technology development | The Contracting Education Academy

December 2, 2013 By AMK

Five-year cost of IT procurement reform estimated at $145 billion

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost to amend laws regulating how the federal agencies acquire and manage information technology projects would cost nearly $145 billion to implement for fiscal years 2014 through 2018.

That bill would use pay-as-you-go procedures for funding, and agencies not affected by annual appropriations could feel effects on direct spending, the CBO said Nov. 12, 2013. (See cost estimate at: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr1232.pdf. )

Under current law, the CBO estimates the federal government spends $50 billion per year to acquire IT products and services through interagency contracts.

October 24, 2013 By AMK

Healthcare.gov’s shortcomings spark criticism of IT prowess and acquisition process

Problems with healthcare.gov, the federal website for residents of 36 states whose governments declined to build their own healthcare exchanges, have set off a round of recriminations against federal information technology management and acquisition.

The New York Times, in a Oct. 12 article, says that regulations underpinning healthcare.gov were delayed for political reasons until after the November 2012 election and technical specifications were also slow in coming, meaning that the website’s largest contractor, CGI Federal, didn’t start writing code until this spring. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also took on itself the role of system integrator, although some doubted it had the technical capacity to take on that task.

Systemic problems, such as lack of technical expertise, are the stuff of much debate over what went wrong.

“Many agencies are stuck in a technology time warp that affects how projects like the healthcare exchange portal are built,” writes Ars Technica’s Sean Gallagher, expressing a common opinion that cites as fundamental causes long procurement cycles, slow adoption of new technologies and the problem of a large installed base. Gallagher also notes turnover among top executives, each of whom brings “some marquee project to burnish their résumés,” meaning that real change is difficult to implement.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/healthcaregov-problems-spark-federal-it-recriminations/2013-10-16

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.

Search this Website