October 2015 CIC Meeting Minutes

Minutes - 16 October 2015 CIC 9:30 to 10:30
In attendance: Steve Harnig, Sheela Casper, Nancy Gunderson, Kelly Cannady, Kristy Penninger, Pete Van, Tim Wiand, Robin Rourk, Don Curtis, Joshua Hatter, Manny Lovgren, Jennifer Osment, Amy Bare, Gary Jaffe
Opening Remarks (Steve Harnig):

Welcome to all members of CIC, introduction of Nancy Gunderson from LANT HQ.
This is a good opportunity to “reshape” the CIC and move forward with more rigor. SPAWAR Contracts would like to see more action come out of these meetings, more involvement of Tier 3s. An EIC was held earlier this week, received some good feedback from EIC. There is an SIEC scheduled for next week in San Diego.
Michele McCullough will be attending to take notes and distribute. Steve Harnig and Josh Hatter will review and disseminate to the teams.
Pete Van mentions that there have been issues with clearances/access for SCIFs, etc; Dave Monahan (acting ED) has committed to 3 FTEs (per company) to get badges/background checks for TS/SCI (SSBI). . Don Curtis asks how to go about this, if perhaps SPAWAR is offering to sponsor the clearances? (SSBI) Pete also mentions that we need to get help with contractor access to the base – there is an obvious problem, with access taking up to/over 30 days for some individuals.
ACTION: CIC industry members to gather data/metrics on this.

Topic 1: TO RFP QA
Question: Continued issues/discrepancies increase Q&A and confusion during the bidding process (i.e., question 13 page count discrepancies between Section L and Attachments 1A and 1B). Would the government be receptive to industry compiling anecdotal evidence or development of templates to try to alleviate some of the discrepancies?
Discussion: Yes, we are receptive to input on discrepancies/ issues on RFPs, especially those that cause confusion during bid process. One of 2.0’s initiatives is to increase review of RFPs and other pre-award processes to help with quality. If this group can continue to bring us this type of data, this will be valuable. Contracts Tier 3s will be involved as well and able to work on consistency within their teams. Kelly Cannady is working with legal for all TOEP. There is a possibility of using more draft RFPs/advance PWS/L&M; also working to get these out earlier. Expectation is to be complete and have templates by mid-November, per Kelly.
SPAWAR has started a training program.

Topic 2: Tripwire Monitoring
Question: Tripwire monitoring? Rate deviation tripwire in theory is intended to be compared to an overall composite rate but occasionally is compared to each labor category instead.

Discussion: Better consistency is needed among CORs relative to their reviews – how are they being instructed to monitor the tripwires? CORs are being trained to use the composite rate. Additional training has been provided, but some CORs may still not be completely up to speed. Industry is unsure how best to address this with individual CORs.
Nancy Gunderson states that post-award labor rate will no longer trip after initial tripwire with upcoming revision, and some thresholds (signature/approval) will also be moved lower. Pete Van says we will need to reemphasize this in the COR training.
ACTION: 2.0 to provide this feedback to COR PM (John O’Connor)
Steve Harnig notes that we need to change our mindset throughout LANT (i.e., tripwires are viewed as negative). Basically trips are something to start conversation with, not necessary bad; need awareness and need to be able to explain/understand. This topic is on the agenda for next week’s SIEC.

Topic 3: Pricing Model and MAC TO Evaluation process
Question: Pricing model and MAC TO evaluation process – recent task order RFPs have specified that bidders not deviate from labor mix, hours, or locations. Has any thought been given to changing a typical task order RFP Section L to a 10-page technical approach over technical capability (after the backlog is reduced, of course)? Realizing this argument has been made on both sides previously, this might allow for more innovation in bidding to tell more of a technical story to justify any modifications to the pricing model.
Discussion: Yes, this is addressed often in SBIOI, but changes have been slow to happen. Some IPTs want to do this, looking to pilot with some of them (Erik Gardner/Brian Ratliff). Pete Van mentions a “cut and paste” mentality exists (i.e., worked previously so repeat). We need a way to gain better understanding of best fit; Pete mentions that realignment of contracts to SPL/IPT level will help this process. Need to get this earlier in the process to make it happen.

Topic 4: Task Order Forecasting
Question: Task Order Forecasting – realize this horse is long dead; the inability for industry to forecast bid and proposal requirements increases cost to industry and ultimately the government, as well as inhibits competition on MAC IDIQs. Will the HQ requirement of forecasting task orders twice annually stay in place or might industry expect a more regular mechanism for TO forecasting?
Discussion: This was stopped at EOY due to backlog. There is a working group with HQ on this (Kristy and Robin are on this WG) Will have an enterprise solution in terms of doing forecasting twice a year (November and May); want to do as much as we can do as well, striving toward a regular drumbeat. Currently unsure when enterprise solution will be ready – may not be before November, and could possibly be briefed at November SIEC. Robin Rourk says Faye is probably okay with rolling this out a little early. Question is raised regarding possibility of using SeaPort to notify in between the forecasts.
Steve says there is still work to be done regarding real need dates versus “want” dates. We have a lot of data now, which is very helpful, but still need to work on accuracy in some cases.

Topic 5: Future SBIOIs to be used as informal industry days for MAC IDIQ >$50M?
Question: Would the government consider using part of future SBIOIs as partial informal industry days for larger MAC IDIQ task orders (i.e., >$50M)?
Discussion: Would like to have industry days when needed; would lean more towards doing it separately on individual contracts rather than using SBIOI, but can use SBIOI to get out information. Want to ensure we have the right audience. There may possibly be an advantage to using SBIOI to reach a broader audience for new work.

Topic 6: CAPT Heller’s comment re number of actions SSC LANT processed for Q4/anticipated for Q1. How has forecast changed?
Question: CAPT Heller commented on the number of actions SSC LANT Contracts was processing for Q1 and an anticipated number of contract actions for Q1. How has that forecast changed, if at all?
Discussion: Did 33% of actions in last quarter, 49% of dollars. We have around 500 PRs currently, 350 of these have need dates in Q1. 2.0 continues to meet with portfolios twice a month to discuss priority PRs/need dates.
Industry Actions: Collect data re wait times for CACs

2.0 Actions: Provide this feedback to COR Program Manager (John O’Connor)
Other items/actions
Industry would also like feedback from Contracts. (issues with proposals, etc)
Nancy says Mr. Stackley has asked about how often we meet with industry and provide feedback, i.e., more transparency

Tags: