Home' Army Acquisition Logistics and Technology Magazine : Army ALT April-June 2011 Contents ARMY AL&T
CONTRACTING COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS
A Collaborative Strategy
The acquisition professional has myriad resources to reduce the
use of T&M contracts. Acquisition professionals, contracting
personnel, and program managers should work closely to reach
an understanding of the true mission requirement and change
the contract type from T&M when appropriate.
Share your experiences with your program personnel and
customers. Educate them on the market research, PWS develop-
ment processes, and reviews of existing and previous contracts
and experiences. Use this knowledge and experience to create
lessons learned for future best practices.
Kathie Potter is the former Chief of Policy for the U.S. Army
Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (Command,
Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance) and is currently deployed to Iraq. She holds
a B.L.A. in landscape architecture and environmental planning
from Utah State University and an M.P.A. from the University of
La Verne. Potter is Level III certified in contracting and is a U.S.
Army Acquisition Corps member.
Two-Phase Design/Build Selection
Process Speeds Contract Review
Virginia E. Mitchell
In 2004, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) received
one of its greatest contracting challenges. As the Army's agent
for military construction (MILCON), USACE needed to
execute an unprecedented surge in construction requirements
to meet the imminent demands of Army Transformation, the
Global Posture Initiative, and Base Realignment and Closure.
Clearly, USACE could not achieve this mission using a
business-as-usual approach to awarding contracts. The days
of applying design, bid, build procedures to single facilities
at installations had ended. The Army needed to transform
its methods for executing MILCON, and it did so by tran-
sitioning to centrally managed designs under the Centers of
Standardization (CoS) and by taking a new look at the way it
solicited construction requirements. USACE also reached out to
industry for input on how to best accomplish its goals on a local
and regional basis and under a national acquisition strategy.
In 2005, USACE conducted one nationwide and four regional
industry and technical forums at key locations across the
country, as well as one specialized forum with the permanent
prefabricated/pre-engineered/modular construction industry.
Input from these forums, combined with Web-based market
research, helped USACE gain a productive working understand-
ing of industry's capabilities, experience, and interest. It also
provided information on current construction techniques to
help build 41 different facility types as varied as chapels, child
care facilities, and command and barracks complexes, while
ensuring better, faster, and cheaper execution. The U.S. Army
Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, AL, maintains the
standards for these facility types.
Phases and Award
In Phase 1 of the best-value source selection process, USACE
experts perform a capability analysis and assessment of perfor-
mance risk. To accomplish this, offerors are evaluated in three
areas: corporate relevant experience, past performance and orga-
nization, and technical narrative.
Preparing a proposal for this phase is fairly simple and straight-
forward. Once an offeror becomes familiar with the process, it
can tailor the response to each new requirement.
The government often receives many Phase 1 proposals. Proposals
in numbers of 20 or more are received for stand-alone "C"
type contracts, while as many as 40-60 proposals are typically
submitted for single-award task order contracts (SATOCs) and
multiple-award task order contracts (MATOCs). This stream-
lined initial evaluation allows for a much quicker decision as to
which proposals will make the cut for the Phase 2 evaluation.
The two-phase selection process also can save industry money
and time upfront. If eliminated in Phase 1, offerors can save
an estimated $50,000-$100,000 and an average of 60 work-
ing days by not preparing the Phase 2 proposal. Offerors not
Construction workers erect wall panels for a new physical fitness center at
Fort Stewart, GA, Nov. 29, 2010. USACE is building a new campus for the 4th
Infantry Brigade Combat Team at the installation. (Photo courtesy of USACE.)
Links Archive Army ALT July-September 2011 Army ALT January-March 2011 Navigation Previous Page Next Page