CESAR INFORMATION FOR INDUSTRY SESSION
OFFUTT AFB/19 Jun 96
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
We hope to have the scope of the contract finalized by Jan 97, draft Technical Requirements Document by Apr 97, draft RFP by Jun 97, RFP release by Sep 97, with contract award by Jan 98. Please note, these are "soft" dates. As we reach agreement on our scope these dates could be adjusted.
The cultural process changes referred to in the briefing are internal to STRATCOM. These include major paradigm shifts in the way we do our business and not the business we do (e.g. SIOP planning). Specifically, the possible outsourcing of functions performed by military and civilian personnel and the elimination of the "stovepipe" sytems (and their inherent redundancy and fiscal irresponsibility). We are looking to improve efficiency, lower costs, and implement common solutions. In regards to reengineering the SIOP development process, at this time, it is not envisioned that it would be included within the scope. However, if the situation warrants then this could be included as well.
What we are trying to convey when we say multiple services are those services (e.g. Helpdesk, engineering services, site prep, maintenance, etc) that support STRATCOM. Please do not confuse this with multiple services meaning the Air Force, Army, and Navy (although we are a joint command).
SCE's are typically performed for software development efforts. Per say, while the primary emphasis will be on infrastructure/integration there may be software modifications required in support of the integration effort. Towards this end, there is a mandate that all government contractors who develop code be certified at CMM Level 3 by 1998.
Meaningful sub-contractor plans will be required. The government will establish thresholds that exceed the minimum DoD requirements. While no actual goals have been established as yet, we will strive to establish criteria which can be incentivized to reward the contractor for achieving these goals.
While some of the C2 applications that operate in the CMAH will be included within CESAR's scope, at this time, we do not have plans for CMAH inclusion. However, the upcoming C4I study to be undertaken within STRATCOM may direct that CMAH be included as well. Further, we are looking for industry to recommend improvement areas (e.g. the depth and extent of our interoperation/integration efforts) and if it makes sense to include the CMAH it will be.
This clause is pertinent only if we outsource. Essentially, this clause means that if there is a STRATCOM requirement for computer support in a combat environment that has been contracted out, then the contractors performing this support would be expected to go.
Regarding the ratings issue, at this time, CESAR has not been submitted for approval for a designated Defense Order rating. The presumption is that we will pursue this and get the appropriate designation.
Today we do not task our integrator to devise solutions and then implement. The government has been dictating solutions and then, as may be expected, depend upon our current integrator to "clean up the mess". While SWPS was built as an integration contract, we have not used it this way due to the culture within STRATCOM and "empire building". The government, historically, has not done a good job devising solutions. We need to get out of this business, let the industry experts propose solutions, and have the government choose the most appropriate solution presented.
We expect to run the security gamut. Almost all will require, at a minimum, Secret level clearances. Some will require TS-SIOP and others will require TS-SCI. In regards to the dollar amount to obtain the requisite clearances, we expect industry to provide creative solutions pertaining to the use of their personnel.
Current SWPS applications contractors have signed associate contractor clauses that directs them to work with the prime integrator. Teaming or sub-contractor relationships will be left up to the prime and the associates to work out.
On the second issue, we expect the prime to integrate applications into both the computing environment and our SYBASE database, and with other applications. We also envision the prime taking over the operation and maintenance of the existing applications.
The government will be evaluating offerors on their capabilities but we are not requiring them to be CMM Level 3. Please keep in mind that DoD policies dictate that an organization be moving towards the higher levels of CMM.
The DII COE issue is yet to be determined. We still have to define the scope of the contract and what will be requested within the RFP. Industry will be informed of our expectations when we release the draft RFP.
We're still trying to sell a fly-off concept, whereby a multiple contract award would be made to two contractors and, after a year or less period, continue one and discontinue the other, both internal and external to STRATCOM. Further, we would expect the two fly-off contractors to spend their Bid and Proposal money during the fly-off. To a great extent, industry's recommendations on whether or not to do a fly-off, whether it is a cost-effective acquisition strategy, will form the basis for our decision. Our strategy will be announced well in advance of the draft RFP.
Our contract should be flexible enough to include external STRATCOM requirements. At this time, we have limited external requirements, mainly in the GCCS arena. Also there is a requirement for NPES to interface with external organizations.
The primary argument of the "rice bowl" holders seems
to be that they can task their contractors, on a daily basis,
to do "stuff".