To combat the status quo, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has launched a "myth-busters" campaign to educate government, and eliminate public sector barriers to communication and enhance awareness of the most efficient and effective technologies available in the private sector. Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFFP) Administrator, Dan Gordon, outlined in his Feb. 2nd memo the planned outcome of this campaign, which is to remove communication barriers and improve the overall acquisition process that includes specific initiatives on needs identification, requirements definition, acquisition strategy formulation, market research, the proposal process, and contract execution.
I have been writing about the need for improved communication as a central theme of acquisition reform for some time (here, here, and here), so I am glad this formalized implementation plan has taken shape. What I am also glad to see is that the communication plan is not only a public sector initiative, but is also being done with industry.
Leading this effort is the industry group the American Council for Technology (ACT) - Industry Advisory Council (IAC), which has launched an online forum called BetterGovernmentIT.org, to collect feedback that will later be reviewed by OMB, the Chief Information Officers Council and the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, according to ACT-IAC. This site, which is styled after the General Services Administration's BetterBuyProject, uses crowd-sourcing techniques for contracting professionals to identify common myths about vendor engagement and information that will help improve public/private communication. One important option included is to engage anonymously, which will hopefully encourage dialogue without the fear of retribution by government officials or providing other firms competitive information.
These encouraging efforts can only help improve what is a truly becoming a broken system where communication barriers are getting more and more entrenched. What can truly improve the overall process is having open communications with industry as early in the process as possible. These early communications, in the need identification stage, can greatly improve the requirements development process, which I believe to be a truly broken process. These early exchanges can vastly improve the chances of good acquisition outcomes, which includes reduced costs, improved performance, innovative solutions, increased competition, and with proper oversight, improved overall government management.
These public/private efforts have the ability to produce desired effect, but only if these efforts are coordinated. OMB, OFPP, and ACT-IAC need to ensure data and feedback from their respective efforts are all shared amongst each other, which includes sharing lessons learned, and transfer knowledge. It would be a shame if effort to improve communication were conducted in the same, stove-piped echo chamber they are being conducted now. As these initiatives move forward, the increased communications can only help shape the future of acquisitions to the benefit of the taxpayer.
]]>Reverse auctions are by definition a structured competitive bidding event where competition can be maximized to help drive the price lower over the course of the event. One common reason I have heard for the poor adoption rate is technology barriers, which is a frankly a disingenuous reason. The benefits of potentially significant cost savings, enhanced transparency, increased collaboration, increased competition all outweigh any barriers that seem to be artificially created by Federal organizations. If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Obama Administration are serious about Open Government and accountability, then enhanced adoption of reverse auction should be further explored.
Another stumbling block to adoption is the issue of transparency, as the risk adverse nature of Government creates issues that should not exist through fear of protest that seems to be paralyzing acquisition decision-making. The reverse auction process is Acquisition 2.0 in motion, as reverse auctions create a structured and automated negotiation process with transparency at its core, since the process depends on vendors creating a clear and documented process for creating the pricing structure and the subsequent contracted price. It is the openness of the process that should be embraced, since the reverse auction allows for real time pricing feedback, and also allows acquisition officials to have real time visibility into the negotiation. This type of structure and the transparent process creates and enhances competition, reduces complexity, enhances collaboration, and ensures compliance with the acquisition policies and regulations.
It is these types of procurement methods that should be embraced, and will need to be further explored to help create holistic strategic sourcing initiatives for realizing true cost-savings by adjusting processes, ensuring leadership drives change, and breaking the endemic status-quo culture of Government. Successful examples of reverse auctions already exist through both Defense and civilian agency use, so lessons learned are available for use and need to be expanded upon to help with widespread adoption. As OMB continues to issue guidance on improving federal acquisitions and government management in general, reverse auctions need to be part of this process of continuous improvement and increasing accountability to the taxpayer.
]]>Improving Federal IT Acquisitions
I felt the wrong questions were being asked.
...Early in the conversation, Dan Gordon, on the panel as the administrator of the federal Office of Federal Procurement Policy, posed an important question in a very interesting way. He asked: "I am guessing that many in industry know when they read an RFP [request for proposals] that the government is putting out to bid a program that is likely to fail. Yet I am also guessing that industry seldom says this to the government. What can we do to change this?"...
