It's Time
It's Time for a New Model' A Modern Government Integration Paradigm Unfolds By Nick Wakeman Procurement reform has wrought many changes on the government information technology landscape. Take the alphabet soup of new buying vehicles: IDIQs, BPAs and GWACs - also known as ind
It's Time for a New Model'
A Modern Government Integration Paradigm UnfoldsBy Nick WakemanProcurement reform has wrought many changes on the government information technology landscape. Take the alphabet soup of new buying vehicles: IDIQs, BPAs and GWACs - also known as indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts, blanket purchase agreements and governmentwide acquisition contracts. And then there are agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Transportation, which have turned their procurement shops into rivals of the General Services Administration.
"We use a workshop approach, where we take the IT folks and the business folks and put them in a room with [Cambridge] folks," Chaudhry said. After about a week or two of meetings, the participants have hammered out the specific project requirements, he said. Under this approach, Cambridge can offer its customers a precise solution for a set price and delivery time. Cambridge also relies heavily on repeatable solutions so projects rarely last more than a year, he said. It would be hard to find that scenario in the federal government, said Loomis, adding it wouldn't work for large enterprisewide projects. "The assessment phase to define the scope of the project could take you a year," he said. But size really doesn't matter, Chaudhry said. What is important is breaking the project down into smaller pieces so requirements can be better defined, he said. DiPentima does not think Cambridge's model can be lifted from the commercial world and simply plunked down in the federal market. But, he said, variations of the model could work. Large umbrella contracts under which smaller task orders are issued is a model that works, DiPentima said. But there is one caveat - the agency must have an overall plan, he said. "The concern is that you will have task orders coming out without a master plan," he said. "That is not good management."
The Next Step Even when the government requests commercial, off-the-shelf products, there also is often a request for customization, he said. "So you end up with something that is not [commercial, off-the-shelf]," he said. A better definition of requirements is vital for the government to take what should be the next step in an evolving procurement process: a shift to value-based contracts, said Steve Rohleder, managing partner of the federal business for Chicago-based Andersen Consulting. "The concept is that with certain types of projects, there are inherent savings," he said. "If we believe we can save you money, we'll put a clause in the contract that puts part of our compensation at risk to achieve those savings." Several state governments have used this type of contract, he said. Andersen has worked with California and the city of Detroit on contracts where at least some of Andersen's fee was based on collecting more taxes in those jurisdictions, he said. Military logistics operations are one area ripe for this type of contracting in the federal market, Rohleder said. "But you really must have the due diligence step in the front end to identify the benefits that are the basis for your compensation," he said. "Conceptually, the government is very interested in doing this," Rohleder said. "The challenge is going to be taking the next step." GSA will begin studying value-based contracting by the end of the summer, said Wanda Smith, director of the special projects office for GSA. |
NEXT STORY: J.D. Edwards Has Eye on Federal Opportunities