Acquisition – Federal News Network https://federalnewsnetwork.com Helping feds meet their mission. Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:07:41 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cropped-icon-512x512-1-60x60.png Acquisition – Federal News Network https://federalnewsnetwork.com 32 32 Key cyber agency set to get procurement authority, contracting officers https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition-policy/2022/07/key-cyber-agency-set-to-get-procurement-authority-contracting-officers/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition-policy/2022/07/key-cyber-agency-set-to-get-procurement-authority-contracting-officers/#respond Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:07:41 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4134301 The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is continuing its fast evolution as a standalone department, with CISA set to get its own procurement authority this month.

“We have some exciting news — our component acquisition executive gets initial procurement authority early July,” CISA Chief Information Officer Robert Costello said during an event hosted by the Homeland Security Defense Forum last week. “That’s a huge, huge deal.”

CISA will have its own contract specialists, Costello said. Currently, CISA relies on outside entities, including the Office of Procurement Operations at Department of Homeland Security headquarters, to carry out its procurement needs.

David Patrick is currently CISA’s chief acquisition executive, according to the agency’s website. Prior to CISA, Patrick served in various leadership roles in acquisition offices at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS headquarters, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Patrick is “leading the realignment of CISA acquisition and procurement activities and the transformation of the Office of the Chief Acquisition Executive,” CISA’s website states.

As one of the newest federal standalone agencies, CISA is still building out management and support operations that other agencies may take for granted. CISA was established as a standalone operational component of DHS in 2018, having previously been the National Protection and Programs Directorate at DHS headquarters.

“There’s a lot of work to do internally just on our own identity and culture,” Costello said. “Now we’re a component of equal rank to [the Transportation Security Administration] or CBP, so we’re developing our own culture here as well.”

CISA procurement plans

CISA is requesting $6.2 million in fiscal 2023 for 50 positions, including 25 full-time equivalents, to establish and build out a procurement team within the Office of the Chief Acquisition executive, budget documents show.

“As a new agency, CISA does not currently have the internal procurement operations and support functions to effectively and efficiently support CISA’s growing and rapidly changing cybersecurity, infrastructure, emergency communications, risk management, stakeholder engagement, and other missions,” the documents state.

The new team will help CISA streamline and improve its procurement planning and execution by working more closely with other CISA divisions and programs, the justification documents continue.

Other goals include “identifying and utilizing existing contractual flexibilities and methodologies to best meet end-user needs in a rapidly changing environment,” as well as partnering more closely with industry through outreach events.

“A CISA procurement activity will operate as a full business partner and serve as a strategic asset dedicated to improving the agency’s overall business performance,” the documents state.

‘Handing out laptops’

Costello joined CISA last year. He has experience at much larger IT divisions in other DHS components, though, including ICE and CBP.

At the cyber agency, Costello said he gets to be more “hands on” as CIO of a relatively new standalone component.

“There have been days where I’m handing out laptops or configuring stuff,” he said during last week’s event.

The CIO’s office has a staff of about 90 people, Costello said. A priority for the coming year, he said, is expanding support to CISA’s growing field operations, including statewide cybersecurity directors, chemical security advisors, and regional directors.

“I’m starting to embed my folks out in the field and provide improved services out there so that they have the same level of technology as we do here at headquarters,” Costello said.

CISA has seen a rapid growth in recent years as both the Biden administration and Congress have looked to the agency to respond to cybersecurity threats in particular. The agency has taken on a lead role in the cybersecurity of the federal civilian executive branch. It’s also working more closely with private industry to combat cyber threats to critical infrastructure.

Costello said his role CIO is to support those growing functions with up-to-date technology. Still, he said the CIO organization at CISA is still a work in progress.

“We’re definitely maturing a lot of our processes, building a component CIO office,” he said. “I really do think it’s going to take a few years to kind of get to the same level of say, an ICE or CBP, where we’re doing all those functions ourselves. And so in some areas, maybe I’ve slowed down some work because we’re not quite there at that maturity level as we stabilize other areas.”

With CISA looking to attract top cybersecurity talent, Costello said the agency needs to use the most up-to-date technology. He said a big focus for him has been supporting different devices, including Macs and Androids, he said. In December, for example, CISA began using Slack for internal collaboration.

“We really need to be a place where people want to come to work for the tech,” Costello said.

Costello is also aiming to set the bar high when it comes to federal cybersecurity by ensuring CISA’s internal security complies with the agency’s mandates and guidance in areas like zero trust architectures.

A big focus for CISA’s internal security developments is identity, credential and access management (ICAM), an area in which Costello said the agency is currently “lacking.” But at the same time, the CIO said he has the advantage of being able to build new, “green field” solutions rather than needing to update an extensive legacy IT environment.

“I had some goals in mind this year,” Costello said. “We met a lot of them. Some of them are going to slip, and that’s okay, because I want to build a really strong foundation that CISA can build on for a decade. And so I’d rather take a six month slip on a project than build a really poor foundation. So that’s what we’re concentrating on: identity, monitoring systems, and building our people and in teams up, deciding what the federal-to-contractor makeup is going to look like, and what skill sets that we need.”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition-policy/2022/07/key-cyber-agency-set-to-get-procurement-authority-contracting-officers/feed/ 0
GSA hits the play button on POLARIS by finalizing solicitation updates https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contractsawards/2022/07/gsa-hits-the-play-button-on-polaris-by-finalizing-solicitation-updates/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contractsawards/2022/07/gsa-hits-the-play-button-on-polaris-by-finalizing-solicitation-updates/#respond Fri, 01 Jul 2022 17:32:49 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4132617 After nearly a two-month pause, the POLARIS small business IT services governmentwide acquisition contract is back in play.

The General Services Administration re-released the solicitation on June 30 with updates to the mentor-protégé and joint venture experience submission requirements, the definition of relevant experience and the documents needed to establish the mentor-protégé or joint venture relationship.

Small businesses have until Aug. 10, to submit their bids, for this 10-year contract that could be worth tens of billions of dollars, but has no specific ceiling. Questions about the RFP are due to GSA by July 12.

“Overall, I think the RFP looks good. It is more in line with the original draft, with respect to mentor-protégé/join ventures, and seems to have clarified many of the ambiguous instructions,” said Courtney Fairchild, the president and CEO of Global Services, a proposal services firm, in an email to Federal News Network. “I think it strikes a good balance between small business prime/subcontractor teams and MPJV teams. Overall, I am not disappointed with the RFP. GSA listened to feedback before final release.”

The mentor-protégé and joint venture submission requirements have been at the heart of the concerns about POLARIS over the last few months.

Relevant experience updates

GSA now is requiring mentees to provide at least one example of relevant experience and limits mentors to only three examples. Previously, there were no limits or minimums for either mentor or protégé. This experience can include task orders under the schedules or a blanket purchase agreement, a single contract or subcontract and, just added, other transaction agreements (OTAs).

“It seems like GSA is just following the NITAAC book with the protégé experience requirements — i.e., requiring one experience example from the protégé to show some experience. This is what I thought they were going to do,” said Cy Alba, an attorney with PilieroMazza in Washington, D.C. “The Small Business Administration regulations do not provide direct guidance on this question and so it does seem like agencies have some level of discretion in making the determination about how much experience the protégé would need to show. That said, they cannot discriminate against protégés as that would violate SBA regulations. Unfortunately, the law is not clear on where that boundary lies and, if protested, it will be up to GAO or the Court of Federal Claims to make that determination.  This is consistent with other compromises on the issue though, like CIO-SP4.”

Additionally, the new solicitation tells vendors to detail “the work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. If any partner or the joint venture itself has no previous work done or no qualifications held, this should be stated” in the submission forms.

A third change would let mentor-protégé teams and joint ventures can submit relevant experience of their subcontractors as part of their bid as long as the experience happened under the joint venture umbrella.

“I’m sure some of the experience requirements, like requiring at least 6-months of performance, or how IDIQ contract value is calculated, may bring the ire of some small businesses but I am not sure those requirements are legally objectionable,” Alba said.

Fairchild added the changes GSA made may still give mentor-protégé teams and joint ventures an advantage in the self-scoring system given the probability that large businesses will have more large value projects to offer.

“I like that they brought the minimum period of performance down from one year to 6 months — seems to be more friendly to small businesses,” she said.

Concerns remain about the RFP

Other industry experts were less certain about GSA’s changes.

Larry Allen, the president of Allen Federal Business Partners, said the three and one relevant experience requirement continues to favor large businesses in what is supposed to be a small business contract.

“GSA is really trying to balance the contract so that both experienced small businesses and less experienced, newer market entries can potentially participate on POLARIS. The basic idea is to get new participants into the market,” he said. “Also, while offerors using companies that don’t have relevant prior experience must disclose that, I am not sure that such information will automatically disqualify a company. My belief is that GSA will look at the overall team submitting the offer. Again, they want to enable new company participation as much as possible.”

Lisa Mundt, co-founder of the Pulse of GovCon, said GSA may have caused additional confusion, specifically for women-owned small businesses (WOSB).

“The WOSB track RFP states, ‘A minimum of one primary relevant experience project or emerging technology relevant experience project must be from a WOSB.’ However The offeror must submit a MINIMUM OF THREE (3) and may submit a MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) distinct primary relevant experience projects and a MAXIMUM of three (3) emerging technology relevant experience projects. Does this mean if a bidder submits a maximum of 8 Relevant Experience submissions, that only one needs to be from a WOSB?” Mundt said. “We’re all for minimizing barriers to entry, but if the purpose is to provide access to best-in-class women-owned small businesses, then shouldn’t the bidder’s submission reflect that? Otherwise, the WOSB becomes a front for other companies outside the classification. The WOSB set aside is already abused in the industry with men naming their wives as ‘CEO’ – this just further exploits women business owners as props.”

GSA came under fire when it released the original RFP in March, specifically for last-minute changes it made to the requirements for mentor-protégé and joint venture bidders. After BD Squared filed a protest with the Government Accountability, GSA paused the solicitation to re-look at the requirements and obtain feedback from contractors.

In May, GSA released draft changes to POLARIS, seeking industry feedback and then incorporating that into the updated final solicitation.

Sonny Hashmi, the commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, said in May interview that the team was trying to find the best approach to create the most opportunities for small firms.

“There’s going to be a trade-off that we need to find and that’s just reality,” he said. “Depending on the feedback that we get, and then to what extent we need to completely change strategy will determine the timeline. I’m hoping that the adjustment that we’ve made or proposed in our updated criteria is it meets the expectations of industry.”

Roger Waldron, the president of the Coalition for Government Procurement, praised GSA’s approach to improving POLARIS.

“GSA’s process for addressing the challenges to the POLARIS evaluation was transparent, providing interested small businesses and others the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes. This approach was critical in demonstrating GSA’s commitment to developing a reasonable evaluation approach that balances the relative merits of small businesses, joint ventures and contractor teaming arrangements,” he said in an email to Federal News Network. “GSA clearly has moved the ball here, and now, potential offerors will have time to digest the changes and respond by Aug. 10.”

 

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contractsawards/2022/07/gsa-hits-the-play-button-on-polaris-by-finalizing-solicitation-updates/feed/ 0
The role of health care in the pillars of national security https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2022/07/the-role-of-health-care-in-the-pillars-of-national-security/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2022/07/the-role-of-health-care-in-the-pillars-of-national-security/#respond Fri, 01 Jul 2022 14:26:15 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4132250 This column was originally published on Roger Waldron’s blog at The Coalition for Government Procurement and was republished here with permission from the author.

In a previous blog, we discussed the integrity and resiliency of the supply chains for health care products and pharmaceuticals, focusing on how these issues are a matter of national security.

During our Spring Training Conference, we were fortunate to have Moshe Schwartz, president of Etherton and Associates, dig deeper into the three pillars that make up national security and how recent events, including the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation, have reshaped our nation’s thinking about them. These three pillars include defense, health care, and economy.

During his remarks, Schwartz emphasized that health care underpins each of the three the pillars. The chart below outlines the components of national security and how health care plays a crucial role in each. Additionally, the figure demonstrates that supply chains, stockpiles and surge capacity, and research and development cut across all three elements of national security.

The first key component of national security highlighted above is military defense. The Defense pillar encapsulates the protection of our nation against foreign adversaries and the threat of terrorism. In order to ensure that the warfighter can effectively protect the nation, it is vital that the armed services have access to the latest health care supplies and pharmaceuticals. Without a healthy active military, the ability to defend against the risk of attacks from outside threats would be greatly hindered. It is equally important to provide the best health care for our veterans post service. Additionally, the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries are essential to the defense against biological and chemical weapons. In a technologically evolving world, the military must have access to the appropriate medical countermeasures to eliminate these potential hazards. Finally, the relationship between Defense and health care is shown through several advancements in medicine and medical technologies as the result of military investment.

The second pillar shaping national security is health care, which includes the health and wellness of the American people. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic is particularly crucial to this component of security. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “COVID-19 was associated with approximately 460,000 deaths in the U.S. during January-December 2021.” Also notably, in 2021 COVID-19 remained the third leading cause of death in the country behind heart disease and cancer. CDC statistics show that from 2019 to 2020, life expectancy dropped from 78.8 years to 77.3 years, citing the pandemic as the primary cause of the decrease. Response to the pandemic was critical to preserving national security. Operation Warp Speed (OWS), an effort led by multiple government agencies, including the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, accelerated the delivery of hundreds of millions of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics to Americans. While ultimately successful, OWS was impeded by a lack of stockpiles and a lack of infrastructure capable of more quickly surging resources to develop and distribute the vaccine. A shortage in personal protective equipment was also a result of sparse stockpiles and surge capacity limits. COVID-19 provided insights into the importance of medical readiness, and offered lessons learned to address future pandemics. Effective pharmaceuticals and health care products are always fundamental to combatting diseases and ensuring the health of our nation as a whole.

The third and final pillar of national security is economy. Economic security is important for promoting growth, innovation, and development within a nation. Health care plays a major role in the U.S. economy. As mentioned in the last blog, health care spending represented 19.7% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2020. Additionally, according to the Brookings Institution, health care spending accounted for 17.7% of the U.S. economy and 24% of government spending in 2018. Also, as of 2019, the health care sector employed 11% of Americans. Consequently, disruptions to the pharmaceutical and health care product supply chains would have grave impacts on the country’s economy. Currently, the U.S. relies heavily on foreign sources for raw ingredients for pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment, and medical equipment. These supply chains also remain vulnerable to cyber threats. More resilient American supply chains will strengthen domestic manufacturing capabilities, and sturdy supply chains with allies will greatly benefit national security.

