Alpha Contracting: Streamlined Government-Industry Partnership Process

1. Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies Alpha Contracting • Sole Source Negotiations between Government and Industry • (13 CFR124.503(c)(2))

2. ALPHA CONTRACTING DEFINED Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • An acquisition process adopted to reduce the acquisition cycle time by replacing a serial process with a concurrent one, through government and contractor teaming (e.g., overarching Integrated Process Team (IPT)) without compromising the standard of a fair and reasonable price. • Used in sole source acquisitions, pre-award phase of Integrated Process and Product Development (IPPD) • An approved Acquisition Plan and J&A is required before Alpha contracting discussions and negotiations begin on any program/project.

3. ALPHA CONTRACTING PROCESS Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Joint Government/Industry IPT is established to develop the requirements, draft the contract, conduct the audit, and find the right price for the acquisition (requirements, contracting, audit, the user, and the contractor/principal subcontractors) • There is no solicitation or proposal – the IPT develops the technical and cost detail that is the basis of the contract (a “model” contract (Ref. FAR 15.204-1, Sections A-J) developed early in the process prior to final pricing) • IPT may identify the need to change the program base-line to improve performance, lower risk, or reduce cost • Cost and technical data jointly developed to address concerns of Government pricing and audit personnel as the program costs are developed (fully supported contract price) • “Model” contract revised and adjusted as technical and price details are resolved; model becomes the executed contract document

4. ADVANTAGES - Reduction in time to award (up to 50%) - Enhanced understanding of contact (lower program risks) - Positive environment for execution - Greater customer satisfaction DISADVANTAGES - Up front labor-intense Need for dedicated personnel - Trust doesn’t come easy ALPHA CONTRACTING Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies

5. WHAT IS ALPHA CONTRACTING?(MORE SPECIFICALLY) Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies Government and Contractor Teaming • Open communications early in the process • Mutual understanding of the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements (Contractor & Government may co-write) • Agreement on appropriate scope and hours/task prior to “model” contract submittal • Contractor and government Team develop final “model” contract together (includes cost and pricing data)

6. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) – reduce overall costs of the acquisition process • FAR 5.101 enforces Synopsis requirements • FAR 6.302 enforces CICA J&A requirements • FAR 15.805-1 requires the PCO to assemble a team to perform an Independent Government Review • FAR 15.808 requires preparation of Pre- and Post Clearances • Technical Review Required • Executive Order 12931, October 13, 1994

7. OUTPUTS OF ALPHA CONTRACTING APPROACH • As a team, the Government and Contractor develop the RFP and Statement of Work (SOW) • Using this baseline RFP and SOW, Government/ Contractor Team development a “model” contract • With this “model” contract, the program is priced out using tools such as CAIV • “Model” contract is adjusted based on the pricing arrangements agreed upon by all Team members. (This becomes the contract document executed.) Develop the scope of work on a program, price that scope, and prepare the contract to execute that scope

8. TRADITIONAL CONTRACT FORMATION ACQ PLAN RQMTS PACKAGE FORMAL RFP PROPOSAL REVIEW & AUDIT NEGOTIATE CONTRACT AWARD _______________________________________________________________ 0 Timeline (in days) 365 EXCLUSIVE SERIAL PROCESSING

9. CONCURRENT CONTRACT FORMULATION(ALPHA CONTRACTING) ACQ PLAN RQMTS PACKAGE 120 – 160 Days CR DRAFT RFP CR FORMAL RFP CR Proposal CR REVIEW & AUDIT NEGOTIATE CONTRACT AWARD

10. WHAT TEAM MUST DO Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Focus on meeting established milestones • Make sure all the right people attend team meetings (establish common location) • Establish IPT and identify Team Leaders • Define technical review process • Establish a common spreadsheet (PMO/DCMC/DCAA/CONTRACTOR) • Keep Top Management informed

11. PRE-PROPOSAL RELEASE Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Clearly establish budgetary ROM • Write sound Draft SOW and preliminary delivery schedule • Answer the question “What do I think this effort should entail?” • Develop mutual understanding of SOW content (discussions) • Finalize strategy for unique contract provisions (e.g., WARRANTY, GFP)

12. PROPOSALSUBMISSION AND REVIEW Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Assemble technical review team on-site • Achieve deeper understanding of SOW content (discussions) • Assign one individual to each cost content summary sheet • Identify who the other Evaluators are to Answer the Question “What information have I received that causes me to believe we have the right position?”

13. NEGOTIATIONS Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Provide inputs to Team Leader for final review • Team Leaders (only) authorized to discuss effort with Contractor • All Team members available to resolve outstanding issues and fine tune requirements

14. CONTRACT AWARD Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Consider award on adjusted “model” contract (from Alpha teaming process) with required pen and ink changes • Maintain close contact with the budget officer for final funding release in a timely manner

15. CONCLUSIONS Soft Power Solutions Partnerships, Capacities, Technologies • Proven Approach for reducing acquisition cycle lead time (50% or more), reducing program costs (less risk) , and improving both negotiated agreement and probability of program success • Open, Honest, Cooperative approach reduced potential for litigation during program execution and opens door for other initiatives to reduce costs • Improved customer satisfaction given better quality and performance and realized expectations given their involvement in the process • Teaming process needs to continue beyond contract award. Overarching IPT should stay in place to assure communications and cooperative environment