requirements definition | The Contracting Education Academy

January 7, 2020 By cs

DoD releases long awaited policy on mid-tier acquisition

After three years and a serious reprimand from Congress, the Defense Department finally released its guidance for the processes governing middle-tier acquisition.

***Click on image above to download document.***

The Dec. 30, 2019 instruction, signed by defense acquisition and sustainment undersecretary Ellen Lord, gives DoD agencies direction for when and how to use middle-tier acquisition, and explains leadership responsibilities for the contracting method.

The DoD guidance, at least temporarily, allays concerns from Congress and the Government Accountability Office about unclear oversight of middle-tier acquisition.

The document doesn’t really tell readers much more than is already known about the process, but rather codifies the way DoD uses it, and then leaves a large part of the way the method is used up to the individual defense agencies.

DoD explains that the Defense Acquisition University will create a companion guide in the near future to expand upon the guidance.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2020/01/dod-releases-long-awaited-policy-on-mid-tier-acquisition/

October 30, 2019 By cs

Army’s acquisition boss on artificial intelligence and the evolving procurement process

As the U.S. Army begins to replace its existing fleet with fresh platforms that will form a force capable of countering adversaries across multiple domains and theaters, the acquisition side of the house will face tough choices.

**Army acquisitions chief Bruce Jette, center, receives a briefing on product improvements for cannon systems. (Photo credit: John Snyder, U.S. Army)**

Defense News posed a variety of questions to Bruce Jette — Army acquisition chief — ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference to see what he’s thinking about when it comes to the evolution of the service’s procurement approach, including its relationship with Army Futures Command, which is tasked with modernizing the service.

A year ago you were developing a framework for how you, as the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, would interface with Army Futures Command. How has the framework evolved?

The framework for interfacing with Army Futures Command has evolved as we’ve identified unique, shared or overlapping responsibilities among stakeholders as well as sole responsibilities for each stakeholder.

The major muscle movements are: AFC has lead responsibility in the space between concepts creation and requirements definition, bringing “unity of command” to modernization organizations previously scattered across the Army. Unique to AFC is the responsibility to create concepts for how the Army will fight, and creation of the initial materiel requirement. AFC transitions to a critical supporting role after the concept and requirement refinement milestones, and is essential in collaborative efforts during acquisition activities leading to production. There are overlapping roles of capabilities to requirements throughout the development and procurement processes.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/ausa/2019/10/14/us-armys-acquisition-boss-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-evolving-procurement-process/

September 25, 2018 By AMK

3 big problems continue to dog federal procurement

Congress and the executive branch have worked for years to improve the quality of and reduce costs for federal acquisition, but some problems continue to hamper many agencies, according to a Sept. 12 Government Accountability Office report.

“Acquisition reform has been on everyone’s agenda for many, many years, decades. There have been proposals in the Congress, there has been changes to the regulations. This has been a very, very active area for a long time,” said Bill Woods, director on the Contracting and National Security Acquisitions Team at GAO, in an agency podcast.

The report evaluated federal agency acquisition improvements against 89 recommendations made by the Acquisition Advisory Panel in 2007 and divided the areas of improvement into three “buckets” that represent the acquisition life cycle: requirements and definitions; competition and pricing; and contractor oversight.

“One is in the requirements, definition process of actually deciding. What is it does the agency want? What does it need, and what’s the best way of getting what we need?” said Woods.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2018/09/17/3-big-problems-continue-to-dog-federal-procurement/

September 13, 2018 By AMK

GAO acknowledges progress in federal acquisition by Congress and Executive branch, but says ‘challenges endure’

Congress established an Acquisition Advisory Panel to review federal acquisition laws, regulations, and policies — and identify opportunities for improvement. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just issued an assessment of the progress made since the Panel’s 2007 report.

Here’s what GAO found:

Congress and the executive branch have taken numerous actions to address key issues the Acquisition Advisory Panel identified in its 2007 report, but these actions have not eliminated some enduring challenges. The figure below presents the key issues the Panel addressed in relation to the life cycle of a typical contract as identified by GAO:

Three of the key issues, and the corresponding challenges, align with specific phases in the contracting life cycle:

Requirements Definition: The Panel found that fully identifying requirements before a contract is awarded is key to achieving the benefits of competition. GAO has found that unrealistic requirements have contributed to poor program outcomes at the Department of Defense (DoD), and that the Army’s requirements development workforce decreased by 22 percent from 2008 to 2017.

