COMMENTARY
Just one commercial software product offering can generate hundreds of lines on a spreadsheet to list all the permutations. So, you can’t simply compare two similar commercial software products; the ways in which they are sold must also be consid- ered. Many times, an equal comparison can’t be done, because not all like commercial software products can be sold in the same ways. Given a big enough hammer and a lot of time, some- thing that satisfies the requirements of FAR 15.404 for price evaluation can be produced, but I question if it is mean- ingful or valuable for the time and effort spent.
Te real competition and price eval- uation take place in earnest at the delivery-order level; this is why the previously mentioned class deviation allows this task to be delegated at the order level. When a request for quote (RFQ) is placed for commercial soft- ware at the delivery-order level, multiple companies respond. It’s at this time that the price can be compared and evalu- ated for a single product as specified in the customer’s RFQ. Additional discounts above and beyond the base contract can also be nego- tiated because the requirement is firm; requirements are not firm when establishing a base-level IDIQ. Te base-level IDIQ only contains broad, high-level nonnegotiable terms and conditions that can be enhanced if doing so would benefit the government, but cannot be diminished.
WHAT FACTORS ARE IMPORTANT? Normally with an IT product, the technical factor is the most important part of the evaluation to determine if the product meets the customer’s minimum specifications. Other factors, such as past performance, are important, but they typically are not considered if the minimum specification technical requirement has not first been satisfied.
With commercial software, we usually don’t have a minimum technical specification to evaluate, as most traditional software contracts are for a single specific product or a range of prod- ucts from a single maker. In the case of the Army Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) IDIQ contract, Information Technology Enterprise Solutions – Soft- ware (ITES-SW), we didn’t know what products or brands would be offered until after the vendors proposed.
Te ITES-SW contract is catalog-based. Te vendors were given four categories in which to submit proposals. As long as a proposed product fit in one of the categories and was deemed worthy to be on the Army’s network, it was accepted in the vendors’ catalog. What products each vendor put in their catalog was unknown, and the catalogs are updated and changed often. Te result is an evaluation that really focuses on the company’s ability to fulfill the stated requirement and not so much on technical speci- fications.
This is another case where software requires a hammer to fit the FAR. Anyone who has ever done a justification and approval knows what this hammer looks like.
Typically, software acquisition teams spend months working with software makers during acquisition develop- ment and negotiation, hammering out language for the base-level IDIQ that’s agreeable to the vendor and the government. With all of this back- and-forth and round-and-round, I don’t recall a single issue that was about a product. Te primary effort was centered around the company’s willingness and ability to agree on terms and conditions.
CONCLUSION I recommend to first extend the FAR class deviation published in 2017 to supply contracts as well as service contracts. Doing so would give a contracting officer the discretion to exclude price or cost as an evaluation factor when developing software acquisi- tions. Tis would save significant time in the acquisition process currently being spent on a requirement that does not add value. It’s time to revisit and revise how we classify commercial soft- ware and the procurement of commercial software in the FAR. Just as technology changes over time, the methods by which we acquire it should also change.
For more information, go to
www.chess.army.mil.
DANTE E. MILLEDGE is a computer scientist with the U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command, currently stationed at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and provides software support for CHESS. He holds a bachelor’s degree in computer science from Texas A&M University. He is Level III certified in engineering and Level II certified in acquisition life cycle logistics.
https://asc.ar my.mil
127
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