Many issues are raised with this line of questioning. First, what benefit would industry have at this stage in the acquisition to be offering advice on an RFP? None really. In fact, I believe that this type of information would put industry at a disadvantage, since the government would never pull an RFP or even consider reshaping requirements since an enormous amount of effort and time have been dedicated at this point. For large IT acquisitions, it sometimes takes years before and RFP gets issued. Although sometimes requirements are so poorly written that cancelling an RFP and starting over really is the best solution, this seldom happens. Programs fail before they even start, and taxpayers get fleeced. This story is all too common in federal procurement.
The real issue here is to get the requirements properly structured so that the program can be successful from the beginning. Using the current Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), all the tools already exist in Market Research (FAR Part 10), and Exchanges with Industry Before Receipt of Proposals (FAR 15.201). So why are these techniques seldom used? What can be done to improve this process?
Contracting personnel, in addition to project and program managers, need to understand that the current process is not working. The fear of protest, possibly unethical behavior, or unknowingly giving away proprietary information (i.e. risk aversion) needs to change. If these fears were proven to be the case, the FAR would outright prohibit any exchanges with industry in the first place. Government personnel need to understand that programs fail at the beginning, due to poor acquisition planning and poorly defined requirements. Almost any Government Accountability Office report on acquisition failures will undoubtedly have these statements in the Executive Summary. What was the definition of madness again?
One initiative that needs to be expanded and fully embraced is the General Service Administration's Better Buy Project. This initiative has had successful trial runs using Gov 2.0 techniques (e.g. blogs, Wikis, etc.) to solicit input and feedback on both the federal acquisition process, but also on specific procurements using crowdsourcing methodologies to help improve the communications process between GSA and industry. There is no more equal playing field than using these techniques, since everyone has the opportunity provide input and helping ensure a procurement is successful from the beginning.
The biggest barriers are of course cultural. What is very telling are some of the comments from both sides of the issue on Dr. Kelman's post, illustrating the great divide and skepticism that exists from increased access and communications.
Government's Side:
...One major issue is: companies do not necessarily want to hand over their expert critiques to the government for free. Companies often find their top ideas used to fix a bad requirement--that is free consulting. They are giving away their ability to differentiate themselves from other firms that don't see the flaws and/or don't know how to solve them. Secondly, if companies were truly partners with the government, this would not be a problem. However, neither government nor contractors really want to be partners, in fact. If they were, they would accept the consequences together of bad outcomes, and the companies would make no money. No one has ever seen a government contract that reads remotely like a partnership agreement. Partnering is hackneyed, misleading, self-serving, and false in just about all its usages in the government contracting arena...
Given a chance, I believe that industry would gladly help the government resolve issues up front in the requirements development process, again if given the chance. I do not believe it is practical, nor realistic, to think that industry will voluntarily tell the government an RFP is a disaster. Several reasons include the fact that these comments will fall on deaf ears, or worse, adversely affect a company's image. Further, the notion of best value seems to be elusive, as lowest costs seems to be the primary source of contract awards. Why bother adding value when lowest cost is desired. Perhaps value engineering should be part of every project, and adding the lessons learned to future engagements.
However, it is the partnership that will ultimately lead to program success. The comments left by this reader are unfortunately not uncommon, and somewhat true. Many firms have a vested interest in the status quo, and do not seem eager to change their approach. I also do not see the practically in using industry feedback as some kind of evaluation factor as Dr. Kelman suggests. This approach would undoubtedly lead to self-serving "improvement requests," which is what best value is supposed to correct for anyway; what is in the best interest of the government (e.g. exceeding requirements and differentiating a proposed solution).
Industry's Side:
...Both responses to your suggestion are accurate. We, as contractors, don't want to be in the position of suggesting to an agency that their pursuit position is incorrect. We never know who accesses those types of comments nor how they may react to suggestions to improve their position. The second suggestion is more prevalent than many expect. "Cut and paste" RFIs and Sources Sought requests generally include inadequacies, inconsistencies and contradictory pictures of the agency's true environment. These are indications that they technical involvement necessary is absent or lacking and making suggestions as to how to correct these are often not received well. In addition, fear of OCI issues has reached a point where these same contracts people will not even talk with or accept input from industry well in advance of the solicitation release. Until contracting people understand that the government encourages interaction with industry up to the release of a solicitation, these issues will not go away...