In order to maintain a resilient health care capability, the U.S. must take steps to strengthen supply chains, build stockpiles and surge capacity, and invest in research and development. These areas directly impact the three pillars of national security. Strengthening these components will help us be better prepared to respond to the next health national security threat, whether it comes in the form of a pandemic or a foreign adversary. The meaning of national security has evolved with these unique current events, and as Schwartz said in his speech, “the decisions that get made over the next couple of years are going to influence how we do things going forward.”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2022/07/the-role-of-health-care-in-the-pillars-of-national-security/feed/ 0
When key personnel really do matter in bidding for federal contracts https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/when-key-personnel-really-do-matter-in-bidding-for-federal-contracts/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/when-key-personnel-really-do-matter-in-bidding-for-federal-contracts/#respond Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:45:30 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4128034 var config_4127895 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062922_Petrillo_web_211d_d30a4f85.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=b7818747-a89b-46ce-89b2-f773d30a4f85&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"When key personnel really do matter in bidding for federal contracts","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4127895']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em><span style="color: #0070c0;">Apple Podcast<\/span><\/em><span style="color: #0070c0;">s<\/span><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnIt's an old question. An agency awards a services contract because of specific people the contractor promised would work on the project. Then one of them quits. In the ensuing protest cases, the Government Accountability Office and the federal courts seem to be of differing minds. The\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/"><strong><em>Federal Drive with Tom Temin<\/em><\/strong><\/a> gets more now from Smith Pachter McWhorter procurement attorney Joe Petrillo.nn<em>Interview transcript:<\/em>n<blockquote><strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>We had a protest case where the key personnel person left and this was known to the agency and they went ahead with the award anyway, what happened? Tell us more about this case.nn<strong>Joseph Petrillo: <\/strong>All right. So here's the the situation, as you mentioned, when the government's buying services, it's customary to evaluate offered key personnel. And it's very clear that when a bidder proposes someone for work on the contract, the bidder has to have a good faith belief that that person is going to be available. But what happens when the person becomes unavailable after proposals are submitted? And there as you eluded the Government Accountability Office, in its bid protest decisions, say that the offeror needs to inform the government of the unavailability even after proposal submission. In a recent decision we discussed a few weeks ago, one judge on the Court of Federal Claims, said no, there's no such obligation in the statute or the regulations. So we have this differing view. And it's illustrated again, by this recent decision in the Sehlke Consulting case, a GAO bid protest decision, it arose from a contract competition by the National Reconnaissance Office, part of DoD, they were buying finance support services. They were looking to award a cost plus award fee contract, they did that through a best value, trade off acquisition, and had both cost and non-cost factors which were weighted equally. In the non-cost factors, the most important sub-factor of the most important factor was key personnel. The issue we've been talking about here, that was an extremely important part of the evaluation. And it became a subject to the protest. KPMG, the incumbent won the contract. Another bidder, Sehlke Consulting, protested to the GAO that evaluation showed that Sehlke's evaluated cost was about you know, 4 or 5% lower than KPMG's, but KPMG had higher ratings in the non-cost factors.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And one of the non cost factors that weighed in favor of KPMG was this key personnel that worked for a subcontractor?nn<strong>Joseph Petrillo: <\/strong>Right, that turned out to be pivotal. It was the only sub-factor where any offeror had received an exceptional ranking. And in the source selection decision, it was identified as the distinguishing factor that determined contract award. So it was crucial.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Yeah, so what happened with that person?nn<strong>Joseph Petrillo: <\/strong>Sure. So the person resigned while offerors were being evaluated. But after proposal submission, and NRO became aware of that, because KPMG is the incumbent contractor, notifed them that the person who's also working on the contract was resigning. Even though NRO had received that information, it was after proposal submission, and so they did not take it into account in making the award decision or in evaluating the proposals. Where after Sehlke protested, however, GAO sustained the protest and held it was unreasonable for NRO not to consider the unavailability of the person that it knew about.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>We're speaking with Joseph Petrillo. He's a procurement attorney with Smith Pachter McWhorter. And earlier you said that in another case, the court had taken the opposite view that it was immaterial, basically, to the award that a key person on the bidding had left. Could the difference be the criteria of the agency? That is to say, in one case, could the key personnel have been more important in supplier selection than it was in the other case? And that's why the GAO and the courts differed? Or is there some fundamental disagreement here?nn<strong>Joseph Petrillo: <\/strong>That there was some discussion of the court case in the GAO decision. GAO pointed out one important difference between the two and that is that in the court decision, there was no indication the agency was aware of the unavailability. And here the agency was aware of the unavailability. So GAO felt that that was a sufficient difference to distinguish it but they also were very clear that they're not obliged to follow the decisions of a single judge on the Court of Federal Claims, and so they're going to be going their own way it seems.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>All right, so getting back to this particular case, then of NRO and Sehlke versus KPMG. Sehlke protested. It was sustained by GAO because of the departure of that person from KPMG's team, what happens next?nn<strong>Joseph Petrillo: <\/strong>Well, under the GAO bid protest decision, the recommendation is that NRO has to choose one of two alternatives. One, either reevaluate the KPMG proposal without the person who's become unavailable. And that's one of four key personnel or reopen the procurement and allow all offerors to submit revised proposals.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Or find out where that person went to work and then get them to bid.nn<strong>Joseph Petrillo: <\/strong>Presumably, that's not an option because the procurements ongoing and the number of offerors is set. But these cases raise really, really interesting policy decisions and policy implications. If you look at GAO's position, their feeling is well, how can we have a good evaluation, rational evaluation of proposals, if one of the most important factors if not the most important factor is based on a situation that's not true? That's not valid. It will may have been true when proposals were submitted, but it's no longer the case. But on the other hand, you've got a situation in the regulations, as the Court of Federal Claims pointed out, where there's a deadline for the submission of proposals, proposals are submitted. And there is no real mechanism for one offeror to modify his proposal or substitute out an important aspect of performance, while the government's doing the evaluation. If you set up this rule where you have to notify the agency of the unavailability of someone, well, you've got a situation there where the agency's put into a very difficult position because it has to decide, well, are we going to kick this offeror out of the procurement or put it in a situation where it's highly disadvantaged in the evaluation? Or are we going to reopen the procurement for amendments and modifications by all the offerors and the competitive range and potentially go through multiple rounds of bidding and evaluation? So it's a difficult decision with no clear good answer under those circumstances.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Joe Petrillo is a procurement attorney with Smith Pachter McWhorter again, no resolution, but we'll see what happens. Thanks for joining me.nn<strong>Joseph Petrillo: <\/strong>Thank you, Tom.<\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

It’s an old question. An agency awards a services contract because of specific people the contractor promised would work on the project. Then one of them quits. In the ensuing protest cases, the Government Accountability Office and the federal courts seem to be of differing minds. The Federal Drive with Tom Temin gets more now from Smith Pachter McWhorter procurement attorney Joe Petrillo.

Interview transcript:

Tom Temin: We had a protest case where the key personnel person left and this was known to the agency and they went ahead with the award anyway, what happened? Tell us more about this case.

Joseph Petrillo: All right. So here’s the the situation, as you mentioned, when the government’s buying services, it’s customary to evaluate offered key personnel. And it’s very clear that when a bidder proposes someone for work on the contract, the bidder has to have a good faith belief that that person is going to be available. But what happens when the person becomes unavailable after proposals are submitted? And there as you eluded the Government Accountability Office, in its bid protest decisions, say that the offeror needs to inform the government of the unavailability even after proposal submission. In a recent decision we discussed a few weeks ago, one judge on the Court of Federal Claims, said no, there’s no such obligation in the statute or the regulations. So we have this differing view. And it’s illustrated again, by this recent decision in the Sehlke Consulting case, a GAO bid protest decision, it arose from a contract competition by the National Reconnaissance Office, part of DoD, they were buying finance support services. They were looking to award a cost plus award fee contract, they did that through a best value, trade off acquisition, and had both cost and non-cost factors which were weighted equally. In the non-cost factors, the most important sub-factor of the most important factor was key personnel. The issue we’ve been talking about here, that was an extremely important part of the evaluation. And it became a subject to the protest. KPMG, the incumbent won the contract. Another bidder, Sehlke Consulting, protested to the GAO that evaluation showed that Sehlke’s evaluated cost was about you know, 4 or 5% lower than KPMG’s, but KPMG had higher ratings in the non-cost factors.

Tom Temin: And one of the non cost factors that weighed in favor of KPMG was this key personnel that worked for a subcontractor?

Joseph Petrillo: Right, that turned out to be pivotal. It was the only sub-factor where any offeror had received an exceptional ranking. And in the source selection decision, it was identified as the distinguishing factor that determined contract award. So it was crucial.

Tom Temin: Yeah, so what happened with that person?

Joseph Petrillo: Sure. So the person resigned while offerors were being evaluated. But after proposal submission, and NRO became aware of that, because KPMG is the incumbent contractor, notifed them that the person who’s also working on the contract was resigning. Even though NRO had received that information, it was after proposal submission, and so they did not take it into account in making the award decision or in evaluating the proposals. Where after Sehlke protested, however, GAO sustained the protest and held it was unreasonable for NRO not to consider the unavailability of the person that it knew about.

Tom Temin: We’re speaking with Joseph Petrillo. He’s a procurement attorney with Smith Pachter McWhorter. And earlier you said that in another case, the court had taken the opposite view that it was immaterial, basically, to the award that a key person on the bidding had left. Could the difference be the criteria of the agency? That is to say, in one case, could the key personnel have been more important in supplier selection than it was in the other case? And that’s why the GAO and the courts differed? Or is there some fundamental disagreement here?

Joseph Petrillo: That there was some discussion of the court case in the GAO decision. GAO pointed out one important difference between the two and that is that in the court decision, there was no indication the agency was aware of the unavailability. And here the agency was aware of the unavailability. So GAO felt that that was a sufficient difference to distinguish it but they also were very clear that they’re not obliged to follow the decisions of a single judge on the Court of Federal Claims, and so they’re going to be going their own way it seems.

Tom Temin: All right, so getting back to this particular case, then of NRO and Sehlke versus KPMG. Sehlke protested. It was sustained by GAO because of the departure of that person from KPMG’s team, what happens next?

Joseph Petrillo: Well, under the GAO bid protest decision, the recommendation is that NRO has to choose one of two alternatives. One, either reevaluate the KPMG proposal without the person who’s become unavailable. And that’s one of four key personnel or reopen the procurement and allow all offerors to submit revised proposals.

Tom Temin: Or find out where that person went to work and then get them to bid.

Joseph Petrillo: Presumably, that’s not an option because the procurements ongoing and the number of offerors is set. But these cases raise really, really interesting policy decisions and policy implications. If you look at GAO’s position, their feeling is well, how can we have a good evaluation, rational evaluation of proposals, if one of the most important factors if not the most important factor is based on a situation that’s not true? That’s not valid. It will may have been true when proposals were submitted, but it’s no longer the case. But on the other hand, you’ve got a situation in the regulations, as the Court of Federal Claims pointed out, where there’s a deadline for the submission of proposals, proposals are submitted. And there is no real mechanism for one offeror to modify his proposal or substitute out an important aspect of performance, while the government’s doing the evaluation. If you set up this rule where you have to notify the agency of the unavailability of someone, well, you’ve got a situation there where the agency’s put into a very difficult position because it has to decide, well, are we going to kick this offeror out of the procurement or put it in a situation where it’s highly disadvantaged in the evaluation? Or are we going to reopen the procurement for amendments and modifications by all the offerors and the competitive range and potentially go through multiple rounds of bidding and evaluation? So it’s a difficult decision with no clear good answer under those circumstances.

Tom Temin: Joe Petrillo is a procurement attorney with Smith Pachter McWhorter again, no resolution, but we’ll see what happens. Thanks for joining me.

Joseph Petrillo: Thank you, Tom.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/when-key-personnel-really-do-matter-in-bidding-for-federal-contracts/feed/ 0
USPTO putting foundational piece of zero trust architecture in place https://federalnewsnetwork.com/cybersecurity/2022/06/uspto-putting-foundational-piece-of-zero-trust-architecture-in-place/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/cybersecurity/2022/06/uspto-putting-foundational-piece-of-zero-trust-architecture-in-place/#respond Wed, 29 Jun 2022 13:24:04 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4127859 var config_4127894 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062922_Jason_web_6v9x_f2fc1bbd.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=a350e42d-5999-4ba8-a7dc-1acef2fc1bbd&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"USPTO putting foundational piece of zero trust architecture in place","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4127894']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em><span style="color: #0070c0;">Apple Podcast<\/span><\/em><span style="color: #0070c0;">s<\/span><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is taking a huge step to reduce the cyber risks from its employees.nnTime and again, cybersecurity research finds the employee is the weakest cyber link. The fiscal 2020 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) <a href="https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/05\/FY-2020-FISMA-Report-to-Congress.pdf">report to Congress<\/a> said two of the top three risk and vulnerability assessments findings were directly related to employees, spear phishing weaknesses and easily, crack-able passwords. The Office of Management and Budget hasn\u2019t released the 2021 FISMA report to Congress, which typically comes out at the end of May.nnTo that end, USPTO will be among the first agencies to implement a Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) architecture.nn[caption id="attachment_2867404" align="alignright" width="300"]<img class="size-medium wp-image-2867404" src="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Jamie-Holcombe-300x200.jpg" alt="Head shot of Jamie Holcomb" width="300" height="200" \/> Jamie Holcombe is the chief information officer (CIO) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). (Photo by Jay Premack\/USPTO)[\/caption]nnJamie Holcombe, the chief information officer for USPTO, said SASE will accelerate USPTO\u2019s journey <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/federal-insights\/2022\/06\/disa-already-preparing-for-whats-to-come-after-thunderdome-to-evolve-zero-trust\/">to zero trust<\/a>.nn\u201cI think it's the first foundational piece of the zero trust architecture that we get to actually act upon. So with the executive order, and zero trust architecture, the fact is that it's not one product, it's more of a philosophy. I like SASE as that architectural philosophy to ensure that we can identify users and devices, and apply the policy-base security controls, delivering that secure access to the applications and ensuring that our data is secure,\u201d Holcombe said in an interview with Federal News Network. \u201cThe fact that SASE addresses the architecture and that philosophy around that scope is providing us the first time that we can really concentrate on that architecture and the ability to actually go into it and use products, not just one product, but products in that philosophy for ensuring SASE and zero trust.\u201dnnSASE, which is one of the latest cyber buzzwords, attempts to converge multiple security technologies for web, cloud, data and threat protection into a platform the attempts to protect users, data and applications in the cloud and on-premise.nnThe move toward a SASE model will help eliminate perimeter-based tools and gives security operators a \u201csingle pane of glass\u201d from which to ensure the safety users, data and devices and apply a consistent security policy.nnUSPTO awarded Netskope contract that could be worth $4 million and last as long as 19 months to implement the SASE architecture.nnHolcombe said by implementing the SASE architecture, USPTO will drive security to the edge instead of <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/cloud-computing\/2021\/09\/cloud-exchange-usptos-jamie-holcombe\/">just the network<\/a>.nn\u201cWhat we're talking about is the identification of users, the identification of devices and all the things in between the OSI layers [where computers communicate with each other] to put them all together in a secure way,\u201d he said. \u201cNetskope\u2019s product actually provides the ability for that architecture. But there's a lot of other things that you need to plug and play in order to be that secure. So that's what the edge means to me going out and securing not just one part but all the parts in an architecture.\u201dn<h2>Risk scores driving decisions<\/h2>nBeau Hutto, the vice president of federal at Netskope, said this approach lets agencies apply what they know about users, devices and other factors like location to create a risk profile and then apply to in a \u201cleast privileged\u201d way.nn\u201cThe user should have a risk score. The actual device should have a risk score. The data has a sensitivity score. So being able to bring a very basic layer all of that together and what access you give to that data because really the crown jewels is the data, it's no longer the network,\u201d Hutto said. \u201cWhen you go to protect that data, you have to understand the context in which everything's being accessed. That is truly where least privilege zero trust architectures come into play in a significant way.\u201dnnThrough SASE, USPTO is putting the employee and data at the center of the security effort. Holcombe said if they can reduce the ability of the user from clicking a link or give up their network credentials, then the agency\u2019s cyber posture will greatly improve.nn\u201cWhat I like about SASE is the fact that the machine-device control plane is in the realm of the user. I'm just doing a service and I don't care what server it sits on. But when I create that cyber secure session, what I can do that is ensure that machine-device control plane actually has the right risk profile and it's a two-way scoring. It's just as important for the user to be secure as the device is to be secure, and everything in between the application, the data and the network,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat I'm really trying to do is pull that scope that surface area of the user and bring it down into the technical, such that the user doesn't have to care and that it's more of a machine-device control plane. That's the way we get our security done.\u201dnnHutto added creating that platform or single pane of glass breaks down the silos that have built up over the last few decades around security.n<h2>Accelerating the move to the cloud<\/h2>nThrough SASE, USPTO, or any agency for that matter, will capture and analyze cyber information in a more standardized, scalable and agile way.nn\u201cWe've had the opportunity to re-imagine how our security stack can look, should it be a security stack in the cloud or as-a-service? Where the first hit that your user makes is to the service and whether they go on-premise or back out to the cloud, it's just in a very elegant, easy, very performant solution,\u201d Hutto said.nnHolcombe said it will take some time before USPTO fully implements a SASE architecture. He said he will start with the <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/technology-main\/2020\/07\/uspto-cio-sees-uptick-in-productivity-it-investments-pay-off-during-pandemic\/">applications already in the cloud<\/a>, about 17% of all applications the agency runs.nn\u201cWe are staging for about the next 17% to 20%. So we'll have around 35% to 40% of our applications in the cloud before the end of the year. That's from almost 3% to 4% two years ago,\u201d he said. \u201cSome of the applications are not there. The ones that are going to be there are in the next 20% to 30%, we're actually refactoring them with our product design teams. We're actually including cybersecurity and testing, and doing the continuous integration and continuous deployment in these new applications. But there's about 30% of our applications that will never go out in the cloud. They are just too old.\u201dnnHolcombe said the more USPTO puts applications and workloads in the cloud and use DevSecOps to continually modernize them, the more it can take advantage of SASE.nn\u201cOne of my design philosophies besides pushing security to the edge is also the fact that I will not deploy something until I know I can rip it out in three years. I want to replace any tool that I put in, because that is the speed in which these tools are being rejuvenated, and there's better tools in three years,\u201d he said. \u201cIf you design something that lasts anywhere from 5 to 10 years, you're wrong. Design it to do what you needed to do in three years, and then look to other things to replace it. The return on investment needs to be within three years or don't do it.\u201d"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is taking a huge step to reduce the cyber risks from its employees.

Time and again, cybersecurity research finds the employee is the weakest cyber link. The fiscal 2020 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) report to Congress said two of the top three risk and vulnerability assessments findings were directly related to employees, spear phishing weaknesses and easily, crack-able passwords. The Office of Management and Budget hasn’t released the 2021 FISMA report to Congress, which typically comes out at the end of May.

To that end, USPTO will be among the first agencies to implement a Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) architecture.

