 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Moderator Roseanne Gerin:
Welcome to Washington Technology's editorial forum on the hot Defense contracts of 2006. Our guest experts today are Input Consulting Group member David Borland and Input business analyst Megan Gamse, who are available from noon to 1 p.m. to answer your questions.
Today's forum is presented in conjunction with Washington Technology's DOD special report in the July 24 print issue. For more information, see Special Report | DOD becomes an ‘IDIQ world’.
We've got questions in the queue, so let's get down to business.
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Velma from Maryland: With the budgetary challenges facing the Army right now and current restrictions on new contracts made by the Vice Chief, what level of utilization do you foresee for the many ID/IQ vehicles by installations, Army Commands, etc? Will industry see a steady state of use of these vehicles or a gradual ramp up?
David Borland: Velma; you are correct; the Army is facing some very difficult financial issues. Those challenges will continue as long as there are troops deployed in dangerous places around the world and the Army ensures that those troops have what they need. The budgetary restictions imposed by Army leadership is the way to focus Army folks on that reality. Having said that, this Army and its leaders have long since recognized the value of IT and related technoligies to succcessful completion of its mission. IT is recognized as a force multiplier and as such it will continue to be invested in. One of the things i do see occcurring is a move toward a more centralized IT management approach. This has been going on for several years and will continue where mission allows. One of the mechanisms the Army uses in this centralization effort is the establishment and use of ID/IQ vehicles, so I expect that use the vehicles will continue and gradually ramp up; the Army is larger and more complex than many of us realize and the process will be long and laborious.
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Ashlea from Reston, VA: With the increasing flow of work through awarded task order contracts, how can companies NOT on those contracts get the needed visibility?
Megan Gamse: There are multiple ways for an organization not currently holding a MA IDIQ contract to both participate in this market as well as gain visibility throughout the vendor community. I would encourage vendors to utilize the tools mentioned in the response to Milisssa earlier (CCR, FBO, INPUT's product set as well as event attendance). INPUT is currently tracking over $900 billion in active federal opportunities in the Federal Technology Opportunities product. There is room for vendors to play in this market with or without a MA IDIQ contract.
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Milissa, VA: What advice can you offer to a small IT company looking to break into the government contracting arena? We are relatively new and have no past performance, so we are unable to get a GSA schedule. How can we partner with primes when the market seems to be saturated with so many other small companies looking to do the same? We know we're capable, we just need to get that first opportunity.
David Borland: Melissa; Megan is right on target... sell your core competency, do not sell that you can do anything. During my time as a government executive, one of the things that turned me off most was the small company that visited me and presented a page-long list of capabilities. The only way to overcome that lack of past performance is to create strong professional relationships with the potential government client that has a need for your core competency and then create that same kind of relationship with a small, mid-size, or large business that routinely supports that client.
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
McLean, VA: How aware/concerned is the government (or more specifically the Program Managers of large programs) that more and more contracts are being written so that only the big systems integrators or certified small businesses can be primes -- leaving the mid-sized players to play a subcontractor role more and more.
David Borland:
While I can not measure the degree of concern by program managers, I can say with confidence that both they and their brothers and sisters in the contracting-officer community are aware of the issue and are concerned that the condition you describe may have negative effect on the number of sources they have available for consideration to meet their requirements.
It seems to me that the regulations and procedures governing this whole area simply have not kept pace with the industry and its econonic and competitive characteristics. Easier said than done, for sure, but it would appear that our whole system of industry classification and size standards and their enforcement requires a review and adjustment.
If you or your company are a member if the Information Technology Association of America and are interested actively working this issue, I would suggest you contact ITAA, as I know they are working on it.
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Bill in Annapolis, MD: The DFAR requires that Congress be notified of contract awards greater than $5 million... is the DoD and/or industry concerned that mult-million-dollar task order awards under multiple-award IDIQs seem to circumvent these Congressional (and other public) notification rules?
Megan Gamse:
Those of us involved with government contracting are well aware of some of the possible dangers of inappropriate utilization of multiple-award IDIQ (MA IDIQ) contracts. These dangers can include overuse of sole-source orders (thus limiting the competitive environment), as well as a limitation on the visibility (and therefore competition) of future public sector task order requirements. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 4.6 , "Contract Reporting," explains in detail the reporting obligations of government through the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation (FPDS-NG). As stated by the FAR, "Each executive agency shall establish and maintain for a period of five years a computer file, by fiscal year, containing unclassified records of all procurements exceeding $25,000. This file shall be accessible to the public using FPDS-NG." This rule also applies to task order awards under MA IDIQ contracts.
For more information on FAR Subpart 4.6 visit http://www.acqnet.gov/far/05-02/html/Subpart%204_6.html .
For more information on DFAR Subpart 216.5 "indefinite-Delivery Contracts" visit http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars216.htm#P212_9073 .
For a copy of NASA IG-01-040 "Multiple Award Contracts" visit http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY01/ig-01-040.pdf .
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
Bob Fritz: I note that you only have one Navy effort on this list. Do you see that as an indicator of most Navy work being run through SeaPort Enhanced? Will that NAVAIR effort on your list be subsumed by SeaPort Enhanced? Aren't major shipbuilding efforts connected to Seabasing considered major efforts? What were your selection criteria?
Megan Gamse:
The criteria set for the creation of the opportunities listing included:
- An INPUT or government anticipated RFP release date in calendar year 2006
- Procured on behalf of a defense agency
The top opportunities were selected on the basis of highest estimated total contractual value (including all possible option years and/or award terms).
SeaPort Enhanced (SeaPort-e; INPUT Opp ID #11856), with almost 1000 prime contract holders (including all finalized rounds of rolling admissions) is one of the largest multiple-award IDIQ contract vehicles ever created. Although NAVAIR, NAVSEA, NAVSUP and SPAWAR are beginning to use the SeaPort-e vehicle more to pursue many of their requirements for future engineering, financial, and program management support services, INPUT does not currently anticipate the BAMS requirement will be fulfilled through this vehicle. Government currently anticipates the a BAMS Draft RFP release in October 2006 with a final RFP release in January 2007. A public website (located below) is currently being maintained to track and decimate all BAMS information.
Additional Department of Navy top opportunities (anticipated to be fulfilled through open market competition) include:
INFORMATION ASSURANCE ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES (INPUT Opp ID #15269)
SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Estimated Value: $249,000,000
Solicitation Release Date: 08/14/2006
Summary: The Space and Naval Systems Warfare Center on behalf of the Department of Defense and Department Homeland Security has a requirement for the provision of highly technical support services to support U.S. tactical and strategic operations with emphasis being Information Assurance (IA).
C41SR MISSION ENABLEMENT SUPPORT (INPUT Opp ID #37191) SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Estimated Value: $155,500,000
Solicitation Release Date: 4QFY06
Summary: The Department of the Navy, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) Charleston, has a requirement for C4ISR mission enablement support.
COMMAND CONTROL COMMUNICATIONS COMPUTER AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS (INPUT Opp ID #30889)
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION
Estimated Value: $120,000,000
Solicitation Release Date: 08/2006 (Government Estimate)
Summary: The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), Special Communications Requirements (SCR) Division, Patuxent River, St. Inigoes, MD has a requirement for engineering, technical, management and professional support services.
For more information on SeaPort Enhanced visit http://www.seaport.navy.mil /.
For more information on the BAMS procurement visit http://uav.navair.navy.mil /. (Click on BAMS UAS on left hand side.)
|
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
