TRAINING GROUND
Soldiers assigned to Train Advise Assist Command – East (TAAC-E) provide security and communications during an advising visit to the Nangarhar police Regional Logistics Center in January. Integrating all stakeholders and technologies throughout the life of a program, along with continuous reevaluation of assumptions and implications, can lead to better requirements more suitable to the current, budget-constrained acquisition environment. (U.S. Army photo by CPT Jarrod Morris, TAAC-E Public Affairs)
RFP. Tis caused program challenges in determining what development work was required, getting it on contract and securing the additional money and time in the schedule for the work to be completed.
Recommendation Construct a requirements traceability matrix based on a JRO- approved CDD when drafting the RFP and contract. Identify implied stakeholder and technology requirements. Ensure that the requirements are clearly and accurately defined in the RFP and the contract. When evaluating the proposal, ensure that the contractor has captured all of the requirements and accurately provided cost and schedule data that the government needs to evaluate the RFP.
LL_735: Conduct an assessment of key technologies before releasing an RFP and provide the information to offerors to assist with proposal preparation.
Background Before the program start and as a result of the cancellation of a previous program, the deputy chief of staff G-3/5/7 requested that the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logis- tics and technology conduct an assessment of the technologies available to meet program requirements. Funding from the can- celled program was used to fund a comprehensive and thorough government assessment of those technologies. Te government
team provided the final assessment of technologies to potential offerors before the release of the RFP.
Tis reduced the amount of time required for RFP preparation and also reduced the time for the contractor to prepare the pro- posal by approximately 45 days, which consequently reduced program risk in meeting the schedule. Te assessment provided offerors an awareness of desired features, as well as concerns asso- ciated with various technology options. As a result, the offerors were better able to weigh trade-offs and eliminate options that could limit mission effectiveness. Providing detailed informa- tion before the release of the RFP resulted in more detailed proposals, better engineering design choices and award of the best value contract.
Recommendation Te government should conduct an assessment of key technol- ogies before releasing an RFP and provide the information to offerors to assist with proposal preparation. Funding should be made available to conduct this type of analysis before program initiation. A government-conducted review of technologies available to meet an emerging requirement provides several benefits: the assessment informs the requirement; it provides information to offerors responding to the RFP, allowing them to prepare quality proposals in a shorter timeframe; and the information gleaned from the assessment reduces the govern- ment’s technical and schedule risk.
ASC.ARMY.MIL
49
ACQUISITION
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
