Tabular Format (TF!/SeeSOR) Lifecycle Approach to Services Procurement Presented By: ASC Group Inc.

Services Procurement TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle SOW Development TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle Services Procurement Management Products Contract Re-let Biddable RFPs Monitoring and Performance Reporting Evaluation of Bids Implementation and Management

Tabular Format (TF!) Very Disciplined and Structured Approach to Contracting for Services Foundation for Contract & Relationship Management Rigorous Definition of Required Service Disciplined & Timely Assessment of Responses

Tabular Format (TF!) SOW SOW philosophy is to support performance-based where the expectation (both quantity and quality) are clearly defined.

Various Methods for Specifying Performance Cost vs. Innovation An attempt to reduce the “perceived” risk of Contractor poor performance through the use of prescriptive requirements will result in higher costs as innovation is suppressed. Cost Watchkeeping Specified Methodology Performance Innovation

Services Procurement TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle SOW Development TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle Services Procurement Management Products Contract Re-let Biddable RFPs Monitoring and Performance Reporting Evaluation of Bids Implementation and Management

TF! Evaluation Analysis In-depth Technical Evaluation of: How bidders will perform the work The resources employed (labor, material and equipment) The quality of resources used and their organization Overall understanding and acceptability of the management necessary to direct and coordinate the requirements of the SOW Detailed Cost/Price Analysis of: Cost elements and drivers within each bid and amongst bids. Requirement-by-requirement and function-by-function comparisons amongst bidders. Overheads & Profit

TF! Evaluation Analysis Contractor Furnished Material Contractor Furnished Equipment and Facilities In-depth Technical Evaluation of: How bidders will perform the work The resources employed (labor, material and equipment) The quality of resources used and their organization Overall understanding and acceptability of the management necessary to direct and coordinate the requirements of the SOW Detailed Cost/Price Analysis of: Cost elements and drivers within each bid and amongst bids. Requirement-by-requirement and function-by-function comparisons amongst bidders. Overheads & Profit Other Contractor Expenses

TF! Evaluation Analysis Price charged for each section TF! Tracks a build up of cost. The price being charged for the service is manually entered. Cost build up for each section Difference between Price charged and Cost build up

TF! Evaluation Analysis In-depth Technical Evaluation of: How bidders will perform the work The resources employed (labor, material and equipment) The quality of resources used and their organization Overall understanding and acceptability of the management necessary to direct and coordinate the requirements of the SOW Detailed Cost/Price Analysis of: Cost elements and drivers within each bid and amongst bids. Requirement-by-requirement and function-by-function comparisons amongst bidders. Overheads & Profit

TF! Evaluation Documentation Functional Section Overall Evaluation Line Item Evaluation

TF! Technical Evaluation Results

TF! Technical Evaluation Results

TF! Technical Evaluation Results

Services Procurement TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle SOW Development TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle Services Procurement Management Products Contract Re-let Biddable RFPs Monitoring and Performance Reporting Evaluation of Bids Implementation and Management

TF! Amendment Analysis Contractor, DND/PWGSC Organization Bidder’s Technical and Cost proposals used to track start-up resourcing. Technical and cost proposals used as a basis for negotiating amendments to the contract. Systematic basis for subsequent down sizing decisions due to budget constraints. Basis established for activity based costing of services. Supportable allocation of contract cost to various budget holders receiving services. ASC trains on-site staff in contract administration using proprietary software applications. Example: New requirement added to Section 4 starting in Year 2. Level of effort analysis indicates 1 more driver needed.

Services Procurement TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle SOW Development TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle Services Procurement Management Products Contract Re-let Biddable RFPs Monitoring and Performance Reporting Evaluation of Bids Implementation and Management

SeeSOR QA Plan Monitoring directly against the basis of contract award (performance standards).

SeeSOR Scheduling Automated planning, scheduling and analysis of contract monitoring results.

SeeSOR Analysis Meaningful feedback to the contractor of the level of satisfaction of the customer. Software licensed to contractor combines monitoring database and contractor Quality Control eliminating duplication of effort and reducing direct & indirect cost to Customer.

