search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
$


competition, if we make it easier for them to evaluate timely, multiple offers, they’re going to go for it because they want to get the most for their money, too.”


The task force developed a four-pronged approach to achieving greater competition:


• Remove obstacles. Carter directed that contracting officers conduct negotia- tions with all single-bid offerors unless the requirement is specifically waived by the Head of Contracting Activity, Secretary of the Military Department, or Director of the Defense Agency.


“The goal is to make it so difficult for the contracting officer to go out and get one bid, that he or she will do anything they can to go out and get more than one bid,” Griffin said. “We’re going to punish them if they only get one, so they’re going to make sure they get at least two.”


For example, a Nov. 24, 2010, Defense Procurement and Acquisition policy memo states that if a solicitation is open for less than 30 days and only one offer is received, the agency must read- vertise the solicitation for a minimum of 30 days. If the solicitation is open for at least 30 days or readvertisement yields a single offer, the agency must request certified cost and pricing data or other-than-certified cost and pricing data, and conduct negotiations.


• Require open-systems architecture and set rules for acquiring technical data rights. Carter’s Nov. 3, 2010 memo- randum, Implementation Directive For Better Buying Power—Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending, directed that a busi- ness case analysis, in concert with the engineering tradeoff analysis, be pre- sented at Milestone B. The business case analysis is to outline the approach


A S C . A RMY.MI L 95


to open-systems architecture and technical data rights that will be pur- sued. Analysis will be reported in the Acquisition Strategy Report and in the competition strategy, Griffin said.


The question of how to acquire techni- cal data rights affordably also arose in a separate session at the symposium. Dr. Steven Miller, in the Office of OSD CAPE, said, “I think the most effective time to buy the data rights is when we do the competition,” typically at Mile- stone B. “That’s when we’re likely to have the most leverage and control over the price.”


INDUSTRY DAY


Carter has called for strategies to promote greater competition. Here, exhibitor Joe Bardouche (right), with Pi’ Ilani, discusses opportunities for their business with another vendor (left) at the Hawaii Army Industry Day at the Hale Ikena Club on Fort Shafter, HI, Nov. 23. (U.S. Army photo by B. J. Weiner, U.S. Army Pacific Public Affairs.)


• Present a competitive strategy at each milestone. While DOD recognizes that some major programs are not suitable for classic head-to-head competition, all programs should have a competi- tive strategy, Griffin said. Carter’s Nov. 3 memorandum directed that a com- petitive strategy be included in the acquisition strategy before each mile- stone for Acquisition Category IC, ID, II, III, and IV programs. Agencies also report to USD(AT&L) on how they intend to reduce single-bid com- petitions, addressing market research, restrictive specifications, and adequate time for proposal preparation. Carter


BETTER BUYING POWER


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