SOMETIMES SOFTWARE DOESN’T FIT


CONTRACT, CONFIGURE AND GO


Spc. Jeffery D. Maddox, an information technology specialist in the U.S. Army Reserve assigned to the Signal and Communication Office for the 415th Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Brigade, configures laptops in February during a command post exercise. The author argues that as hardware and software change, the methods by which the Army acquires it should also change. (U.S. Army Reserve photo by Sgt. Stephanie Ramirez, U.S. Army Reserve Command)


apply. Rather, FAR clause 52.211-6, “Brand Name or Equal,” should be invoked.


FAR 15.404 requires price-cost analysis as an evaluation factor for multiple-award contracts. This price-cost analysis is completed so that prices may be estab- lished at the base-level contract. Tis refers back to the “multiple award” in multiple-award IDIQ. The awardees were not selling anything at the time the IDIQ contract was put in place. Tey were only given a contract that allows govern- ment agencies to purchase from them as needed for a specific period of time. Tis is known as the base contract. When an agency needs to purchase software, all the vendors on the multiple-award IDIQ will submit a quote that will then be evaluated for price. Te software buys are called task orders or delivery orders. Once again, we are in trouble with the FAR as we have no real price comparison until agencies place task orders and delivery orders.


But there does actually appear to be a solu- tion: It’s called a deviation. A deviation allows you to not follow the FAR in very specific cases, and there happens to be a


126 Army AL&T Magazine Fall 2019


FAR deviation that appears to fit this issue. Te FAR reads as follows: “Contracting officers, at their discretion, when issuing a solicitation that will result in multiple- award contracts issued for the same or similar services may exclude price or cost as an evaluation factor for the contract awards.” Te deviation permits contract- ing officers to evaluate cost or price only at the task-order level. Unfortunately this deviation does not apply to software acqui- sitions, but one like it would go a long way to mitigate the price evaluation issue.


When we conduct a price evaluation for hardware, we can start by going to Best Buy, Staples, Office Depot or any one of a zillion websites such as Amazon.com to research the price that a piece of hard- ware is generally being sold for. It’s not as simple for commercial software. Most times, the government must contact the company directly to discuss baseline public-sector pricing. Te price for one copy of a piece of software on the shelf in a store is not the same as when you purchase tens of thousands or sometime hundreds of thousands of software licenses. Te unit cost of a license often goes down as the


number of licenses purchased goes up, but the discount rate is not a fixed number. In many cases, you only get what you negotiate.


In addition, price evaluation cannot be done accurately by looking at previous prices paid by the government. Tose previous prices take into account several variables: number of units purchased, end- of-quarter discounts, and whether the government does other business with the company. Another complexity when evalu- ating commercial software is the variety of use models (subscription, perpetual, as-a- service, etc.) and metrics. For example, say Company A has a commercial software product that can be sold or purchased in the following ways (metrics):


• Per device. • Per virtual machine. • Per processor. • Per named user. • Per operating system. • Per portable license unit. • Per server. • Per powered-on virtual machine.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156