I do not believe that technical incompetence is the primary issue. I believe, and have experienced, that technical competence for a program is a function of acquiring that knowledge that normally exists internally. The fragmented way that the government buys is normally the culprit, where programs develop requirements in a vacuum without conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis, soliciting feedback or input for proper requirements development, then kick it over the fence to acquisition and contract shops. At this stage, not knowing the procurement or even the customer in some cases, contracting shops try to getting the procurement of their desk and take shortcuts at the detriment of the program, as the reader suggests. Using boilerplate information, templates, and checklists are a great way to streamline an acquisition. There is certainly nothing wrong with this approach, as I certainly use these tools with federal clients. However, tailoring the information carefully is vital, and sometimes this quality control is lacking in federal procurements.
The Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI) issue is another barrier to increased communications from industry. Many firms fear that being proactive in helping shape requirements will OCI-themselves out of competition for a particular procurement. This is a major issue that needs more thoughtful analysis, as the point of crowdsourcing is to solicit information from all parties equally, and allow for even greater opportunities for competition with requirements that are not overly restrictive and well understood by industry. Firms should not be penalized, nor should they have fear of being penalized. The government is doing itself a disservice by not properly proving these protections.
Overall, the closed-door mentality to communications is doing the opposite of what the latest acquisition reforms are trying to accomplish. I hope the Office of Management and Budget provides further guidance on this issue, and give industry a greater say in helping the government execute its acquisition reforms. All parties would benefit, especially the taxpayer in the end.
]]>Coming off the heels of a new report by GAO on the lack of competition, one clear issue is the woefully inadequate communication between industry and government.
The SBA takes the general position that a procuring agency does not need to document in a contract file any other prospective sources if the agency selects an 8(a) participant to perform the requirement, offers it to SBA, and SBA accepts the requirement into the 8(a) program. SBA officials note that it is the procuring agency's responsibility to conduct market research to determine whether the requirements of the Small Business Act can be met, and then to determine the appropriate contracting vehicle to use. However, SBA considers market research requirements to be satisfied when a participant in the 8(a) program self-markets its abilities to a procuring agency and is subsequently offered a sole source 8(a) requirement. When we discussed this issue with procurement policy officials at DHS, they said that, while these activities may meet the regulatory requirements, in practice they like to see additional market research so that the offer to the 8(a) firm has a more solid basis. {Emphasis added}
Get it off one's desk seems to be the prevailing attitude, along with the closing down of accepting any new requirements to handle the end-of-year rush to get dollars out the door. Is it just simple correlation that more procurement activity carries more risk of protest? If so, then something has gone wrong.
To improve competition and get meaningful best value outcomes, communication with potential vendors is an essential part of the market research process. Common forms include written exchanges of information (e.g., submission of marketing materials or responses to Requests for Information), in addition to also meetings with potential vendors.
However, it is the risk aversion and untrained contracting officials, combined with poor integration with program management and contracting that often makes this process difficult. A recent article in Government Procurement magazine shared a similar sentiment:
This concern can have a chilling effect on communication with vendors. In response to a request for a meeting prior to release of an RFP, one state official recently wrote: "If I meet with them even as an introductory meeting, then I assume they understand they will be precluded from bidding on any project we bid out the next six months." Is this level of concern by state and local officials warranted? We think clearly it is not.
Nor do I. In fact, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, "Contracting by Negotiation," balances the dual goals of "openness" and "integrity" in the procurement process by specifically encouraging pre-RFP meetings and exchanges of information between public officials and potential vendors. Good acquisition planning needs open communications, not to mention the FAR specifically identifies "one-on-one meetings" as an appropriate means of accomplishing these exchanges. Program Managers needs to ensure they know what is appropriate, and Contracting Officers need to provide this guidance and act as business advisors in this process. Simple processes to help alleviate end-of-year fiascos before they happen.
What really are the goals here? Openness, transparency, and fairness for starters. Procurement official must treat all potential vendors impartially and provide equal access to all. This ensures the process is fair. For these reasons, I believe initiatives like the Better Buy Project are an important tool to meet these procurement goals, since crowd sourcing is the foundation for access to all, along with Acquisition 2.0 tools that continue to provide the transparency and openness required of the contracting process.
An informed understanding of current industry capabilities and practices results in both better RFPs and better contracts, since industry will have participated in requirements development to ensure fairness, but also realistic objectives and schedules to also help ensure positive outcomes.
More communication with industry promotes more competition, better solutions and better pricing. Ambiguity in the final RFP translates to misaligned solutions or risk for a vendor who responds with higher pricing. The latest developments, especially in such complex fields as information technology, healthcare and environmental sciences, are difficult to harness unless you put industry competitors to work for you.
