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

Tabular Format Tabular Format

(TF!/SeeSOR) Lifecycle (TF!/SeeSOR) Lifecycle

Approach to Services Approach to Services

ProcurementProcurement

Presented By: ASC Group Inc.

Services ProcurementServices ProcurementSOW

Development

Biddable RFPs

Evaluationof Bids

Implementation and Management

Monitoring and Performance

Reporting

Contract Re-letTF! & SeeSORTF! & SeeSOR

are fullyare fully Integrated Lifecycle Integrated Lifecycle

Services Procurement Services Procurement Management Management

ProductsProducts

Tabular Format (TF!)Tabular Format (TF!)

Very Disciplined and StructuredApproach to Contracting for

Services

Rigorous Definition ofRequired Service

Rigorous Definition ofRequired Service

Disciplined & TimelyAssessment of

Responses

Disciplined & TimelyAssessment of

Responses

Foundation for Contract& RelationshipManagement

Foundation for Contract& RelationshipManagement

Tabular Format (TF!) SOWTabular Format (TF!) SOW

Various Methods for Specifying Various Methods for Specifying PerformancePerformance

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.

CosCostt

InnovationInnovation

WatchkeepingWatchkeeping

Specified MethodologySpecified Methodology

PerformancePerformance


Development

Biddable RFPs

Evaluationof Bids



Reporting




ProductsProducts

Specific Resource Allocation Listing (SRAL)

© 2003 ASC Group, Inc. - All Rights ReservedBidder: Hotel Estimate

ANNUAL DIRECT LABOR HOURS Year 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

LI TITLE Sec

tion

Para SecD P T C S U

4.C Performance Requirements 4 C 4

4.C.1 Operation of Reception Reservations 4 C 4

4.C.1.a Check-in guest upon arrival. 4 C 4 125

4.C.1.b Check-out guest at departure. 4 C 4 167

4.C.1.c Accept bookings. 4 C 4 400

TF! Evaluation AnalysisTF! Evaluation AnalysisTF! Evaluation AnalysisTF! Evaluation Analysis

SRAL DIRECT LABOR HOUR SUMMARIES Year 1SEC TITLE P T C S U2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION3 FOOD SERVICES4 RECEPTION SERVICES 1,686 1,510

TOTAL 1,686 1,510

SPARE CAPACITY: STAFF PROD - SRAL HOURS Year 1SEC TITLE P T C S U2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION3 FOOD SERVICES4 RECEPTION SERVICES 3,928 7,436

TOTAL 3,928 7,436

Section Job Title Skill Category

% of WK (D) Hours

contribute to tasks Classif #

Work Schedule

Code# Empls Yr

1# Empls Yr

2Wage Esc

CodeHrly Wage

Yr 1Hrly Wage

Yr 2 EPB Code

4 Head Receptionist S None MGR 1 1 CPI 15.00 15.00 FT4.D Receptionist S 100% None SFT 2 2 CPI 10.00 10.00 FT

4 Day Porter U None SFT 3 3 CPI 9.00 9.00 FT4 Night Porter U None Nght 2 2 CPI 9.00 9.00 PT

STAFF PRODUCTIVE LABOR HOUR SUMMARIES Year 1SEC TITLE P T C S U2 MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION3 FOOD SERVICES4 RECEPTION SERVICES 5,614 8,946

TOTAL 5,614 8,946


Section DescriptionUnit of

Measure# Units

Yr 1# Units

Yr 2 For Ex Code Esc CodeCost/Unit

Yr 1Cost/Unit

Yr 2 Freight %

4 Supplies Lump sum 1 1 11,000.00 12,000.00 0.0%

4 Replacement and repair Lump sum 1 1 500.00 500.00 0.0%

Section DescriptionEquip(E) or

Fac(F)Contract

Year PurchUnit of

Measure # Units For Ex CodeCost Esc

Code Cost/ Unit

4 NoteBook Computers, Monitor and Docking station E 1 EA 1 CPI 5,000

4 NoteBook Computers, Monitor and Docking station E 4 EA 1 CPI 5,000

Section Type Description For Ex Code Esc Code Cost Yr 1 Cost Yr 2

4 MISC Staff Meals US CPI 6,240 6,240

Contractor Furnished Material

Contractor Furnished Equipment and Facilities

Other Contractor Expenses

Price charged for each section

Difference between

Price charged and Cost build

up

0 0 Difference between Total Price and Total from Val Sum Worksheet

291,921281,767Total from Val Sum Worksheet

291,921281,7674

003

002

Year 2Year 1Section

DIFFERENCE FROM VAL SUM WORKSHEETDESCRIPTION

291,921281,767TOTAL PRICE

291,921281,767Provide RECEPTION SERVICES as detailed in Section 4.ITEM 4

00Provide FOOD SERVICES as detailed in Section 3.ITEM 3

00Provide MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION as detailed in Section 2.ITEM 2