Services Procurement TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle SOW Development TF! & SeeSOR are fully Integrated Lifecycle Services Procurement Management Products Contract Re-let Biddable RFPs Monitoring and Performance Reporting Evaluation of Bids Customer and Contractor: Treat SOW as a “living” document throughout the Contract. Modification to the original cost and pricing data is performed with all amendments. Refine quantities and performance indicators and standards for the SOW requirements over time. Improved specification represents less uncertainty (risk) to the bidders who are able to offer even better prices. Benefit from reduced demands on scarce customer resources for SOW preparation. Implementation and Management

TF! Results Reduces acquisition time from 18-36 months to 12 months or less. Short cut to 50% - 60% reduction in cost of procurement. Savings realized earlier. Strong defensible audit trail supports customer decisions IF protested. Over 50 projects worldwide have been awarded using the Tabular Format (TF!) methodology and software suite with a government protest win rate of 3 out of 3. Strong positive acceptance by International Industry. Increasing competition from quality bidders Reducing cost to industry and government Improved quality of bids Improved quality and acceptance of evaluation Increased efficiency of SOW development over time. Efficient use of scarce technical resources for evaluations and monitoring. Software and tools tested and used successfully in field conditions.

DND CRS TF! Review Results (1998 based on the pre-award phase for 4 pilot TF! projects) “the introduction of TF has already shown some positive benefits” “SOWs developed using TF were clear, biddable and enforceable. The TF process allows for a performance-oriented SOW.” “The TF evaluation process is as good as or better than other methodologies.” CRS recommendation that DND retain central TF expertise has been implemented in order to minimize time and expense. In current review of sub-contracting within DND, CRS has commented on the detail and visibility of sub-contractor resources and costs on one of the TF! projects included in their review.

SeeSOR Results CFB Goose Bay reduced DND monitoring staff from 14 to 4 following full implementation of SeeSOR. 4 projects where the Contractor initiated the use of SeeSOR. For at least 1 of those projects, SeeSOR was the deciding factor in the award decision . Strong positive acceptance by International Industry. Increasing competition from quality bidders Reducing cost to industry and government Improved quality of bids Improved quality and acceptance of evaluation Increased efficiency of SOW development over time. Efficient use of scarce technical resources for evaluations and monitoring. Software and tools tested and used successfully in field conditions.

Case Study – Diego Garcia B.I.O.T. 1980 USCINCPACFLT commissions study of base operations alternatives Government estimate 1,700 Government personnel $40 M+ per year 1999 (larger scope than originally envisaged) 1,500 Contractor personnel $21 M per year

Integrated Lifecycle Competitions Contract Cost Constant $ Constant Scope Constant Scope and $ Non-TF! Methodology TF! Introduced $0 $5M $10M $15M $20M $25M $30M Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 TF! Re-Compete 1983 DG BOS Contract Long, painful evaluation process (“apples-to-oranges” bids) Weak proposal survived selection process to win Winner “got well” over next several years at customer expense and with poor quality Year 4 annual target cost negotiated using TF! approach 1988 DG BOS Contract (using TF!) Technical Specifications designed around BIDDERS Source Selection Process designed around TECHNICAL EVALUATORS Selection process designed to ELIMINATE WEAK OFFERS 1988/1994 DG BOS Contract (using TF!) Acquisition Time Cut in Half (Bid Evaluation/Selection ~6 Weeks) Total Audit Trail allowed for Successful Defense against Protest Reasonably Priced Amendments due to Financial Proposal format provided in Bids Conclusion: With TF!, you have informed bidders who understand the scope of the work they will be expected to execute. The result is flat or declining cost over time.

Lifecycle Contracting with PBSC (Performance-based Service Contract) Independent Event Contracting Each contract tendering, amendment or additional work requirement is treated independently. Resource-based Service Contract (RBSC) Service requirements are generally defined without performance standards and selection and compensation approaches are based on the provision of resources rather than the delivery of outputs. Most efficient/ effective Least efficient/ PBSC RBSC Independent Event Contracting Lifecycle Contracting

Like stones in an archway… Contractor Compensation Basis of Payment For quantity compensation, consider: Cost reimbursable Firm price For quality compensation, consider: Objective assessment Qualitative assessment Evaluation & Selection Contract Management & Administration Service solution evaluation: Criteria linked to SOW Detailed responses, including solution description, resources and costing, linked to the criteria Generation of questions against each Contractor’s solution Quantity management: Quantity tracking system Quality management: Monitoring Corrective Action Requests Quality reporting Performance Incentive Fee Multiple bid periods with question & answer process: A, Q, U criteria ratings Generation of a short-list based on relative scoring Issuance of evaluator questions to short-listed Contractors Cost management: Cost control Payment certification …any missing or weak piece negates the integrity of the entire solution. Relationship management: Performance Incentive Fee Joint progress review meetings Joint contract management training Executive Steering Committees Government estimate: Validate performance specification Provide reference point for evaluation Performance Specification Use structured approach such as Tabular Format to define each service as follows: Write/verb-noun statement of service Define quantity in measurable terms Define quality in measurable terms Explain how the performance will be assessed Specify inputs and processes only if necessary