Head shot of Jamie Holcomb
Jamie Holcombe is the chief information officer (CIO) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). (Photo by Jay Premack/USPTO)

Jamie Holcombe, the chief information officer for USPTO, said SASE will accelerate USPTO’s journey to zero trust.

“I think it’s the first foundational piece of the zero trust architecture that we get to actually act upon. So with the executive order, and zero trust architecture, the fact is that it’s not one product, it’s more of a philosophy. I like SASE as that architectural philosophy to ensure that we can identify users and devices, and apply the policy-base security controls, delivering that secure access to the applications and ensuring that our data is secure,” Holcombe said in an interview with Federal News Network. “The fact that SASE addresses the architecture and that philosophy around that scope is providing us the first time that we can really concentrate on that architecture and the ability to actually go into it and use products, not just one product, but products in that philosophy for ensuring SASE and zero trust.”

SASE, which is one of the latest cyber buzzwords, attempts to converge multiple security technologies for web, cloud, data and threat protection into a platform the attempts to protect users, data and applications in the cloud and on-premise.

The move toward a SASE model will help eliminate perimeter-based tools and gives security operators a “single pane of glass” from which to ensure the safety users, data and devices and apply a consistent security policy.

USPTO awarded Netskope contract that could be worth $4 million and last as long as 19 months to implement the SASE architecture.

Holcombe said by implementing the SASE architecture, USPTO will drive security to the edge instead of just the network.

“What we’re talking about is the identification of users, the identification of devices and all the things in between the OSI layers [where computers communicate with each other] to put them all together in a secure way,” he said. “Netskope’s product actually provides the ability for that architecture. But there’s a lot of other things that you need to plug and play in order to be that secure. So that’s what the edge means to me going out and securing not just one part but all the parts in an architecture.”

Risk scores driving decisions

Beau Hutto, the vice president of federal at Netskope, said this approach lets agencies apply what they know about users, devices and other factors like location to create a risk profile and then apply to in a “least privileged” way.

“The user should have a risk score. The actual device should have a risk score. The data has a sensitivity score. So being able to bring a very basic layer all of that together and what access you give to that data because really the crown jewels is the data, it’s no longer the network,” Hutto said. “When you go to protect that data, you have to understand the context in which everything’s being accessed. That is truly where least privilege zero trust architectures come into play in a significant way.”

Through SASE, USPTO is putting the employee and data at the center of the security effort. Holcombe said if they can reduce the ability of the user from clicking a link or give up their network credentials, then the agency’s cyber posture will greatly improve.

“What I like about SASE is the fact that the machine-device control plane is in the realm of the user. I’m just doing a service and I don’t care what server it sits on. But when I create that cyber secure session, what I can do that is ensure that machine-device control plane actually has the right risk profile and it’s a two-way scoring. It’s just as important for the user to be secure as the device is to be secure, and everything in between the application, the data and the network,” he said. “What I’m really trying to do is pull that scope that surface area of the user and bring it down into the technical, such that the user doesn’t have to care and that it’s more of a machine-device control plane. That’s the way we get our security done.”

Hutto added creating that platform or single pane of glass breaks down the silos that have built up over the last few decades around security.

Accelerating the move to the cloud

Through SASE, USPTO, or any agency for that matter, will capture and analyze cyber information in a more standardized, scalable and agile way.

“We’ve had the opportunity to re-imagine how our security stack can look, should it be a security stack in the cloud or as-a-service? Where the first hit that your user makes is to the service and whether they go on-premise or back out to the cloud, it’s just in a very elegant, easy, very performant solution,” Hutto said.

Holcombe said it will take some time before USPTO fully implements a SASE architecture. He said he will start with the applications already in the cloud, about 17% of all applications the agency runs.

“We are staging for about the next 17% to 20%. So we’ll have around 35% to 40% of our applications in the cloud before the end of the year. That’s from almost 3% to 4% two years ago,” he said. “Some of the applications are not there. The ones that are going to be there are in the next 20% to 30%, we’re actually refactoring them with our product design teams. We’re actually including cybersecurity and testing, and doing the continuous integration and continuous deployment in these new applications. But there’s about 30% of our applications that will never go out in the cloud. They are just too old.”

Holcombe said the more USPTO puts applications and workloads in the cloud and use DevSecOps to continually modernize them, the more it can take advantage of SASE.

“One of my design philosophies besides pushing security to the edge is also the fact that I will not deploy something until I know I can rip it out in three years. I want to replace any tool that I put in, because that is the speed in which these tools are being rejuvenated, and there’s better tools in three years,” he said. “If you design something that lasts anywhere from 5 to 10 years, you’re wrong. Design it to do what you needed to do in three years, and then look to other things to replace it. The return on investment needs to be within three years or don’t do it.”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/cybersecurity/2022/06/uspto-putting-foundational-piece-of-zero-trust-architecture-in-place/feed/ 0
Contractors start looking at what’s in the defense authorization bill for 2023 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2022/06/contractors-start-looking-at-whats-in-the-defense-authorization-bill-for-2023/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2022/06/contractors-start-looking-at-whats-in-the-defense-authorization-bill-for-2023/#respond Tue, 28 Jun 2022 17:13:13 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4126095 var config_4126009 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062822_Berteau_web_j3o4_e2692f9f.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=9dec0176-2cdc-4315-a873-3871e2692f9f&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"Contractors start looking at what’s in the defense authorization bill for 2023","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4126009']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em><span style="color: #0070c0;">Apple Podcast<\/span><\/em><span style="color: #0070c0;">s<\/span><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnThe House Armed Services committee spent time last week marking up the defense authorization bill for 2023. As always, the NDAA has a lot to say about procurement and contractors. But it doesn't say anything about whether they're compensated for inflation. Joining the\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/"><strong><em>Federal Drive with Tom Temin<\/em><\/strong><\/a> with what the services contractor community is watching closely, Professional Services Council president David Berteau.nn<em>Interview transcript:<\/em>n<blockquote><strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>David, do you listened in on this, and what do you see going on here with respect to contractors?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>Yeah, Tom, there was a welcome change, you know, the entire House Armed Services Committee markup was done live on the web starting at 10 a.m. Last Thursday and lasting until midnight or later, I didn't stay up all the way to the end, I confess, but we got to see hundreds of amendments disposed of the final bill, we're waiting to see the actual language of the final bill. But it did add, you know, $37 billion to the DoD (Department of Defense) request. This is a little bit short of what the Senate added, they added 45 billion, but we haven't seen the Senate's language yet, either. They just put out a little bit of a press release that touted a couple of items. The big issue for companies, though, is how does this help them address the inflation that they're experiencing today, particularly workforce inflation, the extra cost of workers, not only to recruit them, but to retain them?nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Right. And so contracts that might be ongoing, that have certain labor and rates built into them. You'd be stuck if those rates continue, but the labor costs are going up?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>Right? Well, look, we're living in fiscal year 22. Right now. Right? So the legislation is for FY 23, which doesn't start until Oct. 1. And as we expect, won't actually start until sometime well after that, because we'll be under a continuing resolution for a while. This year's budget FY 22, assumed an inflation rate of about 2.2%. It's actually as we know, 8.6% or higher in many cases for government employees and government contractors. Well, that's a difference of, you know, $50 billion right there across the board for the Defense Department. None of that is addressed in the NDAA. There's a 4% assumption of inflation for FY 23, which is, again, is about $30 billion short, if you assume that today's inflation goes on forward. They attempted to address that, but only in a couple of areas.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>All right. And what about procurement? I mean, so you'll go broke trying to fulfill contracts on fixed prices that we can pretty much assume but often the NDAA has procurement provisions. What do you see shaping up here this time?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>It does in some of the procurement provisions. Of course, you know, we watch these very closely. A number of amendments were proposed that could add some value to this. A couple more proposed that would not. One that we were particularly pleased to see go down to defeat was a proposal to interfere with the e-commerce pilot project. You may remember a few years ago, the FY 18 National Defense Authorization Act created an e-commerce portal pilot project under the General Services Administration. And ultimately, GSA awarded contracts to three companies. And it's a three year pilot. This is a real pilot, unlike some pilots, which are just designed to take care of an issue and put it on the shelf after the pilot is done. It's a real pilot to see if we can have the government buy off the internet the same way you and I do every day. Well, not every day. But every day we buy, we buy something there, right? And this is now two years into it. This amendment would have kicked one of the current contractors off the contract. This is a major precedent, it would set up the Congress interfering legislatively in an ongoing contract by essentially forcing a termination for convenience by the government without any rationale or cause other than the fact that Congress decided it was time to do that.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Which one did they want to get rid of?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>They didn't specify the name of the company. What the amendment did is it said, no company can be on this contract if their market cap, their actual stock value times the number of shares outstanding, is more than $600 billion. Well, there's only one company of the three on the contract that meets that test, right? The three companies on this contract were Fisher Scientific, Home Depot and Amazon. And you can do the arithmetic in your head as to which one meets that test. So the amendment did not specify by name. But it's not so much the company involved as it is the precedent that this would set if Congress interfering in an existing contract. The whole federal procurement system depends upon the integrity of the process. And the ability of contracting officers to exercise their want in the interest of the federal government and particularly something that's already two years in of a three year contract made no sense whatsoever. So we were really pleased to see this go down to defeat in a roll call vote in the committee markup.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Interesting somebody had it in for that company, I guess.nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>Well, it's not the first time this has been proposed. It's been brought up as amendments on the floor. It's been brought up as separate bills, etc. So we continue to watch this sort of thing. And again, it's not about the individual contractor company, it's about the precedent that it sets for the government.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>We're speaking with David Berteau. He's president and CEO of the Professional Services Council. Well, that aside, then it gets us back to inflation as biggest concern going into next year and the dollars available. What do you think can be done to address this issue?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>Well, this is not something really Congress can address, although there is the potential of a supplemental for FY 22 for inflation. But all the Congress can do is actually put money in specific line items and the NDAA did that put about $3 billion, $3.5 billion for fuel inflation, we all know about fuel inflation every time we put gas in our vehicles, right. And, military construction projects' inflation, but this doesn't address the contractors' cost, particularly cost of workforce. What could be done, and what you're seeing being done, is some agencies are opening the aperture for a request for an equitable adjustment, subject to the available funding, right. So no more money needed, just what funding is out there today. Other agencies are making it very hard for companies to submit such requests, what we probably need is a government wide set of guidance that says, if you've got the money, open up the door, let the contractor submit their requests, and adjudicate them positively so that the companies can stay in business. This is particularly true for small and mid-sized businesses that don't have the resources necessary to ride this out for how long? How long will inflation keep going? I don't know, do you?nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>I wish I did, I would bet on it. But the issue of contractor labor costs, do contractors sometimes have the capability or the flexibility or the rights under the contract to reduce staffing for a given contract so that the costs remain stable. But there might be fewer people?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>You've hit on something really key there, because ultimately, you can't perform above the funding that's there. And if your costs increase, and then somewhere along the way, you just have to fail to meet the requirements. That's not in the company's interest. That's not in the government's interest. That's not in America's interest. And so making adjustments to be able to cover those costs will be particularly useful here. I think, though, that there's also the possibility that you could see some encouragement coming out of the Congress on this. But we haven't seen any language along those lines, yet. There was one other bill, one other amendment put into place that could have major implications there. And that has to do with O&M, operation and maintenance accounts and readiness.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And what do you see in the bill with respect to those accounts?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>So it requires DoD to submit to Congress starting next year's budget, right? Information about the operation and maintenance funding. And this is a particular line of funding that is one year money, that they need to keep weapons systems ready going forward. It's kind of surprising that DoD doesn't do this already. But I found when I was in the Pentagon as the assistant secretary for logistics, that it was very difficult to get those kinds of estimates going forward. So you know what you have for one year, but you don't know whether you have the money in the out years for that as well. So this would be a huge step in the right direction. One of the lessons from Ukraine is how hard it is to support your forces once a war is underway. And it's important for the U.S. to make sure we've got the funding necessary to do that going forward.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>When they say operations and maintenance, they don't just mean facilities, they mean also operations, as in warfare operations?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>It is, this is flying hours, this is steaming hours for ships, this is tank miles. This is both for practice and for supporting forces in operations.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>So it has to do with continuity, basically?nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>It has to do with continuity, it has to do with demonstrating to any potential adversary that we're perfectly capable of supporting our forces in a combat environment, unlike some in Ukraine today.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And just a final question, what are your members saying about the issue of retaining employees now, because you hear a lot of companies, different industries, where people say, well, unless I get what I want, with respect to telework, and this and that I'm out of here. And there's this sort of employees in the driver's seat situation we have now in a lot of industries.nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>It's probably the number one issue that our member companies are facing, Tom, you know, we've got 11.5 million job vacancies in America today and only 6 million people looking for. That says it's a seller's market, right. And that's true even in the federal government and for contractors where we've got way more job openings than we have individuals. And they kind of get to name their own tune right now. Right? You drive by offices, you go to federal offices, you don't see a lot of people going into the offices yet, in many cases. And so it's a real tough challenge in three ways. Number one, it's hard to recruit. Number two, when you lose somebody, then all the others are saying, wow, he just got a big raise by going to work for another company, not a contractor. What are you going to give me so that I don't go do the same thing? And then it's a question of training and investing in that workforce for the future as well. It's a triple challenge across the board. We really need addressing of this by both the executive branch and the Congress.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>David Berteau is President and CEO of the Professional Services Council. As always, thanks so much.nn<strong>David Berteau: <\/strong>Thank you, Tom. Look forward to continuing this conversation down the road.<\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

The House Armed Services committee spent time last week marking up the defense authorization bill for 2023. As always, the NDAA has a lot to say about procurement and contractors. But it doesn’t say anything about whether they’re compensated for inflation. Joining the Federal Drive with Tom Temin with what the services contractor community is watching closely, Professional Services Council president David Berteau.

Interview transcript:

Tom Temin: David, do you listened in on this, and what do you see going on here with respect to contractors?

David Berteau: Yeah, Tom, there was a welcome change, you know, the entire House Armed Services Committee markup was done live on the web starting at 10 a.m. Last Thursday and lasting until midnight or later, I didn’t stay up all the way to the end, I confess, but we got to see hundreds of amendments disposed of the final bill, we’re waiting to see the actual language of the final bill. But it did add, you know, $37 billion to the DoD (Department of Defense) request. This is a little bit short of what the Senate added, they added 45 billion, but we haven’t seen the Senate’s language yet, either. They just put out a little bit of a press release that touted a couple of items. The big issue for companies, though, is how does this help them address the inflation that they’re experiencing today, particularly workforce inflation, the extra cost of workers, not only to recruit them, but to retain them?

Tom Temin: Right. And so contracts that might be ongoing, that have certain labor and rates built into them. You’d be stuck if those rates continue, but the labor costs are going up?

David Berteau: Right? Well, look, we’re living in fiscal year 22. Right now. Right? So the legislation is for FY 23, which doesn’t start until Oct. 1. And as we expect, won’t actually start until sometime well after that, because we’ll be under a continuing resolution for a while. This year’s budget FY 22, assumed an inflation rate of about 2.2%. It’s actually as we know, 8.6% or higher in many cases for government employees and government contractors. Well, that’s a difference of, you know, $50 billion right there across the board for the Defense Department. None of that is addressed in the NDAA. There’s a 4% assumption of inflation for FY 23, which is, again, is about $30 billion short, if you assume that today’s inflation goes on forward. They attempted to address that, but only in a couple of areas.

Tom Temin: All right. And what about procurement? I mean, so you’ll go broke trying to fulfill contracts on fixed prices that we can pretty much assume but often the NDAA has procurement provisions. What do you see shaping up here this time?

David Berteau: It does in some of the procurement provisions. Of course, you know, we watch these very closely. A number of amendments were proposed that could add some value to this. A couple more proposed that would not. One that we were particularly pleased to see go down to defeat was a proposal to interfere with the e-commerce pilot project. You may remember a few years ago, the FY 18 National Defense Authorization Act created an e-commerce portal pilot project under the General Services Administration. And ultimately, GSA awarded contracts to three companies. And it’s a three year pilot. This is a real pilot, unlike some pilots, which are just designed to take care of an issue and put it on the shelf after the pilot is done. It’s a real pilot to see if we can have the government buy off the internet the same way you and I do every day. Well, not every day. But every day we buy, we buy something there, right? And this is now two years into it. This amendment would have kicked one of the current contractors off the contract. This is a major precedent, it would set up the Congress interfering legislatively in an ongoing contract by essentially forcing a termination for convenience by the government without any rationale or cause other than the fact that Congress decided it was time to do that.

Tom Temin: Which one did they want to get rid of?