Let's capture innovation and stop reinventing the wheel, as I too believe it is ridiculous to think that government officials are so easily manipulated or influenced with these approaches that communications and Acquisition 2.0 initiatives will rig procurements. It is risk aversion and the lack of accountability indicative in the procurement process that acts as barriers to success. Continued advancements through Acquisition 2.0 pilots will hopefully not only demonstrate the potential of openness and transparency, but also provide guidance on transforming the way government does business and allow for accountability to the taxpayer, which should be the ultimate goal.
]]>In March the General Services Administration (GSA) conducted a pilot project designed to make procurement a more transparent process. In the pilot, GSA submitted to industry an RFI for the next phase of evolution of data.gov. I participated in the pilot and want to share my feedback as a means to hopefully improve the overall procurement process.
Historically, GSA would issue a Request for Information (RFI) and industry would submit their responses in private. There is no back-and-forth communication between GSA and industry while the RFI response window is open. Without regard to GSA specifically, an RFI is often used to conduct basic market research and to help refine the requirements that will ultimately be included in a formal solicitation - the Request for Proposal (RFP).
The BetterBuy pilot project was novel in that it asked industry and interested individuals to submit their responses to the RFI, through a publicly editable wiki. It was the most transparent and collaborative RFI conducted by the federal government to date.
For those unfamiliar with wikis, they are web-accessible, collaborative content management systems. They allow anyone to create new content pages and even to edit the content created by others. Wikis work well for a few reasons:
In general, the BetterBuy wiki pilot was a success. Quite a few people participated and the discourse was civil. I believe the GSA data.gov team received valuable feedback, which will shape and influence the detailed requirements of the RFP. As importantly, I believe industry received some valuable feedback from the GSA data.gov team.
GSA would not have conducted the pilot unless there exists a serious intent to improve the procurement process. I believe their intention is sincere and genuine. To that end, I have some constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the process in the future.
The issue is beyond metrics, as it starts with understanding the outcomes and objectives of what performance-based contracting is all about. It requires a different mind-set, a different set of skills and capabilities, but most important, it involves understanding that culture is probably the biggest barrier of all.
The tools of the Acquisition 2.0 community can have a role in changing this culture, as one of the central tenets of this methodology is about collaboration, specifically between industry and the government. Using initiatives such as the Better Buy Project, outside parties, as well as those inside the government, can add value to the dialogue:
...Program managers need to recognize that some of the things that add to the time it takes to get a contract awarded are good investments that ensure faster and better execution of the contract in the long run. In that case, the evidence is overwhelming that using performance metrics -- whether for in-house or contracted activities -- can improve performance by motivating and focusing employees and facilitating feedback, which is a necessary tool for organizational learning. We need to bring those benefits to contracting...
Of course, determined leaders acting as change agents will always be needed to push for new ways of doing business. Deborah Broderick, the FBI's new senior procurement executive, seems to understand these responsibilities and has taken a lead in changing the culture at FBI and its mixed track records of procurement outcomes.
One of her approaches was to actively engage training where it counts, to help program managers, contracting officers, and the contracting officer's technical representatives in developing proper performance-based contracts with objectives at the time of actually writing the bid. This approach has allowed for innovation, and the ability to focus on outcomes. Further, the approach measures those outcomes through development of proper performance metrics and other contract provisions specific to the procurement in question and not generic metrics made for manufacturing or other boilerplate metrics that are used for the sake of speed and cutting corners. As Dr. Kelman points out, these methods will take time, and leaders must help offset the pressure for speed and sacrificing doing what is right. This pressure is often short-sighted, and may help contribute to the status quo; cost, schedule, and performance issues.
Acquisition 2.0 tools can help aggregate the ideas for performance metrics through crowd sourcing, as both industry and government know what has worked, but more importantly, what has not worked. We have to understand that performance-based contracting is not a silver bullet. However, when investments are made in these techniques, the return on that investment has the potential to be great, and go a long way in improving government management overall.
As Mary Davie indicated in her March 25, 2010 blog entry titled "Transparency, Collaboration and Participation in the Federal Acquisition Process is Here," the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council's Acquisition Management Shared Interest Group (SIG) is taking the next step to review the remainder of the ideas that have been submitted, categorize them and select a an additional number to be discussed further and possibly placed into action.
