Technology Development | The Contracting Education Academy

February 18, 2013 By AMK

AT&L chief provides thoughts on fixed-price contracts

The use of firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts in product development situations have had a storied past within Defense Department contracting and elsewhere. Application of the FFP contracting strategy where product development is unproven has tended to create situations where neither the government nor the contractor has the flexibility needed to make adjustments as they learn more about what is feasible and affordable as well as what needs to be done to achieve a design that meets requirements during a product’s design and testing phases.

Frank Kendall, DoD Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) now seeks to provide guidance on this subject, including on the use of fixed-price incentive firm (FPIF) contracts.

In an article scheduled to appear in the March-April 2013 issue of Defense AT&L magazine, Kendall writes:

“The choice of appropriate contract types is very situationally dependent, and a number of factors must be taken into account to determine the best contract type to use. From the perspective of both industry and the government, it makes a good deal of difference whether the Defense Department asks for Cost type, Fixed-Price Incentive (FPI), or Firm Fixed Price (FFP) proposals. In the original Better Buying Power (BBP) initiatives, although [Deputy Secretary of Defense] Dr. [Ashton] Carter and I encouraged greater use of FPI, we also included the caveat: ‘where appropriate.'”

The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech has obtained an advance copy of Undersecretary Kendall’s full article, and it can be viewed at: Use of FPIF Contracts in Development & Production – Kendall_Mar_Apr_2013.

April 18, 2012 By AMK

Cloud system contracts dictate updated acquisition strategy

As core enterprise systems move to the cloud, provisioning services in that environment could require revised training for acquisition officers. Existing rules, processes and culture need to be re-thought, said Dave McClure, associate administrator at the GSA’s office of citizen services and innovative technologies.

“The existing way in which we contract both for products and services in the government goes right up against the model for cloud, which is price elasticity, demand elasticity, so there’s still some hiccups there,” said McClure March 3 at the FOSE conference in Washington, D.C.

Some cloud computing contracts don’t have pricing elasticity truly built in, which could be a challenge as programs look to layer their applications and scale out an existing cloud infrastructure, said McClure.

Acquisition officers are “kind of hacking through, right now,” said Rob Carey, Defense Department deputy chief information officer. But it’s something the FedRAMP joint authorization board is acutely aware of, he added.

“In our pilots we have going, we’re finding those challenges,” said Carey. “We’re trying to make sure those lessons learned are poured into the Chief Acquisition Officers Council to say, how do you do this.”

Carey said this is simply what happens with the adoption of disruptive technology.

“You will continue to find challenges as we break through the edges of what some bright engineer thinks he can do or wants to do, and the contracting officer says, ‘Let me figure out how we can actually get that done for you,’” said Carey.

— by Molly Bernhart Walker. This article appeared in Fierce Government IT on Apr. 4, 2012 at http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/mcclure-cloud-services-require-acquisition-officers-retool/2012-04-04.

February 1, 2012 By AMK

Georgia Tech’s EVP for Research testifies before House Armed Services Committee

Georgia Tech’s Executive Vice President for Research Steve Cross testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee’s panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry on Jan. 23, 2012.

Cross was invited to present testimony at the hearing entitled, “Doing Business with the DOD: Getting Innovative Solutions from Concept to the Hands of the Warfighter.” The panel asked for insight on the role that universities, research institutions and laboratories play in developing innovative technologies for the Department of Defense, particularly in the effort to transition research from academic concept into production.

As part of his testimony, Cross highlighted Georgia Tech’s FY 2011 $643 million in research expenditures and how the institute supports and translates defense research through technology transition and innovation programs.

“Defense research and associated technology transition and innovation programs are vital for ensuring the United States retains a competitive advantage in its national security posture,” Cross said. “As shown time and time again, the fruits of defense research seed economic development helping accelerate new technologies to market.”

According to Cross, such technologies are available for use in defense systems at a fraction of what they would otherwise cost and in a much reduced time frame.

Cross also mentioned the significance of The Contracting Education Academy at Georgia Tech and the role it plays in providing specialized training and consulting support to both the government acquisition and business communities.

Representatives from the Stanford Research Institute and the MITRE Corporation joined Cross in presenting testimony. A copy of his testimony can be found here.

June 15, 2011 By AMK

New NASA priorities open billions in new opportunities

NASA might be cutting $1 billion from its space operations budget but a new study claims there are billions in opportunities in science and technology areas.

“As NASA shifts priorities for human spaceflight from shuttle operations to human exploration capabilities and commercial spaceflight, the budget will be redirected to a range of technology development programs,” said Steve Bochinger, president of Euroconsult North America.

The firm and its partner Omnis Inc. have released a new study, NASA Spending Outlook: Trends to 2016, which analyzes NASA’s budget.

As space operations shrink, the science budget will be redistributed among NASA centers, Bochinger said.

Among the findings:

The Science Mission Directorate saw an 11 percent bump in 2011 and will have a $5 billion through 2016. Goddard Space Flight Center and Langley Research Center will benefit because of the work on Earth science projects.
The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate will hold steady at about $3.9 billion but funds will shift away from human exploration activities.
The new Space Technology Directorate will get $1 billion a year from 2012 to 2016. Langley, Glenn and Ames research centers will benefit because of their work on new technologies for exploration and robotic spaceflight.
NASA is restructuring the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate to focus on fundamental aeronautics and development of technologies for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

The study also predicts that NASA’s business practices will have to change with a shift from cost-plus contracting to more fixed-price contracting.

About the Author: Nick Wakeman is the editor of Washington Technology. Article appeared June 8, 2011 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2011/06/08/nasa-budget-priorities-shift.aspx?s=wtdaily_090611

Search this Website