CLEAR Requirements, Level PLAYING FIELD
ARDEC and JMC worked together to develop an ammunition standard that reduces ambiguity, ensures quality and safety for Soldiers and promotes competition by making the procurement process more transparent for all stakeholders.
by Ms. Mary Kate Aylward I
READY FOR LOCK AND LOAD No shortage of 5.56 mm rounds are ready for paratroopers from the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) 82nd Airborne Division to load into their M-4 carbines during a familiarization and qualification range at Fort Bragg, NC in July 2015. The SQI team wrote a review guide that expands on the CCC clause by providing examples and offering training opportunities at supplier facilities. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Christopher Freeman, 82nd CAB Public Affairs).
f the goal is to get more small businesses competing for government contracts, the government has several levers to pull to make that happen. One option is to make it easier for small businesses to compete—or, put another way, to
level the playing field so that it’s no harder for small businesses to play. Clarifying requirements can foster competition and provide an opening for small businesses to enter a marketplace, whether used alone or as part of a broader package of incentives to increase small-business participation.
Te Supplier Quality Initiative (SQI), a joint-services effort sponsored by the U.S. Army Materiel Command’s Armament, Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) and the Joint Munitions Command (JMC) to improve the reliability and quality of ammunition, is one example of just such a collab- orative effort that has smoothed the way for greater competition.
Procuring high-quality ammunition wasn’t a new goal, but the way the SQI set about to achieve it was. Before the mid-2000s, every time the government ordered ammunition, the require- ments could and did change—slightly, but enough to slow the supply chain and to make the ammunition harder to regulate and inspect. Tere were different requirements on different contracts, making it difficult for integrated product team (IPT) members to agree on what was required from suppliers.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 113
CONTRACTING
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 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172
