• Determine whether the acquisition strategy can be modified to better suit the unique commercial aspects of the system in question.
• Use contract incentives to encourage appropriate relationships.
• Maintain close relationships with ven- dors to maximize improvements and avoid surprises.
PROMOTING COMPETITION LL_983: Maintaining
open
under contract. Tis will allow vendors to make informed decisions in order to be positioned for future procurement. Shar- ing information regularly builds a solid relationship with industry and keeps it informed of the program’s intent.
MAINTAINING COLLABORATION
com-
munication with industry can allow vendors that were not a part of technol- ogy development to develop their own designs and promote competition for the EMD phase.
Background One program found that competition among multiple vendors during the EMD phase allowed costs to be mini- mized as the vendors competed for the low-rate initial production contract in a fiscally constrained defense environment. Tis approach gave the government lever- age to reduce system cost and potentially obtain system support deliverables, such as data rights, that may not typically have been offered at reasonable costs. Overall, the PMO attributed the pro- gram’s success in meeting performance, cost and schedule requirements to the competition among the multiple vendors despite the restrictions and difficulties it imposed on the program. (Having three vendors compete to build prototypes in the EMD phase tripled the cost of select- ing a vendor—but with the expectation that it would result in lower costs later in the program’s life cycle.)
Recommendation To promote future competition, program offices should release requirement docu- ments and portions of the acquisition strategy widely, not just to the vendors
LL_1072: Te PMO, contractors and the functional proponent should operate as an integrated team and collaborate as much as possible while maintaining appropriate boundaries.
Background One program faced challenges with poor communication and coordination among the PMO, the functional proponent and the systems integrator (SI). Tis needed to be resolved for the program to be exe- cuted successfully. Te functional and acquisition roles were not clearly defined, and there was a clear delineation as well as physical separation of functional pro- ponent, PMO and contractor personnel.
Staff from the PMO, SI and the func- tional proponent were physically co-located so they could work together and communicate more freely, allowing tighter collaboration. Te relationship between the government and contractor was revamped to include regular interac- tion and collaboration, including daily sync-up meetings between the PMO and SI leadership. Rules of engagement and policies were still in place, but the three entities were integrated into a well-functioning team working toward a common goal.
Because the contractor did not have an experienced test manager on staff, the PMO had difficulty getting information on the SI’s test strategy. Te PMO added language to the contract pertaining to
the PMO and SI working together on testing. Tey combined staffs to create a more robust test team, with the gov- ernment leading the test effort and the contractor executing. Test implementa- tion greatly improved as a result.
Recommendation Ensure that personnel across the three entities—PMO, contractor and func- tional proponent—can work together collaboratively. Staff working on simi- lar areas of the program ideally should physically sit and work together, and the PMO should ensure that there are no communication barriers to prevent the three entities from functioning as an integrated team. And, although close collaboration is imperative, boundaries still need to be acknowledged to ensure that the functional proponent does not exceed its responsibilities. Ensure that the roles of each party are well-defined and understood.
For more information on these and other Army lessons learned within the ALLP, go to
https://allp.amsaa.army.mil; Com- mon Access Card login required. Recent lessons pertaining to communicating with industry, market
research and industry
days can also be found in the Ground Truth article in the January – March 2016 issue of Army AL&T.
MS. JILL IRACKI is an operations research analyst with the U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. She holds a B.A. in mathematics from Notre Dame of Maryland University and is working toward an M.S. in applied and computational mathematics at Johns Hopkins University. She is Level II certified in engineering.
ASC.ARMY.MIL
25
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 |
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 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184