Competition and Pricing: The Panel said that competition can help reduce prices. GAO’s work shows that competition rates have remained steady government-wide, and declined at DOD. See figure below.

GAO also found that agencies are sometimes using bridge contracts — which GAO has generally defined as either extensions to existing contracts or new short-term, sole-source contracts — to avoid a lapse in service caused by delay of a follow-on contract award. In some instances, bridge contract awards delay opportunities for competition and can place the government at risk of paying higher prices for multiple years. The figure below depicts how an Army bridge contract for computer support services planned for 12 months was extended to 42 months.

Further, GAO’s work shows that agencies have not fully embraced initiatives and techniques intended to reduce the prices they pay, including consolidated purchasing approaches and robust market research.

Contractor Oversight: The Panel raised questions about the capacity of federal agencies to oversee contractors. GAO found that agencies continue to award contracts warranting increased management attention at a steady rate, such as contracts for management support services. With contracts like those for management support services, there is an increased risk that contractors may perform tasks reserved for the government. Additionally, GAO found that heavy workloads at the Department of Veterans Affairs have made it difficult for officials who oversee contractors to ensure contractors adhere to contract terms.

Three of the key issues, and the corresponding challenges, cut across all the phases of the contracting life cycle:

Acquisition Workforce: The Panel found that the federal acquisition workforce faces workload and training challenges. GAO’s work has shown that DoD has enhanced its workforce, but some workforce gaps endure at DoD and across agencies.

Federal Procurement Data: The Panel found that the government’s primary repository for acquisition data contained some unreliable data. Also, GAO found that the system has demonstrated limitations. For example, guidance from the Office of Management Budget (OMB) required that agencies collect specific contract award data, but the system did not have the capability to do so.

Small Business Participation: The Panel found a number of challenges hindering agencies’ efforts to meet small business goals. GAO found small business participation has increased, but many agencies are not in full compliance with requirements governing Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBUs). For example, the directors of these offices should report directly to agency heads or their deputies, but not all agencies have established this type of direct reporting relationship.

What GAO Recommends

GAO did not make any new recommendations in its Sept. 12, 2018 assessment, but it has made numerous recommendations in the past. Federal agencies have agreed with many of GAO’s recommendations, and have implemented some of them, but not others. For example, GAO has previously made the following recommendations.

The Army should assess the resources needed for the requirements development process. The Army agreed, but it has not yet done so.

OMB should provide guidance for agencies to manage bridge contracts. OMB agreed and has drafted management guidance but has not yet finalized it.

Certain federal agencies should take steps to document how they conduct market research. The agencies agreed and did so.

The Department of Veterans Affairs should develop tools to help oversee contracts. The department agreed and did so.

DOD should have issued an updated acquisition workforce plan in fiscal year 2016. DOD agreed and issued the plan.

OMB should take steps to improve how agencies collect certain procurement data. OMB generally agreed, but has not yet addressed the recommendation.

Certain federal agencies should take steps to comply with OSDBU-related requirements. Most agencies that provided comments agreed or partially agreed. Two agencies — the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Agency for International Development — have addressed the recommendations.

It its latest report, GAO reiterates its belief that all agencies should implement all of these recommendations.

See the GAO’s full report here: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694457.pdf

March 2, 2018 By AMK

George Carlin and the effects on solicitations, contracts

I read an article by Matthew Berry, ESPN senior writer on ESPN.com on Love, Hate and seven dirty words.

I did not know he worked in Hollywood, where his first job was working as George Carlin’s [the famous comedian] assistant. I remember hearing the, “Seven words you can never say on television,” skit. Most of those words I had heard on the playground, but couldn’t admit to my parents.

Berry stated in the article that Carlin told him: “Words are just words, he would argue, it’s the context of those words that’s the key. The motivation and intent behind what someone was saying was the key. The idea that one word was bad while another was safe was insane to him.”

So how does this apply to solicitations and contracts?

How the government states requirements, proposal preparation instructions, and evaluation criteria matter. What most solicitations and contracts lack is context.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsradio.com/commentary/2018/02/george-carlin-and-the-effects-on-solicitations-contracts/