The Acquisition Management SIG has initiated the review process and is working towards the end goal of categorizing the remaining suggestions/ideas. We are discussing each suggestion in light of the ultimate objective of the Project, which is "how can we use collaboration and social media to make the federal acquisition process more efficient and effective?" Once complete, our plan is to involve the GovLoop Acquisition 2.0 community to further flesh out the suggestions through additional crowdsourcing, etc.
Please stay tuned for further progress reports and remain engaged in the conversation!
Sincere thanks to GSA for the opportunity to make our first post in this space.
Upon seeing the BetterBuy initiative mature and bloom into two very real pilot opportunities, we were faced with a challenge:
How can we craft effective RFI/RFQ/RFP Responses that balance transparency with our obligations to privacy?
In order to avoid shareholder lawsuits, public companies are required to guard corporate assets which can include a company's trade secret assets and other proprietary information such as, clients (i.e., past performance), project methodologies that create competitive advantage, detailed pricing data and more. Each of these items is probably key to include in a winning RFQ/RFP response and/or a persuasive RFI response.
In an age where technology can facilitate a full RFI/RFQ/RFP response in an online Wiki, how can we maintain an environment that allows public companies to respond to BetterBuy's Wiki-style Requests without this legal risk? We wanted to bid, but we wondered whether a public company might face that built-in obstacle that private organizations might not. Did other organizations have similar challenges?
Thanks again for the opportunity, and we look forward to sharing additional observations and lessons learned soon.
]]>Several months worth of effort went into the launch. When we finally went live, I was anxious to see the response. And at first, nothing happened. . . . .
A few individuals created user names, but didn't change anything.
A few more folks provided free 'editing' services, correcting typos, spelling out acronyms, and correcting verb tense.
Finally, after about a week, we started to see meaningful discussions and contributions on the wiki. I was curious about why it took so long, so I asked a few users about their process. It turns out that industry had the same questions that I had. No one was sure who was 'authorized' to speak for their company. Normal procedures for providing a response to the Government for these companies are established, and this wiki threw a wrench in the works. It took a few days for them to develop a plan on how to response. One company even wanted to know when we were going to lock down the changes so that they could post their info at the last minute.
From my perspective, the Data.gov use of the wiki was a resounding success. We received a substantial amount of feedback, and our resulting solicitation will be significantly improved as a result. It will, however, take us longer to review the feedback and judge what should go into the final version. Now I'd like to see more attention on the ClearPath wiki. . . .
Lastly, I'll end my post with some wiki statistics:
Pages
(All pages in the wiki, including talk pages, redirects, etc.) -49
Page edits since BetterBuy was set up -373
Average edits per page -7.61
Registered users 152
Active users who have performed an action in the last 7 days -33
Views total 68,718 (misleading number - includes our testing)
Views per edit 184.23
Page Views
Main Page -46,304
MediaWiki:Sidebar -3,406
Background and Questions -3,143
Section B - 1,717
Section C - 1,694
RFI - 1,468
Section D - 1,097
Section F - 849
Section H - 714
FAQs 588
Overall, the GSA's trying to figure out how to break from traditional bureaucracy, learning from private industry and the public, asking people what they think via a site BetterBuy.
One really good idea from BetterBuy is being tried now.
The GSA wants to break away from the traditional system where the companies that provide the stuff help specify what the stuff should be. Normally, they put out Requests for Information and Requests for Proposals, and companies help the GSA figure out what to specify.
That means the companies that want the business gets to define what the business is, and can tailor that to their strengths and weaknesses. Any change to this could threaten the less effective, less competitive businesses.
The deal is to open up this process to everyone, including the public and the companies who want business from the Feds, so that we can work together for the country. One way to do that is on the Net using a Wiki, and that's what they've created, the BetterBuy Pilot(s) Wiki.
GSA is seeking input on a requirement to provide a data repository for data.gov. The data.gov pilot was ready to launch on March 25, 2010. The second is called "Clearpath". For this one, GSA is looking for input on the technical infrastructure for our Clearpath hosting, and developing the approach for a future acquisition. GSA will launch Clearpath in a few weeks.You are invited to contribute in multiple ways:
(1) Help us write the draft solicitation
(2) Ask questions below each section
(3) Engage in meaningful technical debate below each section
(4) Point out mistakes
(5) Ask general questions
(6) Contribute! This is the most transparent acquisition that GSA FEDSIM has ever attempted.