David Berteau: They didn’t specify the name of the company. What the amendment did is it said, no company can be on this contract if their market cap, their actual stock value times the number of shares outstanding, is more than $600 billion. Well, there’s only one company of the three on the contract that meets that test, right? The three companies on this contract were Fisher Scientific, Home Depot and Amazon. And you can do the arithmetic in your head as to which one meets that test. So the amendment did not specify by name. But it’s not so much the company involved as it is the precedent that this would set if Congress interfering in an existing contract. The whole federal procurement system depends upon the integrity of the process. And the ability of contracting officers to exercise their want in the interest of the federal government and particularly something that’s already two years in of a three year contract made no sense whatsoever. So we were really pleased to see this go down to defeat in a roll call vote in the committee markup.

Tom Temin: Interesting somebody had it in for that company, I guess.

David Berteau: Well, it’s not the first time this has been proposed. It’s been brought up as amendments on the floor. It’s been brought up as separate bills, etc. So we continue to watch this sort of thing. And again, it’s not about the individual contractor company, it’s about the precedent that it sets for the government.

Tom Temin: We’re speaking with David Berteau. He’s president and CEO of the Professional Services Council. Well, that aside, then it gets us back to inflation as biggest concern going into next year and the dollars available. What do you think can be done to address this issue?

David Berteau: Well, this is not something really Congress can address, although there is the potential of a supplemental for FY 22 for inflation. But all the Congress can do is actually put money in specific line items and the NDAA did that put about $3 billion, $3.5 billion for fuel inflation, we all know about fuel inflation every time we put gas in our vehicles, right. And, military construction projects’ inflation, but this doesn’t address the contractors’ cost, particularly cost of workforce. What could be done, and what you’re seeing being done, is some agencies are opening the aperture for a request for an equitable adjustment, subject to the available funding, right. So no more money needed, just what funding is out there today. Other agencies are making it very hard for companies to submit such requests, what we probably need is a government wide set of guidance that says, if you’ve got the money, open up the door, let the contractor submit their requests, and adjudicate them positively so that the companies can stay in business. This is particularly true for small and mid-sized businesses that don’t have the resources necessary to ride this out for how long? How long will inflation keep going? I don’t know, do you?

Tom Temin: I wish I did, I would bet on it. But the issue of contractor labor costs, do contractors sometimes have the capability or the flexibility or the rights under the contract to reduce staffing for a given contract so that the costs remain stable. But there might be fewer people?

David Berteau: You’ve hit on something really key there, because ultimately, you can’t perform above the funding that’s there. And if your costs increase, and then somewhere along the way, you just have to fail to meet the requirements. That’s not in the company’s interest. That’s not in the government’s interest. That’s not in America’s interest. And so making adjustments to be able to cover those costs will be particularly useful here. I think, though, that there’s also the possibility that you could see some encouragement coming out of the Congress on this. But we haven’t seen any language along those lines, yet. There was one other bill, one other amendment put into place that could have major implications there. And that has to do with O&M, operation and maintenance accounts and readiness.

Tom Temin: And what do you see in the bill with respect to those accounts?

David Berteau: So it requires DoD to submit to Congress starting next year’s budget, right? Information about the operation and maintenance funding. And this is a particular line of funding that is one year money, that they need to keep weapons systems ready going forward. It’s kind of surprising that DoD doesn’t do this already. But I found when I was in the Pentagon as the assistant secretary for logistics, that it was very difficult to get those kinds of estimates going forward. So you know what you have for one year, but you don’t know whether you have the money in the out years for that as well. So this would be a huge step in the right direction. One of the lessons from Ukraine is how hard it is to support your forces once a war is underway. And it’s important for the U.S. to make sure we’ve got the funding necessary to do that going forward.

Tom Temin: When they say operations and maintenance, they don’t just mean facilities, they mean also operations, as in warfare operations?

David Berteau: It is, this is flying hours, this is steaming hours for ships, this is tank miles. This is both for practice and for supporting forces in operations.

Tom Temin: So it has to do with continuity, basically?

David Berteau: It has to do with continuity, it has to do with demonstrating to any potential adversary that we’re perfectly capable of supporting our forces in a combat environment, unlike some in Ukraine today.

Tom Temin: And just a final question, what are your members saying about the issue of retaining employees now, because you hear a lot of companies, different industries, where people say, well, unless I get what I want, with respect to telework, and this and that I’m out of here. And there’s this sort of employees in the driver’s seat situation we have now in a lot of industries.

David Berteau: It’s probably the number one issue that our member companies are facing, Tom, you know, we’ve got 11.5 million job vacancies in America today and only 6 million people looking for. That says it’s a seller’s market, right. And that’s true even in the federal government and for contractors where we’ve got way more job openings than we have individuals. And they kind of get to name their own tune right now. Right? You drive by offices, you go to federal offices, you don’t see a lot of people going into the offices yet, in many cases. And so it’s a real tough challenge in three ways. Number one, it’s hard to recruit. Number two, when you lose somebody, then all the others are saying, wow, he just got a big raise by going to work for another company, not a contractor. What are you going to give me so that I don’t go do the same thing? And then it’s a question of training and investing in that workforce for the future as well. It’s a triple challenge across the board. We really need addressing of this by both the executive branch and the Congress.

Tom Temin: David Berteau is President and CEO of the Professional Services Council. As always, thanks so much.

David Berteau: Thank you, Tom. Look forward to continuing this conversation down the road.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2022/06/contractors-start-looking-at-whats-in-the-defense-authorization-bill-for-2023/feed/ 0
SBA working to reform category management, reverse decline in small business contractors https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/sba-working-to-reform-category-management-reverse-decline-in-small-business-contractors/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/sba-working-to-reform-category-management-reverse-decline-in-small-business-contractors/#respond Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:47:25 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4124214 The federal government regularly achieves its goal of awarding 23% of eligible federal contracting dollars to small businesses, but that overall success has obscured a growing number of concerns surrounding the small business contracting ecosystem. For example, it’s been far less successful in meeting its goals for awards to those qualifying for socioeconomic set-asides, like women-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned, and HUBzone small businesses. And that 23% of contracting dollars is being awarded to a shrinking pool of businesses.

Category management is one major influence contributing to the decline of the small business contractor ecosystem. Small businesses have been warning about its effects for years. Reforming category management was also one of the priorities specifically mentioned in the Biden administration’s plan to improve small business contracting.

Now, the Small Business Administration is taking steps to begin that reform.

“That is the top issue that the White House and [SBA] Administrator [Isabella] Guzman wanted us to address,” Bibi Hidalgo, associate administrator of SBA’s Office of Government Contracting & Business Development, told the House Committee on Small Business during a hearing Thursday. “And so as a result, we negotiated with [the Office of Management and Budget] and the White House to have all the socioeconomic firms — that includes service-disabled veterans, women-owned businesses, all place-based HUBZone firms, and small disadvantaged businesses — into tier 2 of category management, which is the rating system that they had created. So that means that 33,000 more additional firms are part of that higher level tiering category, which will create more access for contract opportunities.”

Hidalgo said her team is still tracking the data, but anecdotally, they’re seeing positive trends due to this change. Some business owners are reporting being contacted for the first time in years, she said. And they’re seeing increase in new entrants to the program, which is one of the metrics they’re using to ensure that it’s not just the spend that increases, but the health of the overall ecosystem.

Hidalgo also pointed to increased accountability as a recent change to address these issues. The administration’s reform plan directed that small business contracting goals be included in the performance plans for all Senior Executive Service managers.

“This is part of essentially their [key performance indicators],” she said. “So we are seeing a difference. They are now reaching out more and more. My staff was just telling me this yesterday: Across the board agencies are reaching out to identify more businesses across all the socioeconomic categories.”

But these aren’t the only challenges; the deeper the administration and Congress dig into this problem, the more inequities they discover. For example, Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) pointed out that small business contracts tend to be geographically concentrated as well. She said that “43% of the contracts went to around 17 congressional districts, 12 of which are located in Maryland and Virginia.”

Hidalgo said this is largely a result of contract bundling. That’s a practice where an agency will roll together a few smaller contracts into one larger one in order to better leverage its purchasing power. The concept originated from hardware acquisition, in order to better ensure components were interoperable. But as the government has transitioned to purchasing more services and solutions, contract bundling can look more like enterprise-level acquisitions.

Contract bundling is another instance where experts have been sounding the alarm for years. President Biden first announced it as an administration priority in December 2020.

Hidalgo said contract bundling often favors larger companies and small businesses that work with them as subcontractors. She said that new entrant data her team is collecting is also being analyzed geographically in order to find ways to ease that concentration.

Women-owned small businesses

Hidalgo has also been working to troubleshoot the certification processes for small businesses, she said. For example, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) expressed concern at recent SBA Office of Inspector General findings that out of 15,000 applications for certification as a women-owned small business (WOSBs), around 12,000 were immediately returned for more information.

“The way it was set up is they would ask applicants for all of their documents at once. But it turns out if they didn’t upload them individually, then it would only accept one of the documents. So I said ‘this is unacceptable and we need to fix this right away,’” Hidalgo said. “My team got right on it, fixed it to at least inform the business owner that they needed to upload one at a time. And as a result, we’re seeing differences like that are having an impact. We’ve now certified well over 5,700 firms; we’re on pace to certify over 6000 this year. Any incomplete applications, I have my pre-screeners working directly with the applicants to make sure that their application is not rejected, and that they can work toward a complete application as soon as possible.”

Hidalgo also said she signed a rule to open up a number of new North American Industry Classification System codes to qualify them for WOSBs. Now 92% of federal spend falls under those codes.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/sba-working-to-reform-category-management-reverse-decline-in-small-business-contractors/feed/ 0
The General Services administration is downright spacey… it has three north stars https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/the-general-services-administration-is-downright-spacey-it-has-three-north-stars/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/the-general-services-administration-is-downright-spacey-it-has-three-north-stars/#respond Wed, 22 Jun 2022 19:54:18 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4115218 var config_4114793 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062222_Allen_web_sbdi_2d6d261b.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=db94d1f2-c83f-46c0-b65a-7e3e2d6d261b&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"The General Services administration is downright spacey\u2026 it has three north stars","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4114793']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><i>Apple Podcasts<\/i><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a><\/em>nnThe General Services Administration is spending nearly all of its efforts towards the idea of customer experience. That's what Federal Acquisition Commissioner Tom Howder told the coalition for government procurement.\u00a0 Well, what does that mean for contractors? <b data-stringify-type="bold"><i data-stringify-type="italic"><a class="c-link" tabindex="-1" href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/" data-sk="tooltip_parent" data-remove-tab-index="true">Federal Drive with Tom Temin <\/a><\/i><\/b>\u00a0turned to federal sales and marketing consultant Larry Allen for answers.n<blockquote><em>Interview transcript:<\/em>nn<strong>Tom Temin<\/strong>: So Larry, you heard this customer experience CX seems to be pretty much the word now. The byword at GSA. What does it all mean?nn<strong>Larry Allen: <\/strong>Tom I think for contractors, it's a question worth asking what it means for them. I know that contractors consider themselves to be customers of GSA\u00a0 just as much as they consider GSA to be a partner through which they serve their mutual government customer. GSA, I'm not sure always looks at contractors as potential customers, but they are. There are companies that use the services that GSA provides to reach a government customer. So I would hope as GSA moves forward with this, that they would think about ways of looking to increase contractors and include them in to the customer experience. And indeed, Tom Howder, the Deputy Commissioner for Federal Acquisition Service, really did touch on that in his remarks. They want to make sure that it's easier for business to do business with government. They want to attract contractors. And I think the big significant thing, because we've heard that general phrase before, Tom, "We want to attract new businesses to government." Tom Howder and a couple of other GSA speakers took that a step further. The coalition conference saying, after they get the contract, we really want to help those companies get a contract award, and do business, actually get business, develop business over time, so that they just don't have the license to fish. They actually catch some fish.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Yeah. And over the years, though, isn't it fair to say that GSA has, especially in the schedules program, done a lot of alteration, if you look at it, versus 20 or 25 years ago, the price reduction clause, the ease of getting on to the GSA schedules, the consolidation of the schedules took a lot of complication out. So is there anything more they can do at this point other than answer the phone on time and answer emails quicker and that kind of thing?nn<strong>Larry Allen: <\/strong>Well, certainly I think that acquisition workforce training, Tom is always something that's critically important to ensuring that the strategy put in place at the top of the agency gets implemented at all parts of the agency. If you talk to GSA schedule contractors today, that message isn't always getting through. So I think one of the things that GSA needs to focus on and they know this is to ensure that the strategy that they have for ease of use of the schedules programs gets out to the line level people. One of the other things, though, that I'll give the agency some kudos for in this area, you talked about rule, getting rid of some of the rules, consolidating the schedules. But one of the other things, Tom, that GSA has done is they've really significantly improved contractor training. It used to be that they would take slide decks from other people, repurpose them. And the last person that walked in the room was unlucky enough to be the one who had to do the training. Now GSA has much more purposeful training, it's regular, it's much more polished, and it's free. So if you're a contractor, even one that's been on schedule for a little while, availing yourself of some of the free training, a lot of which is now focused on how to actually get that business. And what do you do once you get the business? How do you manage it? You know, those are significant new additions that are designed to make contractor's lives better.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>So it would be incumbent on contractors to tell the GSA what it is that they can do to make the customer experience from the contractor standpoint better because that steady feedback over the decades has really helped GSA because over the long term, it does listen.nn<strong>Larry Allen: A<\/strong>s with many other parts of our life Tom, there's no real benefit to suffering in silence. If you've got an issue, absolutely worth talking and making sure that people know about it, giving the agency a chance to work on it and address your issue.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>We're speaking with Larry Allen, president of Allen Federal Business Partners. And on that whole getting business when you have a contract through GSA brings up the topic of the EIS, the enterprise infrastructure services contract, which everyone has supposed to have converted to by now or they keep moving the deadline out. You're saying that this telecom contract might be dead?nn<strong>Larry Allen:\u00a0<\/strong>Well, Tom, if you look at some of the major agencies that have yet to do serious conversion on this: large parts of the Department of Defense, Department Homeland Security and Justice. Those are three agencies that GSA just pushed out the transition deadline to till 2024. That tells me and it tells everybody else that look, it's been five years since we've had the EIS contracts put in place, you need two more years. On top of that you need seven years to transition? Transition was something that customer agencies wanted to do. If they actually felt like they needed this contract, Tom, they would have done a lot of their transitioning by now. And a lot of that transitioning would have been something other than what we've seen today, which has been lift and shift. Sure. We're now on EIS. But we're on EIS with many of the same solutions and functionalities as we had on the old networks contract. The only thing that's changed is the contract vehicle. So all that's by way of saying, I think everybody, industry, GSA and customer agencies need to look long and hard at whether there needs to be another iteration of EIS or whether EIS should be the end of the line for catch all telecommunications contracts. They're expensive for industry and government. They take a lot of infrastructure to manage. And agencies just don't run out to take advantage of the new technologies and savings when the new contracts get put into place, just the opposite. Many of them have to be dragged kicking and screaming, to just lift and shift what they already have.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>And maybe the difference between now and the network's era is the advent of cloud computing in which is the infrastructure of the agency itself, its own network, its own mainframe set up and all of this is less important and less dominant than it was now thanks to the use of clouds for so much essential and mission critical computing?nn<strong>Larry Allen:\u00a0<\/strong>Well, and I think that's exactly right. And it's also basically looking at how people work now in federal workforce, Tom, what has happened over the five years since EIS was put in place? Well, the pandemic happened. The result of that is Tom, that how people work and where people work have changed. People are working more at home, they are doing more on Zoom, or Microsoft Teams or one of the other virtual platforms that you can do over your computer, you don't need a telecommunications infrastructure to do that. In fact, you and I are doing this interview on one of those platforms right now. Not using the phone for a lot of reasons. So that type of work has changed. The technology has changed. People have cell phones. But really EIS as it's currently constructed, is not a major player in the cell phone world in the federal market. It handles some periphery, things related to cell phone use, but not the main type of stuff that you associate with having a cell phone. So as you say, there are other contracts for that. So the type of work is done is is changing where that work and how that work gets done is changing a large telecommunications contract that had at its core everybody having desks set on their desk. I don't know that we need that anymore because not everybody's\u00a0 at their desk.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Larry Allen is president of Allen Federal Business Partners.<\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne

The General Services Administration is spending nearly all of its efforts towards the idea of customer experience. That’s what Federal Acquisition Commissioner Tom Howder told the coalition for government procurement.  Well, what does that mean for contractors? Federal Drive with Tom Temin  turned to federal sales and marketing consultant Larry Allen for answers.

Interview transcript:

Tom Temin: So Larry, you heard this customer experience CX seems to be pretty much the word now. The byword at GSA. What does it all mean?

Larry Allen: Tom I think for contractors, it’s a question worth asking what it means for them. I know that contractors consider themselves to be customers of GSA  just as much as they consider GSA to be a partner through which they serve their mutual government customer. GSA, I’m not sure always looks at contractors as potential customers, but they are. There are companies that use the services that GSA provides to reach a government customer. So I would hope as GSA moves forward with this, that they would think about ways of looking to increase contractors and include them in to the customer experience. And indeed, Tom Howder, the Deputy Commissioner for Federal Acquisition Service, really did touch on that in his remarks. They want to make sure that it’s easier for business to do business with government. They want to attract contractors. And I think the big significant thing, because we’ve heard that general phrase before, Tom, “We want to attract new businesses to government.” Tom Howder and a couple of other GSA speakers took that a step further. The coalition conference saying, after they get the contract, we really want to help those companies get a contract award, and do business, actually get business, develop business over time, so that they just don’t have the license to fish. They actually catch some fish.

Tom Temin: Yeah. And over the years, though, isn’t it fair to say that GSA has, especially in the schedules program, done a lot of alteration, if you look at it, versus 20 or 25 years ago, the price reduction clause, the ease of getting on to the GSA schedules, the consolidation of the schedules took a lot of complication out. So is there anything more they can do at this point other than answer the phone on time and answer emails quicker and that kind of thing?

Larry Allen: Well, certainly I think that acquisition workforce training, Tom is always something that’s critically important to ensuring that the strategy put in place at the top of the agency gets implemented at all parts of the agency. If you talk to GSA schedule contractors today, that message isn’t always getting through. So I think one of the things that GSA needs to focus on and they know this is to ensure that the strategy that they have for ease of use of the schedules programs gets out to the line level people. One of the other things, though, that I’ll give the agency some kudos for in this area, you talked about rule, getting rid of some of the rules, consolidating the schedules. But one of the other things, Tom, that GSA has done is they’ve really significantly improved contractor training. It used to be that they would take slide decks from other people, repurpose them. And the last person that walked in the room was unlucky enough to be the one who had to do the training. Now GSA has much more purposeful training, it’s regular, it’s much more polished, and it’s free. So if you’re a contractor, even one that’s been on schedule for a little while, availing yourself of some of the free training, a lot of which is now focused on how to actually get that business. And what do you do once you get the business? How do you manage it? You know, those are significant new additions that are designed to make contractor’s lives better.

Tom Temin: So it would be incumbent on contractors to tell the GSA what it is that they can do to make the customer experience from the contractor standpoint better because that steady feedback over the decades has really helped GSA because over the long term, it does listen.

Larry Allen: As with many other parts of our life Tom, there’s no real benefit to suffering in silence. If you’ve got an issue, absolutely worth talking and making sure that people know about it, giving the agency a chance to work on it and address your issue.

Tom Temin: We’re speaking with Larry Allen, president of Allen Federal Business Partners. And on that whole getting business when you have a contract through GSA brings up the topic of the EIS, the enterprise infrastructure services contract, which everyone has supposed to have converted to by now or they keep moving the deadline out. You’re saying that this telecom contract might be dead?

Larry Allen: Well, Tom, if you look at some of the major agencies that have yet to do serious conversion on this: large parts of the Department of Defense, Department Homeland Security and Justice. Those are three agencies that GSA just pushed out the transition deadline to till 2024. That tells me and it tells everybody else that look, it’s been five years since we’ve had the EIS contracts put in place, you need two more years. On top of that you need seven years to transition? Transition was something that customer agencies wanted to do. If they actually felt like they needed this contract, Tom, they would have done a lot of their transitioning by now. And a lot of that transitioning would have been something other than what we’ve seen today, which has been lift and shift. Sure. We’re now on EIS. But we’re on EIS with many of the same solutions and functionalities as we had on the old networks contract. The only thing that’s changed is the contract vehicle. So all that’s by way of saying, I think everybody, industry, GSA and customer agencies need to look long and hard at whether there needs to be another iteration of EIS or whether EIS should be the end of the line for catch all telecommunications contracts. They’re expensive for industry and government. They take a lot of infrastructure to manage. And agencies just don’t run out to take advantage of the new technologies and savings when the new contracts get put into place, just the opposite. Many of them have to be dragged kicking and screaming, to just lift and shift what they already have.

Tom Temin: And maybe the difference between now and the network’s era is the advent of cloud computing in which is the infrastructure of the agency itself, its own network, its own mainframe set up and all of this is less important and less dominant than it was now thanks to the use of clouds for so much essential and mission critical computing?

Larry Allen: Well, and I think that’s exactly right. And it’s also basically looking at how people work now in federal workforce, Tom, what has happened over the five years since EIS was put in place? Well, the pandemic happened. The result of that is Tom, that how people work and where people work have changed. People are working more at home, they are doing more on Zoom, or Microsoft Teams or one of the other virtual platforms that you can do over your computer, you don’t need a telecommunications infrastructure to do that. In fact, you and I are doing this interview on one of those platforms right now. Not using the phone for a lot of reasons. So that type of work has changed. The technology has changed. People have cell phones. But really EIS as it’s currently constructed, is not a major player in the cell phone world in the federal market. It handles some periphery, things related to cell phone use, but not the main type of stuff that you associate with having a cell phone. So as you say, there are other contracts for that. So the type of work is done is is changing where that work and how that work gets done is changing a large telecommunications contract that had at its core everybody having desks set on their desk. I don’t know that we need that anymore because not everybody’s  at their desk.

Tom Temin: Larry Allen is president of Allen Federal Business Partners.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/the-general-services-administration-is-downright-spacey-it-has-three-north-stars/feed/ 0
A new look at an old problem: the Pentagon’s weapons procurement https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition/2022/06/a-new-look-at-an-old-problem-the-pentagons-weapons-procurement/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition/2022/06/a-new-look-at-an-old-problem-the-pentagons-weapons-procurement/#respond Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:49:25 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4114841 var config_4114794 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062222_Oakley_web_cbob_95baf33b.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=4fcfa8c4-f53d-4799-908f-fd0195baf33b&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"A new look at an old problem: the Pentagon’s weapons procurement","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4114794']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><i>Apple Podcasts<\/i><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a><\/em>nnThe Government Accountability Office is out with its latest assessment of the Pentagon's most expensive weapons programs. It's the 20th annual look-see. GAO says it's seen some improvement and DOD's management of major acquisitions during that time, but the cost and schedule growth are still big problems. And while every program is unique, one common theme is that DOD tends to commit itself to big systems before it has enough information about technology risks and cost estimates. Shelby Oakley is director of contracting and national security acquisitions at the GAO. She spoke with Federal News Network\u2019s Jared Serbu on the <b data-stringify-type="bold"><i data-stringify-type="italic"><a class="c-link" tabindex="-1" href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/temin\/tom-temin-federal-drive\/" data-sk="tooltip_parent" data-remove-tab-index="true">Federal Drive with Tom Temin.<\/a><\/i><\/b> about some of the trends in this year's report.n<blockquote><em>Interview transcript:<\/em>nn<strong>Jared Serbu: <\/strong>A lot of different systems assessed in this report, as there are every year. Can't talk about every single one of them in a 10-minute radio interview, obviously. But can you take us through any common themes you found in terms of what the trends are toward what's leading to capability delays in cost overruns, again, understanding that every system is unique?nn<b>Shelby Oakley:<\/b> Absolutely. You pinpointed it right there, you know, we cover a lot of different systems, and they experience a lot of different challenges. And with these being cutting-edge technologies, they are just uniquely challenging to develop. But the bottom line, and the consistent themes that we've seen over the years are that these are big investments, billions of dollars being made without information to reasonably assume that they're going to actually pan out. We consistently see a push to commit to programs before information is available. And then once that happens, once they move forward without information available, it's difficult for programs to catch up. And as they proceed through development the problems just compound and inertia sets in and more financial commitments are made. And at that point, it just is what it is. We've seen over the years that very few programs actually get cancelled. And so DOD has really recognized this consistent challenge that it has, and what the result has been, has really threatened our military advantage and has taken some steps over the past several years to really accelerate capability development to address these things. But we still continue to see that over half of the major defense acquisition programs that we reported are delayed. They're delayed from achieving their initial operational capability. And none of them are reporting accelerating any cycle times. And so that can be a little rough. And so let me give you an example that I think is illustrative of the kinds of things that we see. So the KC-46, you're familiar with the tanker program. The program began with a contract valued at about $5 billion, but DOD didn't really have appropriate knowledge of the requirements or the design for the program. And so as a result, as we all know, experienced a lot of cost growth, and importantly, schedule overruns. And it continues to have a lot of design and stability issues. These aren't insignificant things, the program has critical deficiencies that still need to be addressed. The air force is forced to accept planes that have deficiencies and deal with the ramifications of that. And so it's that kind of lack of knowledge at the beginning of programs that we see really have a significant impact across DOD as a body of programs.nn<strong>Jared Serbu: <\/strong>I want to stick with the theme of moving ahead with insufficient information. The air tanker example seems like a really good one to me, because there you've got a program that's built on a commercial airframe and the technology concepts behind air tankers are not exactly new. Okay. But in other cases, DOD really is inventing new stuff here. And so there, it seems like there's got to be cases where you just don't know what you don't know, how much of that goes on. Are there common pieces of missing information that DOD could get after and make decisions based on?nn<b>Shelby Oakley: A<\/b>bsolutely. So that's exactly what our body of work is based on is knowledge-based acquisition. It identifies those common pieces of knowledge, that programs should have to decrease the risk of unmet expectations. Whether that's in the form of schedule, or cost or capability, or all three. And so our work over the past several decades has looked at the defense acquisition cycle and identified the types of information that is necessary to make good decisions and avoid some of these challenges. And so, you know, let me give you an example, at milestone B or when development starts, our work has shown that a program should have a sound business case. And that means that the requirements of the program match the resources. And when we're talking about requirements, we mean, the time and the technology, for example, or what it's being asked to do can actually be done within existing resources. And, there's specific types of information that help decision makers determine that and so understanding whether or not the technologies some of which may be new, have been developed enough to be able to be tested in an operational environment. And that gives really good information to say okay, we can move forward with basing the design of our program off of these technologies that are going to be the game changers that are going to be able to provide us with that capability. And so we have often advocated for spending a little bit more time before you begin a program to mature those technologies such that\u00a0 information is available upon which to base a good sound business case for the program. And same thing with resources, like what you're doing is a realistic or not, assessment of the cost or schedule that it's going to take to get what you want within the timeframes you want that can provide good information for decision makers of "Can we fit this program within our portfolio of programs? Can we afford it over the long term? And what adjustments can we make if we can't?" That often just doesn't happen with these programs. And so while we've seen some improvements over the years, for sure, DOD has definitely made some good strides. We still continue to see the lack of information in some of these big decisions. And why that matters is because once the program is approved, and you start awarding contracts, and the industrial base is engaged, it's really difficult to stop that inertia, even when things aren't going exactly the way you want them to.nn<strong>Jared Serbu: <\/strong>Do you have any good news stories to tell us out of these 63 programs? I mean, are there any that you looked at that really did embrace some of the principles that you just talked about and move forward with good knowledge ahead of time,nn<b>Shelby Oakley: <\/b>Just generally, we've been able to directly tie the use of the knowledge-based practices that we advocate to significantly less unit cost growth and scheduled delays on programs. And so we've been able to do that analysis. But if you wanted to ask me like, is there one sterling example of a program that implemented every knowledge-based practice? The answer's no, there's not. But I think what our data shows is that even implementing some of them, especially at the beginning of development can have a positive effect. And so one good example that we saw. We reported in 2018, the navy has a program called the expeditionary transfer dock expeditionary sea-based program. And it put a lot of work into attaining good design and construction knowledge before making the commitments. Before agreeing on the cost and schedule and you know, awarding the contract and that enabled the program to be able to achieve its initial capability with $697 million in cost savings and no cost growth. And so just having that level of knowledge before committing to the program allowed them to see those outcomes. We also have the middle tier of acquisition programs or a new pathway within DOD that are really intended to be the vehicle for DOD to get capabilities to the warfighter faster. And we have seen some successes in that pathway as well. One MTA program that we could highlight is the F-15EX. That program is intended to fill a gap between fourth generation fighters and fifth generation fighters like the F-35. So this program did a lot to be able to execute under the rapid fielding pathway. It had most of the elements of a business case in place before it began. And as a result, it remains on schedule, and it's likely gonna achieve its initial operational capability in 2023. So, you know, there are some successes that we can point to, but you know, again, not an overwhelmingly sterling example to point to though.nn<strong>Jared Serbu: <\/strong>Fair enough. I wanted to ask a little bit more about those MTA programs, because it seems like the congressional intent there was to incentivize DOD to move ahead on programs where there was a reasonable amount of knowledge or expectation that you could get something into the field within five years. Or at least prototyped within five years. Has DOD seem to have been using section 804 In that way, as a vehicle for these programs with bigger foundations of knowledge?nn<b>Shelby Oakley: <\/b>Not always. So as you mentioned, that is the intent of the pathway, right, that DOD is able to provide an operational prototype or field capability within a five-year time period. So five years in the acquisition world is very short, obviously, right? I mean, most programs take upwards of 20 years to get out, which is the problem. So at its very core, it would have to be based upon a high level of knowledge about what capabilities are available. And really, from what we've seen, so far, the pathway has enabled the services to get programs started faster. They're able to start them much more quickly because they're not beholden to traditional acquisition policies, like the joint requirements process or the DOD 5000. But based upon the kinds of programs that we're seeing using the pathway, it's really unclear that many of them will actually finish any faster and provide capabilities to the warfighters faster. So you just give you an illustrative example. As you know, more than half of the programs and MTA programs we reviewed or are planning to transition to the major capability acquisition pathway. So they'll become MDAPs, eventually to either pursue, like additional development or production through that pathway. And so the question is, are these programs really meeting the intent of actually delivering capabilities to the warfighter if they become a series of strung together programs across different pathways? And so we really hope that DOD will use the experience gained and the MTA efforts to shorten the overall timeframes once in the major capability pathway, but that's really dependent on DOD taking advantage of the knowledge that's gained in that MTA pathway and structuring those acquisition programs in a good way. And so we are seeing some outcomes like the Army's MPF program, mobile protective firepower. It began in 2018, as one of the first MTAs. And you know, it has conducted vehicle assessments and limited-user testing all within three years. And it's going to be on track to award a low rate production contract this fiscal year. And that seems like the kind of thing that is you know, exactly what the MTA pathway is intended for. But other programs like the Air Force's ARRW program, the air launch rapid response weapon, has experienced a lot of challenges that indicate that its schedule and its approach before that program under the MTA pathway was a bit aggressive. And importantly on that one, you know, they were moving forward despite these challenges with wanting to buy additional missiles, and Congress had to step in and say no, you know, you need to fund more development for this program before you go into buying, you know, production quantities.nn<strong>Jared Serbu: <\/strong>And speaking of pathway Shelby, before you go, I definitely want to ask you about the new software acquisition pathway, because that does seem to me like one of the biggest reforms. DOD has made its own acquisition instructions in recent years. I was a little bit surprised to find that out of those 63 programs, you only found one that was even starting to use the software acquisition pathway. And I know DOD is using it for other things. Is the answer just that they're really just applying it to things that are more pure IT rather than weapons systems that are software intensive?nn<b>Shelby Oakley: <\/b>To be fair, since the software acquisition pathway is newer than almost all of the programs that we've reviewed in our annual assessment of weapons programs, it's not really that surprising to us that most haven't switched their software development efforts over to that pathway. And that's something that we plan to continue to kind of keep an eye on is the extent to which programs are kind of parsing off those software development efforts within their MDAPs, or their MTA programs to be executed within that software pathway. Because that's a capability that has been provided through the adaptive acquisition framework is to be able to use multiple pathways to achieve your intended purpose. So we expect that we're going to see a growth in that number going forward. But\u00a0 an important thing that we're really seeing is that while the pathway is a super important element of improving how DOD goes about acquiring software, the practices have to catch up to what those policies are. And that's really where we see challenges. We see a majority of MDAPs and MTA programs who tell us they're using modern software development approaches. And\u00a0 modern software development approaches are really contingent or hinged on or identified by frequent deliveries and user feedback and that kind of thing. But we're just not seeing that within the programs that we review. We're seeing longer delivery timeframes, lack of user feedback, those kinds of things that would characterize a modern approach. And so we just really think that DOD needs to make sure that programs are indeed embracing those practices, not just giving them lip service, and we have a lot of ongoing work looking at DOD reforms to its software acquisition practices, and we're hoping to be able to get that issued early next year, so stay tuned for some good findings there.nn<strong>Tom Temin: <\/strong>Shelby Oakley, director of contracting and national security acquisitions at the GAO speaking with Federal News Network'sJared Serbu.nn <\/blockquote>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne

The Government Accountability Office is out with its latest assessment of the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons programs. It’s the 20th annual look-see. GAO says it’s seen some improvement and DOD’s management of major acquisitions during that time, but the cost and schedule growth are still big problems. And while every program is unique, one common theme is that DOD tends to commit itself to big systems before it has enough information about technology risks and cost estimates. Shelby Oakley is director of contracting and national security acquisitions at the GAO. She spoke with Federal News Network’s Jared Serbu on the Federal Drive with Tom Temin. about some of the trends in this year’s report.

