation • Adding to task orders adds to cost • Better to fund once • Should be made public • Recompete or sole source?

12. Fees • Fee structure can force bidding lower labor rates • Fee caps can lead to use of cheaper labor • Fee pools disincentive? • “Cost plus” doesn’t incentivize performance • Unique interpretation of cost basis for award • Stick with FAR definition • Clear standards for award criteria • Timely award of fee • Common perception that it takes too long • Up to 18 months • Need to incentivize prime in larger efforts • Fixed price an answer? • Not for everyone!

13. Other Thoughts • Three year term better for competition than five? • Incentivize vice micromanage • Seems like low cost wins no matter what • Amendments add to the cost • Explicit notification of any set aside determinations • Once RFIs are submitted and determination is made • More feedback on proposal • Especially for losers • Team integrity • “Dance with those that brung ya” • Use the team that wins • “Directed subcontracting” • Bypasses team members • Not right

14. Helpful Hints • Cross training between SSC personnel developing tech requirements and contracting specialist drafting solicitations • Industry days appreciated • Anticipated actual award dates most useful • Bring back the Issued Contracts list • Should bank and review questions to identify trends • More user friendly E-Commerce site

15. The Final “Keepers” • Regular meeting with contractors to talk about new awards, issues • Quarterly? • Decent interval between announcement and proposal due • About three months seems to be consensus • Faster decisions or feedback on status of awards • Keeping funds and Key Personnel on hold

16. Discussion

17. Next Steps • Collaboration between local industry and SSC can impact and improve both’s practices • Industry would like to continue to work with SSC on identifying and implementing efficiencies