For better explanations check out Federal Computer Week GSA tries wiki approach to develop RFPs or GSA solicits wisdom of the crowd for acquisition improvements
]]>The first acquisition is data.gov. GSA is seeking input on a requirement to provide a data repository for data.gov.
The second is called "Clearpath". GSA is looking for input on the technical infrastructure for our Clearpath hosting and is developing the approach for a future acquisition. GSA will launch Clearpath in a few weeks.
In the first phase of this pilot, we have launched a wiki (http://betterbuy.fas.gsa.gov) and are asking the public to contribute and help us shape the requirements and solicitation. The wiki contains background information on the requirements and draft sections in 'b-m'. Comments and questions (and answers to our questions) in each section are encouraged. We will also use Twitter to tweet procurement statuses and to receive and answer questions. The twitter account to follow is @gsa_fedsim
In subsequent phases of the acquisition we will incorporate additional Web 2.0 tools to continue the collaborative process.
We intend to provide updates about our progress from both the government and industry perspectives on the BetterBlog site, so check it often. If you are contributing to the requirements build as either a government or industry participant and would like to blog about your experience, let me know and we'll set you up to post.
You are probably wondering how we selected the ideas we decided to use on the first two acquisitions. We reviewed all the ideas submitted through BetterBuy, categorized them, and matched appropriate ideas with the selected acquisitions. Our focus was on incorporating collaborative technology in the acquisition process.
So what about the other 100+ ideas we received on the site that we aren't using or the ideas that aren't technology related? We are thrilled with all the ideas we've received and the dialog that is taking place around them. We are going to continue to leave the BetterBuy site up and monitor for additional ideas and comments.
We have asked the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council's Acquisition Management Shared Interest Group to review the ideas and select a few more to put into action. That group will be reaching out to the Govloop Acquisition2.0 to recruit volunteers to work further on those selected additional ideas.
The Govloop Acquisition2.0 group has been an incredible catalyst for discussion and ideas to improve the federal acquisition process to make it more open, transparent and collaborative (which was how the BetterBuy project was born in the first place).
I want to thank all of you for your energy and participation, particularly the ACT/IAC and the National Academy for Public Administration for the help and support provided on this project.
We have just begun our journey!
OpenGov Tracker has done something that the feds haven't been able to do so far -- create a pretty, user-friendly dashboard for tracking and voting for ideas across the federal government.
Analysis: OpenGov Tracker and Better Buy share the same goal -- an improved federal government. However, OpenGov Tracker is broader in scope (covers whole fed gov) while Better Buy focuses on acquisition.
Here's my question: How can OpenGov Tracker and Better Buy work together to get a better outcome for an improved federal government?
]]>At the Better Buy Project forum at the National Association of Public Administration (NAPA) last December, I was discussing with Mary Davie of the General Services Administration the need to reform not only acquisition, but the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) itself. We both commented that we often get curious looks when we mention this in conversation, but part of the rebuilding of the acquisition mission is to look at the FAR, as it seems ripe for an overhaul. In fact, the FAR can be fertile ground for change, and that change can certainly be done under the umbrella of Acquisition 2.0 tools and methodologies, much like performance-based contracting.
The FAR, in my opinion, has become a snake-pit of over-regulation; a maze of parochial interest. As lawmakers turned to help constituencies and thus narrow interests, or through well-meaning yet poorly planned and poorly though out policy, the current FAR is an example of simply how not to conduct world-class buying.
I was revisiting a wonderful piece of common sense approaches to reform by the Procurement Roundtable (PRT) that are very relevant to the current transformation discussion, not to mention illustrative of how difficult reform can be as the report is dated December, 1999.
The recommendation regarding policy guidance I believe to be spot on, and concur with the PRT that the way forward is much less regulation and far fewer detailed procurement laws. The reform process would work in an Acquisition 2.0 construct, where mission and broad policy statements commence the process of the final outcome; a digital, e-procurement guidance or FAR 2.0.
Under FAR 2.0, guidance should focus on outcomes and mission by concentrating on National or agency goals and objectives. This guidance would not be regulation, and would certainly not be details about how to perform the mission.
The next step is recreating FAR 2.0 would be a crowd sourcing initiative, much like the Better Buy Project. The acquisition community would be able to comment on eliminating the redundancy and over-regulation, focus on commercial best practices, and eliminate those existing statutes, agency regulations, and other directives that burden procurement and detail how to perform the mission. This approach is what the PRT referred to as a "zero-based" approach; which is to start with a blank sheet and add only what can be thoroughly justified.
