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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. TF! Evaluation Documentation
Functional Section
Overall Evaluation
Line Item
Evaluation

12. TF! Technical Evaluation Results

13. TF! Technical Evaluation Results

14. TF! Technical Evaluation Results

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

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

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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. TF! Results
Reduces acquisition time from 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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