Procurement Operations Division Update
July 1, 2010
To examine GSFC’s acquisition process to
make material changes which result in a)
significant reductions to the lead-time, or
b) more effective processes.
The end-to-end process will be evaluated for
competitive procurements greater than the
simplified acquisition threshold.
Analyze current processes/lead-times.
Gather feedback from GSFC Procurement,
Technical, Legal, Resource Community and
Benchmark other Government Organizations.
Identified Major Considerations for Improvement.
Appointed Team Lead for each action.
Developed schedules for completion.
Completed “quick turnaround”
Continue to obtain feedback.
Acquisition Planning Process
Quality SEB Leadership
Procurement Operations Staff
Solicitation Review Process
Capacity of Senior Staff
Procurement Analyst Support
Solicitation Review Boards
Background: Development of the acquisition strategy and the PR
Package is a time consuming process. These are complex tasks that
are often not completed in a timely manner. As a result, the
procurement team is in a constant state of trying to make up for
schedule slips that occur at the very beginning of the acquisition
cycle. This item was consistently identified as an area that warrants
more attention and rigor.
Action: Establish an Acquisition Planning Process that tracks
procurements from initiation through market research, acquisition
strategy, and PR Package completion. Progress should be reported
at the Code 100 level (MSR) for major acquisitions.
Lead: Sandy Marshall/Ann Haase.
Background: Statements of Work and other requirements
documentation is often lacking in quality and requires several re-
writes. This is a source of frustration for the entire acquisition team
and frequently impacts schedules.
Action: As part of the solution to #1, GSFC should consider having a
focal point in each Directorate to serve as the contact point for their
Directorate acquisitions. This individual would assist in determining
strategy for mid-level and major acquisitions, assist in market
research efforts and ensure all documentation required for the PR
Package is completed in a timely and effective manner.
Background: It has become increasingly difficult to staff GSFC’s
SEB’s. Finding leadership for these boards is an even bigger
challenge. Often, these individuals must continue to carry out their
“normal” (non-SEB) duties to some extent while serving on the SEB.
The lack of a dedicated team affects the ability of the board to
complete the evaluation in a timely manner. It is important high
caliber, dedicated individuals are responsible for the evaluations of
proposals for our largest, most complex procurements.
Action Plan: Investigate the options to improve GSFC’s SEB
Lead: Steve Kramer.
Background: Both internal and external feedback recommended
GSFC’s mid-level and SEB solicitations be reviewed to:
- Simplify the document when possible.
- Ensure we are asking for the right information,
as well as the right amount of information.
- Ensure GSFC’s solicitations will result in meaningful discriminators.
- Improve the Instructions and Evaluation Sections which are often
viewed as disjointed and difficult to interpret.
Action Plan: Examine areas of improvements for GSFC’s solicitations
(both mid-range and SEB level).
Lead: Nipa Shah
Background: The acquisition process could be improved by
maximizing our use of electronic resources. Improving our internal
website to ensure it is “user friendly” would be beneficial. Feedback
has been received from industry suggesting improvements be made
to our bidders’ libraries and other procurement interfaces.
Electronic submission of proposals in lieu of hard copies and
improving GSFC’s internal website should also be considered.
Action Plan: Explore our current use of electronic resources and
make recommendations for improvements.
Lead: Eric Newman
Background: GSFC disbanded their Pricing Office in the 1990’s.
Since that time, we have relied on GSFC’s Contracting Officers,
Resource Analysts and DCAA support to perform required cost
analyses. Over the last few years, getting supporting information
from DCAA has become increasingly problematic. Our CO’s and
RA’s are not “subject matter experts” in the area of contract pricing.
Improving GSFC’s capability to provide pricing support would
improve both the quality and timeliness of our cost evaluations.
Action Plan: Investigate the options for improving the quality and
timeliness of pricing support for GSFC procurements.
Lead: Jamie King.
Background: GSFC significantly (30%) reduced the procurement
workforce in the 1990’s, however, the workload has not declined,
overtaxing our Supervisory and Non-Supervisory Contract
Action Plan: To supplement constrained procurement resources,
develop a plan which considers the use of contractor support,
internal and external rotations, and examines ways to improve
Lead: Karen Weaver.
Background: The lack of NASA-specific procurement training has
been cited as a concern within our workforce. Current procurement
training is often provided by DoD and the orientation is not always
applicable to GSFC’s requirements. In addition, the training is not
always offered in alignment with the developmental need of the
employee. Historically, GSFC provided NASA-specific procurement
training for its workforce.
Action Plan: Develop a Procurement Training Plan. One of the
considerations should be to expand the current training provided to
include on-site specific procurement training and career
Lead: Olivia Gunter.
Background: Feedback received through this initiative indicates that
GSFC’s procurement process could be improved by revising to the
solicitation review process. Specific concern has been expressed
regarding the current level of our review/approvals.
Action Plan: Analyze our current review and approval levels to
determine their feasibility.
Lead: Carlos McKenzie
Background: The Senior Staff for the Procurement Operations
Division is responsible for many activities including file reviews and
interpreting and establishing policy and regulatory guidance. The
limited size of the staff can be a “single point of failure” in the
review cycle resulting in significant delays in getting competitive
(and non-competitive) actions reviewed during peak review periods.
In addition, new requirements such as those imposed by the
stimulus funding activity have increased the workload further.
Action Plan: Perform an assessment to determine the optimum staff
required to support this function.
Lead: Billie Smith.
Background: Currently, the Procurement Managers are plagued with
high supervisory-staff ratios, frequent changes in requirements to
meet new ways of doing business, and a significant increase in
reporting requirements. Support is required to assist the
Procurement Manager in responding to procurement reporting
requirements, responding to data calls, metrics maintenance, etc.
Procurement Managers currently do not have the staff to support
Action Plan: Establish Procurement Analyst positions to support
GSFC’s Procurement Managers.
Lead: Tammy Seidel.
Background: The SEB Facility at GSFC needs to be renovated.
Ideally, it should be re-located outside of the basement of Building
25. The rooms where the evaluation teams meet are too small and
there are inadequate conference facilities and equipment.
Action Plan: A plan should be developed which delineates the
optimum space and equipment requirements for the facility. It
should include the resources and equipment needed to support both
the SEB and Procurement Training requirements.
Lead: Cindy Tart.
Background: Feedback received through this initiative indicates
that GSFC’s procurement process could be improved by
making changes to the solicitation review process.
Documents can be subject to conflicting feedback as a result
of serial reviews, resulting in a time consuming, frustrating
Action Plan: Examine our solicitation review process by
exploring the feasibility of the use of Solicitation Review
Lead: Karen Smith
1) Posted GSFC’s Support Service Contracts to 210 Website
2) Identification of SSA/SEB Members in Solicitations
3) Supplement PSM Charts with Overview
4) Revised reviews required for GSA Orders
5) Eliminated need for separate Evaluation Report for Mission
Suitability Findings when information is covered in
Continue to work Major Considerations.
Continue industry feedback and
Implement additional process changes as
Contact Cindy Tart