with the experts, then awarded a contract without a protest.
Te process had not been used in the U.K. before, and at
the time only one
other agency, the Olympic Delivery Authority, had begun to use it, Carrizales said. Despite having to “self-develop the process” with her team, “it was hugely successful.” Te competitive dialogue process validated the technical data in the requirements, enabling the Firebuy team and the potential bidders to check and test the information, which minimized risk for the bidders because the require- ments were absolutely clear to both sides. Te relationship that developed between the government and the vendor during the dialogue was “immensely valuable to a successful contractual partnership,” and resulted in a “strong contractor [being] appointed in an industry-leading contract following a healthy competitive procure- ment,” according to the case study that Carrizales wrote for the Office of Govern- ment Commerce.
Carrizales thinks it could be valuable for the U.S. government to look at adopting a competitive dialogue model. “Sometimes,” she said, “I feel that we, the government, box ourselves in. We issue requirements with technical expertise but which may not encompass industry best practices. In a lot of cases, when we solicit for a particu- lar product or service, we tend to lay out our specifications, [even when] there may be a better process, a better way of achiev- ing a service, but we don’t know what that is because we don’t keep up—I don’t think—well enough with industry. Tere are a number of tremendously smart com- panies out there who are primed and ready to help us achieve what we need.”
In 2010, she and her family moved back to the States, where Carrizales took a con- tract specialist job at the U.S. Army Yuma
Proving Ground, AZ, before moving to her present spot in El Paso.
What do you do, and why is it impor- tant to the Army or the warfighter?
I assumed a new leadership role in late August as the deputy director of the MICC – Fort Bliss office, which contracts for a number of installation-level services and supplies at Fort Bliss. Before this promotion, I led a pre-award contracting division at the MICC – Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) that directly supports the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Com- mand (ATEC) research and development, and U.S. Army Installation Management Command missions at YPG. Te primary mission of YPG is to conduct integrated operational and developmental systems testing and evaluation (OT/DT) in desert, cold and tropic environments at the Yuma Test Center, Cold Regions Test Center and Tropic Regions Test Center, YPG’s subordinate test execution facilities. Te MICC – YPG mission is extremely impor- tant to the Army and the warfighter, as we contract for services and supplies to enable ATEC to conduct critical integrated OT/ DT, independent evaluations, assessments and experiments to ensure that that Sol- diers have the right capabilities for success across the entire spectrum of operations. YPG led ATEC for the second consecu- tive year in the number of direct test hours completed on behalf of the Army test mission, and MICC-YPG has dynamic contract specialists and contracting offi- cers ready to support its test mission 24/7.
During your career with the Army AL&T Workforce, what changes have you noticed that have impressed you the most? What change has surprised you the most, and why?
Te Army Acquisition Workforce has changed dramatically over the past 10-plus
years, particularly in relation to processes and training. Te acquisition workforce today has to be flexible, knowledgeable and responsive; and possess the ability to implement the ongoing acquisition pro- cess streamlining that ensures contracts are awarded in accordance with the myr- iad federal acquisition requirements. I was impressed by the Better Buying Power initiative and its subsequent versions. It makes perfect sense from a business per- spective, and what has surprised me the most is that we didn’t develop and imple- ment such a strategy sooner.
Acquisition has changed profoundly in many ways in the past 25 years. How do you see it changing in the future, or how would you like to see it change?
I would like to see acquisition change with greater engagement with, and involvement by industry. Often, the government has a need but doesn’t know how to achieve the end state. Opening up dialogue with industry and developing an acquisition process like the European competitive dialogue process would resolve some of the issues that the government encoun- ters on some major acquisition programs when it doesn’t leverage best commercial practices or tap innovation because we tend to dictate the requirement.
What’s something that most people don’t know about your job?
Most people don’t know the huge respon- sibility that a warranted contracting officer has to ensure that the American taxpayer’s money is spent wisely. Also, most outsiders don’t realize the com- plexity of the major acquisitions that we process and the regulations that we have to adhere to, to ensure that we achieve best value for the government.
—MR. STEVE STARK
ASC.ARMY.MIL 71
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