Further input would of course be proposals for re-creating and streamlining the buying process, changing the new FAR to make it a "what, not how" model of world-class procurement. The rule for streamlining and creating FAR 2.0 would be to follow those commercial processes that allow for a fair and open acquisition process, and allow for real transparency and accountability to the taxpayer. This new process would be based on constant innovation; eliminating and revising any existing guidance or policy that does not allow for the leveraging of new information technology. The goal is to build an acquisition process for the 21st century, and executed by a right-sized and blended 21st century acquisition workforce with the right skills and capabilities to leverage this new process.
Not an easy task, no doubt. However, recognizing the institutional challenges that have hampered reform in the past are the first areas to attack by change agents and leaders who claim to want real, meaningful reform, and who are also demanding accountability and transparency. Some agencies will continue claiming uniqueness, and Congress may the biggest obstacle. However, the Acquisition 2.0 forum and the collaborative nature of this FAR 2.0 initiative can use the successes and lessons learned from Better Buy to involve all the concerned stakeholders, including the organizations that published the overly prescriptive guidance and have legitimacy to claims of uniqueness. Only by taking risks and exploring innovative ideas can we expect to see change that matters.
]]>Here are some ideas to getting your agency to open up to Web 2.0 technologies in general and Gov 2.0 in particular.
Talk about it. This is the most important thing you can do; simply bring awareness of the idea to people in your office. But don't talk about it to the point that people will block it out. That doesn't do any good.
Build a Reputation. If you can develop a reputation in the office as a technology guru, you will be more credible. And credibility is the currency of trust for implementing Web/Gov 2.0.
Appeal to Co-workers' Self-Interest. Figure out some of the annoying problems in your office and try to find free web tools that can help solve these problems. Test out these ideas and talk about how they can improve co-workers lives. If you can make their lives easier, they're more likely to adopt these technologies.
Admit to an Agenda. Yes, that's right. Your agenda is to make their lives easier, and by extension, your life becomes easier. That is the entire purpose of technology, and it often is forgotten.
Test Things Yourself. Try out these technologies. Does your office have a communications problem? Maybe Yammer could help. Want to find resources that make your life easier? Diigo can help (plus it may not be blocked since few Feds know about it; just don't publish classified info). Find out what does and doesn't work before asking people to spend their time testing them out.
Build a Team. Chances are you're not the only person in your office geeky and/or excited enough to try out these technologies. This step may take some time, but it will be worth it. Your team can serve as a test bed for new ideas. You can gather actual results and data you can take to people for a final step.
Develop an Agency Web/Gov 2.0 Policy. From what I've seen, most agencies haven't taken this step yet. This allows your team and you to set the agenda. This is a significant advantage. Use IBM's social media policy as an example since it is widely accepted as a standard bearer. Also, make sure the policy allows the adoption of future, and not just present, technologies. This will open the door for Web 3.0 (i.e. Semantic Web) tech that is just starting to show up.
Keep at It. Perhaps your first attempt failed. That's okay. Just keep at it. Persistence will pay off.
]]>When I asked around my office for volunteers to work on the pilot, not a lot of hands went up. A few brave souls eventually snuck over to my office to learn more, and finally we formed a team. We have a Contracting Officer, a Contract Specialist, a Project Manager, a few Technical Advisors, and an Acquisition Project Manager who will have to pull all of this together. Hopefully, I'll get to help steer all of this along without disrupting the rest of the organization's daily operations.
We spent the last two months evaluating the recommendations on BetterBuy, identifying the ideas that were feasible to implement, and working with our information technology support personnel to set up the infrastructure properly. We met with OMB, GAO, and other parts of GSA to discuss best practices for open collaboration, making decisions about things like user registration and authentication, roles and responsibilities for team members (e.g., who controls our twitter account, who can post). We are nearly ready with our wiki site for requirements definition. This process shines a bright light on established procedures and forces everyone to consider the value of the activity. Fun times!
My office (GSA FEDSIM) primarily works with other Federal Agencies on their procurements, but we also support a few internal GSA customers as well. We have been talking to these internal customers as the most likely candidates for the pilot project(s). We have two in our sights. Both are working with new technology and align well with the increased transparency through BetterBuy. We plan on launching the pilot in February, so stay tuned. . . . .
]]>