Interview transcript:

Jared Serbu: A lot of different systems assessed in this report, as there are every year. Can’t talk about every single one of them in a 10-minute radio interview, obviously. But can you take us through any common themes you found in terms of what the trends are toward what’s leading to capability delays in cost overruns, again, understanding that every system is unique?

Shelby Oakley: Absolutely. You pinpointed it right there, you know, we cover a lot of different systems, and they experience a lot of different challenges. And with these being cutting-edge technologies, they are just uniquely challenging to develop. But the bottom line, and the consistent themes that we’ve seen over the years are that these are big investments, billions of dollars being made without information to reasonably assume that they’re going to actually pan out. We consistently see a push to commit to programs before information is available. And then once that happens, once they move forward without information available, it’s difficult for programs to catch up. And as they proceed through development the problems just compound and inertia sets in and more financial commitments are made. And at that point, it just is what it is. We’ve seen over the years that very few programs actually get cancelled. And so DOD has really recognized this consistent challenge that it has, and what the result has been, has really threatened our military advantage and has taken some steps over the past several years to really accelerate capability development to address these things. But we still continue to see that over half of the major defense acquisition programs that we reported are delayed. They’re delayed from achieving their initial operational capability. And none of them are reporting accelerating any cycle times. And so that can be a little rough. And so let me give you an example that I think is illustrative of the kinds of things that we see. So the KC-46, you’re familiar with the tanker program. The program began with a contract valued at about $5 billion, but DOD didn’t really have appropriate knowledge of the requirements or the design for the program. And so as a result, as we all know, experienced a lot of cost growth, and importantly, schedule overruns. And it continues to have a lot of design and stability issues. These aren’t insignificant things, the program has critical deficiencies that still need to be addressed. The air force is forced to accept planes that have deficiencies and deal with the ramifications of that. And so it’s that kind of lack of knowledge at the beginning of programs that we see really have a significant impact across DOD as a body of programs.

Jared Serbu: I want to stick with the theme of moving ahead with insufficient information. The air tanker example seems like a really good one to me, because there you’ve got a program that’s built on a commercial airframe and the technology concepts behind air tankers are not exactly new. Okay. But in other cases, DOD really is inventing new stuff here. And so there, it seems like there’s got to be cases where you just don’t know what you don’t know, how much of that goes on. Are there common pieces of missing information that DOD could get after and make decisions based on?

Shelby Oakley: Absolutely. So that’s exactly what our body of work is based on is knowledge-based acquisition. It identifies those common pieces of knowledge, that programs should have to decrease the risk of unmet expectations. Whether that’s in the form of schedule, or cost or capability, or all three. And so our work over the past several decades has looked at the defense acquisition cycle and identified the types of information that is necessary to make good decisions and avoid some of these challenges. And so, you know, let me give you an example, at milestone B or when development starts, our work has shown that a program should have a sound business case. And that means that the requirements of the program match the resources. And when we’re talking about requirements, we mean, the time and the technology, for example, or what it’s being asked to do can actually be done within existing resources. And, there’s specific types of information that help decision makers determine that and so understanding whether or not the technologies some of which may be new, have been developed enough to be able to be tested in an operational environment. And that gives really good information to say okay, we can move forward with basing the design of our program off of these technologies that are going to be the game changers that are going to be able to provide us with that capability. And so we have often advocated for spending a little bit more time before you begin a program to mature those technologies such that  information is available upon which to base a good sound business case for the program. And same thing with resources, like what you’re doing is a realistic or not, assessment of the cost or schedule that it’s going to take to get what you want within the timeframes you want that can provide good information for decision makers of “Can we fit this program within our portfolio of programs? Can we afford it over the long term? And what adjustments can we make if we can’t?” That often just doesn’t happen with these programs. And so while we’ve seen some improvements over the years, for sure, DOD has definitely made some good strides. We still continue to see the lack of information in some of these big decisions. And why that matters is because once the program is approved, and you start awarding contracts, and the industrial base is engaged, it’s really difficult to stop that inertia, even when things aren’t going exactly the way you want them to.

Jared Serbu: Do you have any good news stories to tell us out of these 63 programs? I mean, are there any that you looked at that really did embrace some of the principles that you just talked about and move forward with good knowledge ahead of time,

Shelby Oakley: Just generally, we’ve been able to directly tie the use of the knowledge-based practices that we advocate to significantly less unit cost growth and scheduled delays on programs. And so we’ve been able to do that analysis. But if you wanted to ask me like, is there one sterling example of a program that implemented every knowledge-based practice? The answer’s no, there’s not. But I think what our data shows is that even implementing some of them, especially at the beginning of development can have a positive effect. And so one good example that we saw. We reported in 2018, the navy has a program called the expeditionary transfer dock expeditionary sea-based program. And it put a lot of work into attaining good design and construction knowledge before making the commitments. Before agreeing on the cost and schedule and you know, awarding the contract and that enabled the program to be able to achieve its initial capability with $697 million in cost savings and no cost growth. And so just having that level of knowledge before committing to the program allowed them to see those outcomes. We also have the middle tier of acquisition programs or a new pathway within DOD that are really intended to be the vehicle for DOD to get capabilities to the warfighter faster. And we have seen some successes in that pathway as well. One MTA program that we could highlight is the F-15EX. That program is intended to fill a gap between fourth generation fighters and fifth generation fighters like the F-35. So this program did a lot to be able to execute under the rapid fielding pathway. It had most of the elements of a business case in place before it began. And as a result, it remains on schedule, and it’s likely gonna achieve its initial operational capability in 2023. So, you know, there are some successes that we can point to, but you know, again, not an overwhelmingly sterling example to point to though.

Jared Serbu: Fair enough. I wanted to ask a little bit more about those MTA programs, because it seems like the congressional intent there was to incentivize DOD to move ahead on programs where there was a reasonable amount of knowledge or expectation that you could get something into the field within five years. Or at least prototyped within five years. Has DOD seem to have been using section 804 In that way, as a vehicle for these programs with bigger foundations of knowledge?

Shelby Oakley: Not always. So as you mentioned, that is the intent of the pathway, right, that DOD is able to provide an operational prototype or field capability within a five-year time period. So five years in the acquisition world is very short, obviously, right? I mean, most programs take upwards of 20 years to get out, which is the problem. So at its very core, it would have to be based upon a high level of knowledge about what capabilities are available. And really, from what we’ve seen, so far, the pathway has enabled the services to get programs started faster. They’re able to start them much more quickly because they’re not beholden to traditional acquisition policies, like the joint requirements process or the DOD 5000. But based upon the kinds of programs that we’re seeing using the pathway, it’s really unclear that many of them will actually finish any faster and provide capabilities to the warfighters faster. So you just give you an illustrative example. As you know, more than half of the programs and MTA programs we reviewed or are planning to transition to the major capability acquisition pathway. So they’ll become MDAPs, eventually to either pursue, like additional development or production through that pathway. And so the question is, are these programs really meeting the intent of actually delivering capabilities to the warfighter if they become a series of strung together programs across different pathways? And so we really hope that DOD will use the experience gained and the MTA efforts to shorten the overall timeframes once in the major capability pathway, but that’s really dependent on DOD taking advantage of the knowledge that’s gained in that MTA pathway and structuring those acquisition programs in a good way. And so we are seeing some outcomes like the Army’s MPF program, mobile protective firepower. It began in 2018, as one of the first MTAs. And you know, it has conducted vehicle assessments and limited-user testing all within three years. And it’s going to be on track to award a low rate production contract this fiscal year. And that seems like the kind of thing that is you know, exactly what the MTA pathway is intended for. But other programs like the Air Force’s ARRW program, the air launch rapid response weapon, has experienced a lot of challenges that indicate that its schedule and its approach before that program under the MTA pathway was a bit aggressive. And importantly on that one, you know, they were moving forward despite these challenges with wanting to buy additional missiles, and Congress had to step in and say no, you know, you need to fund more development for this program before you go into buying, you know, production quantities.

Jared Serbu: And speaking of pathway Shelby, before you go, I definitely want to ask you about the new software acquisition pathway, because that does seem to me like one of the biggest reforms. DOD has made its own acquisition instructions in recent years. I was a little bit surprised to find that out of those 63 programs, you only found one that was even starting to use the software acquisition pathway. And I know DOD is using it for other things. Is the answer just that they’re really just applying it to things that are more pure IT rather than weapons systems that are software intensive?

Shelby Oakley: To be fair, since the software acquisition pathway is newer than almost all of the programs that we’ve reviewed in our annual assessment of weapons programs, it’s not really that surprising to us that most haven’t switched their software development efforts over to that pathway. And that’s something that we plan to continue to kind of keep an eye on is the extent to which programs are kind of parsing off those software development efforts within their MDAPs, or their MTA programs to be executed within that software pathway. Because that’s a capability that has been provided through the adaptive acquisition framework is to be able to use multiple pathways to achieve your intended purpose. So we expect that we’re going to see a growth in that number going forward. But  an important thing that we’re really seeing is that while the pathway is a super important element of improving how DOD goes about acquiring software, the practices have to catch up to what those policies are. And that’s really where we see challenges. We see a majority of MDAPs and MTA programs who tell us they’re using modern software development approaches. And  modern software development approaches are really contingent or hinged on or identified by frequent deliveries and user feedback and that kind of thing. But we’re just not seeing that within the programs that we review. We’re seeing longer delivery timeframes, lack of user feedback, those kinds of things that would characterize a modern approach. And so we just really think that DOD needs to make sure that programs are indeed embracing those practices, not just giving them lip service, and we have a lot of ongoing work looking at DOD reforms to its software acquisition practices, and we’re hoping to be able to get that issued early next year, so stay tuned for some good findings there.

Tom Temin: Shelby Oakley, director of contracting and national security acquisitions at the GAO speaking with Federal News Network’sJared Serbu.

 

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition/2022/06/a-new-look-at-an-old-problem-the-pentagons-weapons-procurement/feed/ 0
Report: The slow destruction of the defense industrial base https://federalnewsnetwork.com/off-the-shelf/2022/06/report-the-slow-destruction-of-the-defense-industrial-base/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/off-the-shelf/2022/06/report-the-slow-destruction-of-the-defense-industrial-base/#respond Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:49:13 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4113094 var config_4113364 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/adswizz\/1662\/0614offtheshelf_podcast_df8r_e589a87c.mp3?awCollectionId=1662&awEpisodeId=376b8ee4-2a03-48c0-9343-6f07e589a87c&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/OffShelf1500-150x150.png","title":"Report: The slow destruction of the defense industrial base","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4113364']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Off the Shelf\u2019s\u00a0<\/em><em>audio interviews on\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/off-the-shelf\/id1408114835">Apple Podcasts<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/off-the-shelf">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnThis week Moshe Schwartz, president of <a href="http:\/\/www.ethertonandassociates.com\/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Etherton and Associates<\/a>, joins host Roger Waldron on this week's <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/radio-interviews\/off-the-shelf\/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em><strong>Off the Shelf\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/a> to discuss <a href="https:\/\/dair.nps.edu\/bitstream\/123456789\/4549\/1\/SYM-AM-22-036.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Slow Destruction of the Defense Industrial Base<\/a><em>, <\/em>a report Schwartz co-authored with Michelle Johnson from the <a href="https:\/\/nps.edu\/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Naval Postgraduate School (NPS)<\/a>.nnThe report was prepared for the NPS and was presented at the Nineteenth Annual Acquisition Research Symposium.nn[caption id="attachment_3507235" align="alignright" width="300"]<img class="size-medium wp-image-3507235" src="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Moshe-Schwartz-1-scaled-e1623284279177-300x258.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="258" \/> Moshe Schwartz, president, Etherton and Associates[\/caption]nnIt outlines the significant shrinking of the defense industrial base and the negative ramifications for the Department of Defense\u2019s ability to access to innovation and cutting edge technologies from the private sector. The defense industrial base has shrunk over the last decade in contrast to the overall growth in the U.S. economy over the same period.nnSchwartz highlights the key policy, regulatory, workforce and business practices that have driven industry away from working with DoD and the government in general, and the \u00a0government\u2019s approach to the allocation of intellectual rights as a disincentive for commercial firms doing business with DoD.nnNotably, the report coins a new term, the National Security Innovation and Industrial Base (NSIB), emphasizing the critical importance the commercial market plays in driving innovation in defending our nation."}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Off the Shelf’s audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

This week Moshe Schwartz, president of Etherton and Associates, joins host Roger Waldron on this week’s Off the Shelf  to discuss The Slow Destruction of the Defense Industrial Base, a report Schwartz co-authored with Michelle Johnson from the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS).

The report was prepared for the NPS and was presented at the Nineteenth Annual Acquisition Research Symposium.

Moshe Schwartz, president, Etherton and Associates

It outlines the significant shrinking of the defense industrial base and the negative ramifications for the Department of Defense’s ability to access to innovation and cutting edge technologies from the private sector. The defense industrial base has shrunk over the last decade in contrast to the overall growth in the U.S. economy over the same period.

Schwartz highlights the key policy, regulatory, workforce and business practices that have driven industry away from working with DoD and the government in general, and the  government’s approach to the allocation of intellectual rights as a disincentive for commercial firms doing business with DoD.