Year 2Year 1

FIRM PRICING SCHEDULEDESCRIPTIONITEM

26,26025,347PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE FEEITEM 1

Year 2Year 1

PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE FEEDESCRIPTIONITEM

0 0 Difference between Total Price and Total from Val Sum Worksheet

291,921281,767Total from Val Sum Worksheet

291,921281,7674

003

002

Year 2Year 1Section

DIFFERENCE FROM VAL SUM WORKSHEETDESCRIPTION

291,921281,767TOTAL PRICE

291,921281,767Provide RECEPTION SERVICES as detailed in Section 4.ITEM 4

00Provide FOOD SERVICES as detailed in Section 3.ITEM 3

00Provide MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION as detailed in Section 2.ITEM 2

Year 2Year 1

FIRM PRICING SCHEDULEDESCRIPTIONITEM

26,26025,347PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE FEEITEM 1

Year 2Year 1

PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE FEEDESCRIPTIONITEM

Cost build up for each

section



TF! Evaluation DocumentationTF! Evaluation Documentation

Line It

em

Line It

em

Evaluatio

n

Evaluatio

n

Functional S

ection

Functional S

ection

Overall E

valuatio

n

Overall E

valuatio

n

TF! Technical Evaluation ResultsTF! Technical Evaluation Results




Development

Biddable RFPs

Evaluationof Bids



Reporting




ProductsProducts

TF! Amendment AnalysisTF! Amendment AnalysisTF! Amendment AnalysisTF! Amendment Analysis


Development

Biddable RFPs

Evaluationof Bids



Reporting




ProductsProducts

SeeSOR QA PlanSeeSOR QA Plan

SeeSOR SchedulingSeeSOR Scheduling

SeeSOR AnalysisSeeSOR Analysis


Development

Biddable RFPs

Evaluationof Bids



Reporting




ProductsProducts

TF! ResultsTF! 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.

DND CRS TF! Review ResultsDND CRS TF! Review Results(1998 based on the pre-award phase for 4 pilot TF! projects)(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.

SeeSOR ResultsSeeSOR 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 .

Case Study – Diego Garcia B.I.O.T.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

TF! Introduced

Non-TF! Methodology

Contract Cost

Constant $Constant Scope

Constant Scope and $

TF! Re-Compete

$0

$5M

$10M

$15M

$20M

$25M

$30M

Yr

1

Yr

2

Yr

3

Yr

4

Yr

5

Yr

1

Yr

2

Yr

3

Yr

4

Yr

5

Yr

1

Yr

2

Yr

3

Yr

4

Yr

5

Yr

6

$0

$5M

$10M

$15M

$20M

$25M

$30M

Integrated Lifecycle Integrated Lifecycle CompetitionsCompetitions

Lifecycle Contracting with PBSCLifecycle Contracting with PBSC(Performance-based Service Contract)(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.

PBSC

Lifecycle ContractingIndependent Event Contracting

RBSC

Most efficient/effective

Least efficient/effective

Performance SpecificationUse structured approach such as Tabular Format to define each service as follows:

Write/verb-noun statement of serviceDefine quantity in measurable termsDefine quality in measurable termsExplain how the performance will be assessedSpecify inputs and processes only if necessary

Contractor Compensation Basis of Payment

Contract Management & Administration

For quality compensation, consider:Objective assessmentQualitative assessment

For quantity compensation, consider:Cost reimbursableFirm price

Quantity management:Quantity tracking system

Quality management:MonitoringCorrective Action RequestsQuality reportingPerformance Incentive Fee

Cost management:Cost controlPayment certification

Relationship management:Performance Incentive FeeJoint progress review meetingsJoint contract management trainingExecutive Steering Committees

Evaluation & Selection

Service solution evaluation:Criteria linked to SOWDetailed responses, including solution description, resources and costing, linked to the criteriaGeneration of questions against each Contractor’s solution

Multiple bid periods with question & answer process:A, Q, U criteria ratingsGeneration of a short-list based on relative scoringIssuance of evaluator questions to short-listed Contractors

Like stones in an archway…Like stones in an archway…

Government estimate:Validate performance specificationProvide reference point for evaluation

Documents

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