Notably, the report coins a new term, the National Security Innovation and Industrial Base (NSIB), emphasizing the critical importance the commercial market plays in driving innovation in defending our nation.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/off-the-shelf/2022/06/report-the-slow-destruction-of-the-defense-industrial-base/feed/ 0
OASIS+ or OASIS-Plus? Either way, GSA puts the next generation services contract on the fast track https://federalnewsnetwork.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2022/06/oasis-or-oasis-plus-either-way-gsa-puts-the-next-generation-services-contract-on-the-fast-track/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2022/06/oasis-or-oasis-plus-either-way-gsa-puts-the-next-generation-services-contract-on-the-fast-track/#respond Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:45:45 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4112418 var config_4114792 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062222_Jason_web_58c9_f3f326fb.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=8481291a-4dbf-404b-8179-999ff3f326fb&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"OASIS+ or OASIS-Plus? Either way, GSA puts the next generation services contract on the fast track","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4114792']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em><span style="color: #0070c0;">Apple Podcast<\/span><\/em><span style="color: #0070c0;">s<\/span><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnJust when you thought government contracting was about to get fun, again, the General Services Administration decided boring is the right approach.nnThat\u2019s right, I\u2019m saying government procurement and fun in the same sentence because we had an upcoming contract that had so many possibilities intertwined with it. GSA has been <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/reporters-notebook-jason-miller\/2021\/03\/gsa-kicks-off-two-year-effort-to-innovate-service-contracting-beyond-oasis\/">planning the follow-on<\/a> to its highly popular and successful OASIS contract for the past year. It started by calling the vehicle BIC MAC\u2014best-in-class multiple award contract. Oh the possibilities there!nnThe agency moved to Services MAC for the last few months. And with both of those names, unlike its more traditional and unexciting names like Alliant or Millennial or 8(a) STARS, these names had so much potential for fun in headlines and leads and so much more.nnBut GSA decided \u2014 and I\u2019ll blame the lawyers here, only because it\u2019s always fun to blame lawyers \u2014 to pick the name OASIS+, or maybe Oasis-Plus, for the new governmentwide contract, ending any real chance of bringing fun back to federal procurement.nn\u201cThe name echoes a successful brand that our customers have come to know and trust, reflects the expanded scope of services that will be available through the new program, and embodies the contract\u2019s flexible domain-based structure,\u201d wrote Tiffany Hixson, the assistant commissioner in GSA\u2019s Office of Professional Services and Human Capital Categories in the Federal Acquisition Service, in a <a href="https:\/\/www.gsa.gov\/blog\/2022\/06\/15\/making-progress-on-gsas-next-generation-services-contract" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blog post<\/a> from June 15. \u201cThe new program will have a broad scope. As their respective ordering periods conclude, the new program will be able to fulfill requirements currently met by GSA\u2019s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS); Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS); and Building, Maintenance, and Operations (BMO) contracts. In addition, new scope areas include environmental, intelligence services, and large enterprise solutions. Plus, we\u2019ll build-in the flexibility to expand scope as customers identify new federal services needs.\u201dnnAll kidding aside to the good folks at GSA, the decision around OASIS+\/Oasis-Plus is seems small, but important. It\u2019s clear there is recognition in FAS that the current contract is popular, in part because GSA has spent the better part of a decade promoting, creating a brand and working with everyone from the <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/defense\/2013\/12\/air-force-commits-to-use-oasis-for-most-professional-services-contracts\/">Air Force<\/a> to the <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/acquisition\/2015\/07\/dhs-pledges-big-bucks-gsas-professional-services-contract\/">Homeland Security Department<\/a> to <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/defense\/2015\/03\/army-commits-500-million-to-gsas-oasis-contract\/">the Army<\/a> to commit to putting hundreds of millions of dollars through OASIS.nnSince 2015, agencies have spent $48.8 billion on OASIS, OASIS small business and OASIS 8(a) through more than 3,200 task orders.nn[caption id="attachment_4112428" align="aligncenter" width="945"]<img class="wp-image-4112428 size-full" src="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/oasis-chart-1-june-2022.png" alt="" width="945" height="498" \/> Source: GSA's Data to Decisions Dashboard.[\/caption]nnThe Air Force remains the largest user, issuing more than 1,000 task orders worth more than $28 billion. The Army is the largest user by total sales with more than $30 billion across 458 task orders.nn[caption id="attachment_4112511" align="aligncenter" width="681"]<img class="wp-image-4112511" src="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/GSA-numbers-300x122.png" alt="Source: GSA's Data to Decisions Dashboard." width="681" height="277" \/> Source: GSA's Data to Decisions Dashboard.[\/caption]nnThe updated vision for OASIS+ also recognizes the struggles of the HCATS contract.nnGSA\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsradio.com\/contractsawards\/2016\/05\/gsa-opm-end-4-year-training-contract-saga-awards\/">awarded HCATS<\/a>\u00a0to 109 vendors in May 2016. The 10 1\/2 year contract has a ceiling of $11.5 billion and replaced the Training and Management Assistance (TMA) contract run by the Office of Personnel Management for the last two decades. After a\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsradio.com\/reporters-notebook-jason-miller\/2016\/08\/11-5b-hr-training-contract-creeps-toward-freedom-protests\/">series of bid protests<\/a>, GSA finally issued the notice to proceed for HCATS in September 2016. Over the last almost six years, agencies have not used the contract like may believed they would, awarding 300 task orders worth $764 million.n<h2>Six contracts with five for small business<\/h2>nSheri Meadema, the acting assistant commissioner of GSA\u2019s Office of Professional Services and Human Capital Categories in the Federal Acquisition Service, said during the Coalition for Government Procurement spring conference that the changes to OASIS-Plus also acknowledges what GSA\u2019s customers have said about the draft details of the new contract over the last few months.nn\u201cWe had originally envisioned one contract with small business reserves, and working closely with the Small Business Administration and our Office of Small and Disadvantage Utilization Office and our customers, quite frankly, we ended up switching that strategy. So the plan is to now award six separate contracts, five of those being for small businesses and the six being unrestricted,\u201d she said. \u201cThe second change is scope. Oasis will cover all of the scope areas in Oasis currently today, plus HCATS and building maintenance and operations as those contracts expire. In addition, in the initial stages of the contract, there are additional scope areas that we're adding on to include environmental intelligence services and a domain we're calling enterprise solutions, which will be unique to the unrestricted vehicle. That domain is for very large, complex, high-dollar value, non-commercial type work.\u201dnnThe domains is another change for OASIS+. GSA will add or remove domains based on customer needs and usage throughout the life of the contract.nnThat gives us a lot more flexibility as things change and customers\u2019 needs change to introduce new scope areas,\u201d Meadema said. \u201cWe are trying to keep the solicitation open continuously after we initially close it to deal with solicitation protests. This is all about our ability to onboard industry partners at any time during the contracts life.\u201dnnThe onramp for OASIS was far from a smooth process, beset by protests and delays.nnMeadema said the new contract will make it easier for companies who grow out of the small business size standard to apply to get on the OASIS+ unrestricted version.nn\u201cThe evaluation criteria will drive the highly qualified pool of vendors that we're trying to attract. We're not recreating the Multiple Award Schedules. We are setting the bar relatively high,\u201d she said. \u201cThat being said, we are giving careful consideration to how high we set the bar for unrestricted. So again, we can allow companies who re-represent their size to move on to another vehicle.\u201dn<h2>Price not a key evaluation factor<\/h2>nAs part of the evaluation factors, GSA will be applying the authority it received under Section 876 of the 2018 Defense Authorization bill, where price is most important at the task order level, not at the main contract level.nnGSA stated in recent answers to industry questions that OASIS-Plus will not have a <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/reporters-notebook-jason-miller\/2022\/06\/polaris-services-mac-will-be-the-first-governmentwide-contracts-not-have-maximum-dollar-values\/">total dollar ceiling<\/a> attached to it, joining Polaris as the only other contract do deviate from the Federal Acquisition Regulations in the last nine years.nnMeadema said GSA expects to release some new or updated draft sections of OASIS-Plus for industry comment over the summer and then release the full draft request for proposals in early fiscal 2023. GSA expects to issue the final solicitation in the second quarter of 2023.nnThe new name, scope and domain changes are important steps for GSA in this journey, but they still don\u2019t necessarily answer all the questions about how OASIS+\/OASIS-Plus isn\u2019t just creating a new type of schedule contract. The Coalition has <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/commentary\/2021\/04\/part-i-duplication-in-gsas-bic-mac-and-mas-programs\/">expressed concern<\/a> over the last year about possible duplication with the schedules, cross-walking what OASIS+ will include and what the schedules already provide.nnThe next key stop in this journey is when GSA releases the draft RFP for industry comments to see how it differentiates from the schedules and whether it alleviates any concerns in industry about duplication. Most would agree that last thing industry or government needs is another contract that doesn\u2019t add value and meet agency needs."}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

Just when you thought government contracting was about to get fun, again, the General Services Administration decided boring is the right approach.

That’s right, I’m saying government procurement and fun in the same sentence because we had an upcoming contract that had so many possibilities intertwined with it. GSA has been planning the follow-on to its highly popular and successful OASIS contract for the past year. It started by calling the vehicle BIC MAC—best-in-class multiple award contract. Oh the possibilities there!

The agency moved to Services MAC for the last few months. And with both of those names, unlike its more traditional and unexciting names like Alliant or Millennial or 8(a) STARS, these names had so much potential for fun in headlines and leads and so much more.

But GSA decided — and I’ll blame the lawyers here, only because it’s always fun to blame lawyers — to pick the name OASIS+, or maybe Oasis-Plus, for the new governmentwide contract, ending any real chance of bringing fun back to federal procurement.

“The name echoes a successful brand that our customers have come to know and trust, reflects the expanded scope of services that will be available through the new program, and embodies the contract’s flexible domain-based structure,” wrote Tiffany Hixson, the assistant commissioner in GSA’s Office of Professional Services and Human Capital Categories in the Federal Acquisition Service, in a blog post from June 15. “The new program will have a broad scope. As their respective ordering periods conclude, the new program will be able to fulfill requirements currently met by GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS); Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS); and Building, Maintenance, and Operations (BMO) contracts. In addition, new scope areas include environmental, intelligence services, and large enterprise solutions. Plus, we’ll build-in the flexibility to expand scope as customers identify new federal services needs.”

All kidding aside to the good folks at GSA, the decision around OASIS+/Oasis-Plus is seems small, but important. It’s clear there is recognition in FAS that the current contract is popular, in part because GSA has spent the better part of a decade promoting, creating a brand and working with everyone from the Air Force to the Homeland Security Department to the Army to commit to putting hundreds of millions of dollars through OASIS.

Since 2015, agencies have spent $48.8 billion on OASIS, OASIS small business and OASIS 8(a) through more than 3,200 task orders.

Source: GSA’s Data to Decisions Dashboard.

The Air Force remains the largest user, issuing more than 1,000 task orders worth more than $28 billion. The Army is the largest user by total sales with more than $30 billion across 458 task orders.

Source: GSA's Data to Decisions Dashboard.
Source: GSA’s Data to Decisions Dashboard.

The updated vision for OASIS+ also recognizes the struggles of the HCATS contract.

GSA awarded HCATS to 109 vendors in May 2016. The 10 1/2 year contract has a ceiling of $11.5 billion and replaced the Training and Management Assistance (TMA) contract run by the Office of Personnel Management for the last two decades. After a series of bid protests, GSA finally issued the notice to proceed for HCATS in September 2016. Over the last almost six years, agencies have not used the contract like may believed they would, awarding 300 task orders worth $764 million.

Six contracts with five for small business

Sheri Meadema, the acting assistant commissioner of GSA’s Office of Professional Services and Human Capital Categories in the Federal Acquisition Service, said during the Coalition for Government Procurement spring conference that the changes to OASIS-Plus also acknowledges what GSA’s customers have said about the draft details of the new contract over the last few months.

“We had originally envisioned one contract with small business reserves, and working closely with the Small Business Administration and our Office of Small and Disadvantage Utilization Office and our customers, quite frankly, we ended up switching that strategy. So the plan is to now award six separate contracts, five of those being for small businesses and the six being unrestricted,” she said. “The second change is scope. Oasis will cover all of the scope areas in Oasis currently today, plus HCATS and building maintenance and operations as those contracts expire. In addition, in the initial stages of the contract, there are additional scope areas that we’re adding on to include environmental intelligence services and a domain we’re calling enterprise solutions, which will be unique to the unrestricted vehicle. That domain is for very large, complex, high-dollar value, non-commercial type work.”

The domains is another change for OASIS+. GSA will add or remove domains based on customer needs and usage throughout the life of the contract.

That gives us a lot more flexibility as things change and customers’ needs change to introduce new scope areas,” Meadema said. “We are trying to keep the solicitation open continuously after we initially close it to deal with solicitation protests. This is all about our ability to onboard industry partners at any time during the contracts life.”

The onramp for OASIS was far from a smooth process, beset by protests and delays.

Meadema said the new contract will make it easier for companies who grow out of the small business size standard to apply to get on the OASIS+ unrestricted version.

“The evaluation criteria will drive the highly qualified pool of vendors that we’re trying to attract. We’re not recreating the Multiple Award Schedules. We are setting the bar relatively high,” she said. “That being said, we are giving careful consideration to how high we set the bar for unrestricted. So again, we can allow companies who re-represent their size to move on to another vehicle.”

Price not a key evaluation factor

As part of the evaluation factors, GSA will be applying the authority it received under Section 876 of the 2018 Defense Authorization bill, where price is most important at the task order level, not at the main contract level.

GSA stated in recent answers to industry questions that OASIS-Plus will not have a total dollar ceiling attached to it, joining Polaris as the only other contract do deviate from the Federal Acquisition Regulations in the last nine years.

Meadema said GSA expects to release some new or updated draft sections of OASIS-Plus for industry comment over the summer and then release the full draft request for proposals in early fiscal 2023. GSA expects to issue the final solicitation in the second quarter of 2023.

The new name, scope and domain changes are important steps for GSA in this journey, but they still don’t necessarily answer all the questions about how OASIS+/OASIS-Plus isn’t just creating a new type of schedule contract. The Coalition has expressed concern over the last year about possible duplication with the schedules, cross-walking what OASIS+ will include and what the schedules already provide.

The next key stop in this journey is when GSA releases the draft RFP for industry comments to see how it differentiates from the schedules and whether it alleviates any concerns in industry about duplication. Most would agree that last thing industry or government needs is another contract that doesn’t add value and meet agency needs.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/reporters-notebook-jason-miller/2022/06/oasis-or-oasis-plus-either-way-gsa-puts-the-next-generation-services-contract-on-the-fast-track/feed/ 0
Tips on how to get started in B2G marketing https://federalnewsnetwork.com/amtower-off-center/2022/06/tips-on-how-to-get-started-in-b2g-marketing/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/amtower-off-center/2022/06/tips-on-how-to-get-started-in-b2g-marketing/#respond Mon, 20 Jun 2022 19:59:43 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4111053 var config_4111074 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/adswizz\/1591\/0619amtoweroffcenter_podcast_l4l6_7478fcdf.mp3?awCollectionId=1591&awEpisodeId=3def5a73-5167-4b3c-b0cb-be7e7478fcdf&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/Amtower1500-150x150.jpg","title":"Tips on how to get started in B2G marketing","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4111074']nn<em>Best\u00a0listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Amtower Off Center\u2019s audio interviews on\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/amtower-off-center\/id1393078930?mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple Podcasts<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/amtower-off-center?showAllEpisodes=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">PodcastOne.<\/a><\/em>nn[caption id="attachment_4111064" align="alignright" width="231"]<img class="size-medium wp-image-4111064" src="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/Sheri-Ascencio-231x300.jpg" alt="" width="231" height="300" \/> Sheri Ascencio[\/caption]nnThis week on <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/category\/radio-interviews\/amtower-off-center\/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em><strong>Amtower Off Center<\/strong><\/em><\/a>, host Mark Amtower interviews B2G marketing professional <a href="https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/sheriascencio\/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sheri Ascencio.<\/a>nnTopics include:n<ul>n \t<li>Ascencio's background and introduction to B2G<\/li>n \t<li>Based in San Diego, she needed to find peers and did so through Government Marketing University and the GMarkU Ideation group<\/li>n \t<li>How Ideation relationship helped with research and more<\/li>n \t<li>Ascencio's mentor\/mentee relationship with Amtower<\/li>n \t<li>How she leveraged her network in her job search<\/li>n<\/ul>"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Amtower Off Center’s audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

Sheri Ascencio

This week on Amtower Off Center, host Mark Amtower interviews B2G marketing professional Sheri Ascencio.

Topics include:

  • Ascencio’s background and introduction to B2G
  • Based in San Diego, she needed to find peers and did so through Government Marketing University and the GMarkU Ideation group
  • How Ideation relationship helped with research and more
  • Ascencio’s mentor/mentee relationship with Amtower
  • How she leveraged her network in her job search
]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/amtower-off-center/2022/06/tips-on-how-to-get-started-in-b2g-marketing/feed/ 0
Air Force thinking of new ways to handle ‘black swan’ events in acquisition https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2022/06/air-force-thinking-of-new-ways-to-handle-black-swan-events-in-acquisition/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2022/06/air-force-thinking-of-new-ways-to-handle-black-swan-events-in-acquisition/#respond Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:51:58 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4105906 var config_4114791 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062222_Scott_web_xige_a44fdadc.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=91514ecf-0b6b-4291-b9b0-b53ea44fdadc&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"Air Force thinking of new ways to handle \u2018black swan\u2019 events in acquisition","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4114791']nn<em>Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive\u2019s daily audio interviews on\u00a0<\/em><a href="https:\/\/itunes.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin\/id1270799277?mt=2"><em><span style="color: #0070c0;">Apple Podcast<\/span><\/em><span style="color: #0070c0;">s<\/span><\/a><em>\u00a0or\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/www.podcastone.com\/federal-drive-with-tom-temin?pid=1753589">PodcastOne<\/a>.<\/em>nnSAN DIEGO - The government hasn\u2019t had it easy when it comes to predicting what world events will be thrown its way over the past few years, and in turn, that has an impact on budgeting, businesses and their supply chain.nnThe Air Force and other military organizations are dealing with a handful of \u201cblack swans\u201d as Maj. Gen. Camron Holt, Air Force deputy assistant secretary for contracting, called them. The war in Ukraine, supply chain shortages, COVID and inflation are all throwing a wrench in pricing and contracting.nnHolt said the Air Force is exploring multiple options to ensure the service gets the products it wants and helps industry where it is struggling along the way.nnOne option that could benefit both sides is to change the way the Air Force approaches supply chains.nn\u201cRunning inventories on the ragged edge of how low you can get it is always best for a balance sheet and a business,\u201d Holt told Federal News Network. \u201cBut, when you have the possibility of the several black swans coming or the dynamics of inflation or war in Ukraine or other disruptive influences, I think that there's ways to start examining our supply chains in ways that we haven't done before.\u201dnnHolt said the service can take the burden off suppliers by using tools that analyze the fragility of supply chain and then directly funding additional inventories beyond what would be normally acceptable.nnThe process wouldn\u2019t go as far stockpiling goods, but it would add some cushion for the Air Force and suppliers to ensure airmen get what they need and businesses aren\u2019t hit too hard on their bottom line.nn\u201cIt may not be very expensive, but the resilience that it adds in the supply chain without harming the balance statement of that company could be enormous,\u201d Holt said. \u201cIf we analyze and understand our supply chains better, then I think we'll see a lot of those kinds of opportunities to improve the resilience and drop the cost while companies maintain a healthy profit.\u201dnnWhile keeping larger inventories might help supply chains become more resilient, Holt said government needs to rethink its budgeting process in general if the military wants to keep up with a world that is changing faster than ever.nnHolt said the military\u2019s demands to buy faster are in high demand, but the ability to do that runs up against constitutional and congressional resistance.nnCongress has already charged the Defense Department with looking at its planning, programing, budgeting and execution (PPBE) process. The 2022 Defense authorization act sets up a commission to review how the Pentagon plans out its financial situation.nn\u201cLet\u2019s say you find a great prototype someplace and you want to buy it. Well, did you have the foresight two years ago to plan it into your POM? If you didn\u2019t, guess what? You have no authority to buy it,\u201d Heidi Shyu, the undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering said in an\u00a0<a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/on-dod\/2021\/10\/dods-new-rd-chief-prioritizes-moving-prototypes-to-real-world-applications\/">interview<\/a>\u00a0with Federal News Network last fall. \u201cAnd let\u2019s say you\u2019re going to plan it into your POM. Well, in two years time, maybe you\u2019ll get the money, but the technology is already several years old. The PPBE process is too sequential, too linear, too old-fashioned. It works really well if you\u2019re moving at a very slow, very methodical, very risk-averse pace. But in today\u2019s world, when competition against your adversaries is key, it\u2019s got to change.\u201dnnHolt said changing the PPBE process, while staying true to the statues of oversight may be critical to ensuring U.S. military dominance.nn\u201cI think the budgeting process definitely needs to change. I'm really proud of the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee for recognizing that,\u201d he said. \u201cI think the appropriators need to be involved in that discussion as well. The effort is to make sure that we don't defy our own constitution. I think there are private sector models that can change incentives and keep insight and oversight solid, but modernize that oversight in a way that at first may be a little bit concerning, but I think would be effective.\u201dnnHolt noted that rivals like China can move funds quickly, while the United States has a time consuming process.nn\u201cI'm actually more urgently interested in the oversight inside of execution year,\u201d Holt said. \u201cI do understand these arguments. I know that the executive branch hasn't always been the greatest actors in terms of meeting the will of Congress in terms of what buckets of money we spend and how we spend it. I don't think that friction is going to change. I do think that we as a nation have got to start thinking about how do we allow for some judgment and some decision making at the point of attack at the point of execution. Where we can avoid holes in maybe dozens of acquisition programs that we did not anticipate? Can we rapidly move money to an emerging technology we had no idea existed a year ago?\u201d"}};

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drive’s daily audio interviews on Apple Podcasts or PodcastOne.

SAN DIEGO – The government hasn’t had it easy when it comes to predicting what world events will be thrown its way over the past few years, and in turn, that has an impact on budgeting, businesses and their supply chain.

The Air Force and other military organizations are dealing with a handful of “black swans” as Maj. Gen. Camron Holt, Air Force deputy assistant secretary for contracting, called them. The war in Ukraine, supply chain shortages, COVID and inflation are all throwing a wrench in pricing and contracting.

Holt said the Air Force is exploring multiple options to ensure the service gets the products it wants and helps industry where it is struggling along the way.

One option that could benefit both sides is to change the way the Air Force approaches supply chains.

“Running inventories on the ragged edge of how low you can get it is always best for a balance sheet and a business,” Holt told Federal News Network. “But, when you have the possibility of the several black swans coming or the dynamics of inflation or war in Ukraine or other disruptive influences, I think that there’s ways to start examining our supply chains in ways that we haven’t done before.”

Holt said the service can take the burden off suppliers by using tools that analyze the fragility of supply chain and then directly funding additional inventories beyond what would be normally acceptable.

The process wouldn’t go as far stockpiling goods, but it would add some cushion for the Air Force and suppliers to ensure airmen get what they need and businesses aren’t hit too hard on their bottom line.

“It may not be very expensive, but the resilience that it adds in the supply chain without harming the balance statement of that company could be enormous,” Holt said. “If we analyze and understand our supply chains better, then I think we’ll see a lot of those kinds of opportunities to improve the resilience and drop the cost while companies maintain a healthy profit.”

While keeping larger inventories might help supply chains become more resilient, Holt said government needs to rethink its budgeting process in general if the military wants to keep up with a world that is changing faster than ever.

Holt said the military’s demands to buy faster are in high demand, but the ability to do that runs up against constitutional and congressional resistance.

Congress has already charged the Defense Department with looking at its planning, programing, budgeting and execution (PPBE) process. The 2022 Defense authorization act sets up a commission to review how the Pentagon plans out its financial situation.

“Let’s say you find a great prototype someplace and you want to buy it. Well, did you have the foresight two years ago to plan it into your POM? If you didn’t, guess what? You have no authority to buy it,” Heidi Shyu, the undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering said in an interview with Federal News Network last fall. “And let’s say you’re going to plan it into your POM. Well, in two years time, maybe you’ll get the money, but the technology is already several years old. The PPBE process is too sequential, too linear, too old-fashioned. It works really well if you’re moving at a very slow, very methodical, very risk-averse pace. But in today’s world, when competition against your adversaries is key, it’s got to change.”

Holt said changing the PPBE process, while staying true to the statues of oversight may be critical to ensuring U.S. military dominance.

“I think the budgeting process definitely needs to change. I’m really proud of the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee for recognizing that,” he said. “I think the appropriators need to be involved in that discussion as well. The effort is to make sure that we don’t defy our own constitution. I think there are private sector models that can change incentives and keep insight and oversight solid, but modernize that oversight in a way that at first may be a little bit concerning, but I think would be effective.”

Holt noted that rivals like China can move funds quickly, while the United States has a time consuming process.

“I’m actually more urgently interested in the oversight inside of execution year,” Holt said. “I do understand these arguments. I know that the executive branch hasn’t always been the greatest actors in terms of meeting the will of Congress in terms of what buckets of money we spend and how we spend it. I don’t think that friction is going to change. I do think that we as a nation have got to start thinking about how do we allow for some judgment and some decision making at the point of attack at the point of execution. Where we can avoid holes in maybe dozens of acquisition programs that we did not anticipate? Can we rapidly move money to an emerging technology we had no idea existed a year ago?”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/air-force/2022/06/air-force-thinking-of-new-ways-to-handle-black-swan-events-in-acquisition/feed/ 0
Space Systems Command using a ‘buy first’ attitude with procurement https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/space-systems-command-using-a-buy-first-attitude-with-procurement/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/space-systems-command-using-a-buy-first-attitude-with-procurement/#respond Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:30:00 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4102193 SAN DIEGO – Space Systems Command is still not even a year old, however it is trying to find quick ways to procure space products so the Defense Department’s need for those weapons increases.

Space Systems Command (SSC) is adopting a “buy first, build last” approach to acquisition for space products in hopes of rolling them out faster than relying on the military’s slower procurement system to remake the wheel.

The organization stood up its Commercial Services Office at the beginning of the year with the goal of reaching out to industry to find out what kinds of data and services are already available in the commercial sector that DoD and the Space Force can use.

“Can we find other ways of doing GPS or precision, navigation and timing through the commercial market?” said Joy White, executive director of SSC’s contracting activity, during a speech at the Government Contract Pricing Summit. “Can we buy weather capability because we still build weather satellites? Can we buy weather capability services without having to go build something unique? So those are all in play as part of our Commercial Services Office.”

SSC is not only interested in how commercial companies can help, however. White said U.S. allies have been an integral part of building the space infrastructure. After looking in the private sector, White said the Space Force is turning to its partners to grab products that are already available instead of creating something new.

“We’ve got multiple countries partnering with us,” White said. “We’re working with the Japanese to put one of our space domain awareness payloads on one of their GPS satellites. They’re getting ready to build out their own global positioning system, but they have room on one of their satellite buses to house other payloads.”

The U.S. is putting a payload on a satellite that Norway is launching as well. White said DoD expects to save $900 million by putting the payload on Norway’s satellite instead of doing a launch of its own.

SSC is working with allies on electromagnetic spectrum, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance and other areas as well. Currently the U.S. has 58 partnerships with about $3 billion in allied investments.

If SSC cannot find what it needs from industry or from its allies, then the command will look into acquisition, White said.

SCC is not following traditional defense acquisition rules, though. The technologies for space move on a much faster timeline. White said SSC has been utilizing mid-tier acquisition and a consortium to connect with industry quickly and get contracts moving.

“The mid-tier acquisition has really helped us to streamline how we do our satellite builds,” White said. “I’m in the command where we’re doing the acquisition. I’m very familiar with what contracting activity is doing and what acquisitions are going on. It’s much easier for me to then approve things that come through because I already know about what’s going on. There’s not a teaching timeframe to explain why I need to approve something as a head of contracting activity.”

White said another part of making procurement faster is creating a solid “front door” for industry. SSC is trying to be as accessible as possible to nontraditional businesses. It’s also created a consortium that companies can join to make it easier to connect with SSC.

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/contracting/2022/06/space-systems-command-using-a-buy-first-attitude-with-procurement/feed/ 0
DoD confronting ‘Valley of Death,’ other innovation bottlenecks https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2022/06/dod-confronting-valley-of-death-other-innovation-bottlenecks/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2022/06/dod-confronting-valley-of-death-other-innovation-bottlenecks/#respond Tue, 14 Jun 2022 11:15:00 +0000 https://federalnewsnetwork.com/?p=4100952 var config_4112482 = {"options":{"theme":"hbidc_default"},"extensions":{"Playlist":[]},"episode":{"media":{"mp3":"https:\/\/dts.podtrac.com\/redirect.mp3\/pdst.fm\/e\/chrt.fm\/track\/E2G895\/aw.noxsolutions.com\/launchpod\/federal-drive\/mp3\/062122_Daisy_web_gqyo_9f7c0a69.mp3?awCollectionId=1146&awEpisodeId=bf2d45e4-6022-45b7-b301-46179f7c0a69&awNetwork=322"},"coverUrl":"https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/FD1500-150x150.jpg","title":"DoD confronting \u2018Valley of Death,\u2019 other innovation bottlenecks","description":"[hbidcpodcast podcastid='4112482']nnThe Defense Department is evaluating its own processes with an eye toward making it easier for small companies to provide innovative solutions. Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said the DoD <a href="https:\/\/federalnewsnetwork.com\/defense-main\/2021\/09\/dod-bringing-back-advisory-groups-excited-about-innovation-steering-group-potential\/">innovation steering group<\/a> is central to those efforts, which includes mapping out the transition process from prototype or commercially available product to DoD contract.nn\u201cI think transition clearly is one of our biggest problems. The so-called 'Valley of Death,' scaling up to fielding and full-scale production is a piece of that. There are many places you can fall off the cliff in transition for the Defense Department. So we are mapping that system, which to my knowledge has never been done, which surprises me. So I keep waiting for someone to tell me it has,\u201d Hicks said June 13 during the Defense One Tech Summit. \u201cBut right now we have [Research and Engineering, the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO)] and our Acquisition and Sustainment folks sitting down and just building out what is that map? And what are the friction and pain points on that map ... where are we falling down in the transitions? And the answer right now, early on, is there are dozens of pain points, spots where we are losing innovation through our system.\u201dnnMapping that system is the first step to understanding how contractors interface with DoD, so the department can start thinking about how to improve that process and any bottlenecks that might exist. But that\u2019s not the only way DoD is attacking the issue.nnHicks said the innovation steering unit also recently developed a DoD \u201cstorefront\u201d website for small contractors to begin their interactions with the department. Hicks said that \u201cfront door approach\u201d will help the department keep track of all of DoD's innovation projects across its enterprise, many of which fall under smaller DoD innovation storefronts like SOFWERX, AFWERX and SpaceWERX, while making the department itself more accessible to small businesses.nn\u201cIf you're a major contractor with the defense industry, you know how to get to us most likely,\u201d she said. \u201cIf you're a small innovator, you probably don't. So those little things, like just a webpage that can let you in the door, help.\u201dnnOne example of the need for that enterprisewide view of innovation is artificial intelligence. That\u2019s why DoD recently brought on Craig Martell, DoD\u2019s first CDAO. AI is a major DoD innovation effort across the department, but it\u2019s happening in various small pockets without a clear path to scale across the enterprise.nnHicks said Martell and his organization will provide a compromise between a federated, enterprise approach to AI, and the ability to model unique solutions and get them to warfighters quickly.nn\u201cI have high expectations that CDAO can really be a vanguard for us in terms of demonstrating both that we can create the tech stack we need to get after AI \u2014 so that's the data pieces, the digital awareness, the workforce \u2014 and then building up to AI that can enable everything from the boardroom, in terms of efficiencies that we can make on anything from logistics to audit, to making it down to the warfighter in terms of the sensor-to-shooter advantages,\u201d she said.nnHicks also said that the department is taking lessons learned from the original DoD innovation storefront, DIU, and looking at how to multiply those kinds of investments tenfold. For example, DIU taught DoD that many of these innovations that can help support the mission are dual-use commercial technologies. But DIU operates primarily at the prototype level; Hicks also wants to improve focus at the other end of that pipeline, where academia is doing more generalized research on the technologies that inform these prototypes. That way DoD understands the base concepts and can better distinguish the more mature technologies that deliver directly for the warfighter, versus shiny new tech solutions in search of problems.nnAnd that\u2019s because, while most innovation happens in the commercial sector, Hicks said DoD innovation funding is still central to those efforts.nn\u201cWe have to have better insight into what's happening in the external world. That's where I think we have a lot of potential,\u201d she said. \u201cWe have the potential to increase partnerships, make sure our workforce has the flexibility to go out into the commercial sector, to spend fellowship time. We can bring more people like Craig Martell into the government, places like Digital Services ... where we routinely bring folks in. And of course, the flagship of that actually is [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], where we have long had the ability to attract the best and the brightest into the department. We need to continue doing all of that. And then we need to be able to work with Congress to make sure that we have the room and flexibility to actually bring that technology to bear inside the department.\u201d"}};

The Defense Department is evaluating its own processes with an eye toward making it easier for small companies to provide innovative solutions. Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said the DoD innovation steering group is central to those efforts, which includes mapping out the transition process from prototype or commercially available product to DoD contract.

“I think transition clearly is one of our biggest problems. The so-called ‘Valley of Death,’ scaling up to fielding and full-scale production is a piece of that. There are many places you can fall off the cliff in transition for the Defense Department. So we are mapping that system, which to my knowledge has never been done, which surprises me. So I keep waiting for someone to tell me it has,” Hicks said June 13 during the Defense One Tech Summit. “But right now we have [Research and Engineering, the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO)] and our Acquisition and Sustainment folks sitting down and just building out what is that map? And what are the friction and pain points on that map … where are we falling down in the transitions? And the answer right now, early on, is there are dozens of pain points, spots where we are losing innovation through our system.”

Mapping that system is the first step to understanding how contractors interface with DoD, so the department can start thinking about how to improve that process and any bottlenecks that might exist. But that’s not the only way DoD is attacking the issue.

Hicks said the innovation steering unit also recently developed a DoD “storefront” website for small contractors to begin their interactions with the department. Hicks said that “front door approach” will help the department keep track of all of DoD’s innovation projects across its enterprise, many of which fall under smaller DoD innovation storefronts like SOFWERX, AFWERX and SpaceWERX, while making the department itself more accessible to small businesses.

“If you’re a major contractor with the defense industry, you know how to get to us most likely,” she said. “If you’re a small innovator, you probably don’t. So those little things, like just a webpage that can let you in the door, help.”

One example of the need for that enterprisewide view of innovation is artificial intelligence. That’s why DoD recently brought on Craig Martell, DoD’s first CDAO. AI is a major DoD innovation effort across the department, but it’s happening in various small pockets without a clear path to scale across the enterprise.

Hicks said Martell and his organization will provide a compromise between a federated, enterprise approach to AI, and the ability to model unique solutions and get them to warfighters quickly.

“I have high expectations that CDAO can really be a vanguard for us in terms of demonstrating both that we can create the tech stack we need to get after AI — so that’s the data pieces, the digital awareness, the workforce — and then building up to AI that can enable everything from the boardroom, in terms of efficiencies that we can make on anything from logistics to audit, to making it down to the warfighter in terms of the sensor-to-shooter advantages,” she said.

Hicks also said that the department is taking lessons learned from the original DoD innovation storefront, DIU, and looking at how to multiply those kinds of investments tenfold. For example, DIU taught DoD that many of these innovations that can help support the mission are dual-use commercial technologies. But DIU operates primarily at the prototype level; Hicks also wants to improve focus at the other end of that pipeline, where academia is doing more generalized research on the technologies that inform these prototypes. That way DoD understands the base concepts and can better distinguish the more mature technologies that deliver directly for the warfighter, versus shiny new tech solutions in search of problems.

And that’s because, while most innovation happens in the commercial sector, Hicks said DoD innovation funding is still central to those efforts.

“We have to have better insight into what’s happening in the external world. That’s where I think we have a lot of potential,” she said. “We have the potential to increase partnerships, make sure our workforce has the flexibility to go out into the commercial sector, to spend fellowship time. We can bring more people like Craig Martell into the government, places like Digital Services … where we routinely bring folks in. And of course, the flagship of that actually is [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], where we have long had the ability to attract the best and the brightest into the department. We need to continue doing all of that. And then we need to be able to work with Congress to make sure that we have the room and flexibility to actually bring that technology to bear inside the department.”

]]>
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2022/06/dod-confronting-valley-of-death-other-innovation-bottlenecks/feed/ 0