The Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Command thanked us during our debrief for our competing bid, but in the end the incumbent ITT/Exelis won, again. The Fleet Systems Engineering Team (FSET) contract has always been held by the current incumbent, over many competitions every 5 years. The losing competitors this time were four teams lead by SAIC, QinetiQ, Jacobs, and SRA International. Boarhog LLC was with the very strong SRA team, which also included teaming agreements with Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, McAfee, Secure Missions Solutions, SRC, Salient Federal Tech, C4 Planning Solutions, AMSEC, CUBRC, and many small businesses with current SPAWAR contracts. The government assigned the SRA team grades of "outstanding" for our management plan and staffing plan, and they indicated our detailed transition plan from incumbent ITT/Exelis was more than adequate.
The powerful SRA team had maritime C4I capabilities covered across the context of the 16 areas laid out in the government's statement of work, and every company on the team had committed to investing their resources as designers, developers, producers, installers, and maintainers of C4I systems afloat and ashore, around the world. The SRA team was assembled to not only meet the requirements with little risk to transitioning from the incumbent, but to provide SPAWAR's Fleet Readiness Directorate with access to a widest possible range of systems engineering resources and expertise. The SRA team's staffing plan was populated with many prior FSET members, including the incumbent's prior FSET Program Manager. The SRA team's offer was within a small single digit difference on price. But as was the case with the previous SPAWAR competitions for the FSET contract, the incumbent was not to be unseated.
FSET was started as a Small Business Set Aside program awarded to Darlington Inc., who won the FSET contract recompete and was acquired by EDO Corporation, a large business. The next FSET competition was Full and Open, since the incumbent was now a large business and the government determined after a Sources Sought that there were no longer any small businesses who could do the work. Therefore, FSET was not to be a Small Business Set Aside. The incumbent won again, beating out the team of CSC with subcontractors Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, who I understand was the low bidder. EDO/Darlington was acquired by ITT/Exelis, and five years later SPAWAR awarded to their FSET incumbent, again, at a competitive price. FSET contract awarded to Excelis
A Vice President of a major defense contractor recently corrected me when I offered that while SPAWAR is pleased to report competing 80% of their contracting opportunities, they award to their incumbent 80% of the time. He said their extensive analysis indicates that latter number is closer to 91%. In 2017 SPAWAR will again compete the FSET contract for award in 2018. There will be competition, even with a 9% probability of winning the work. What other choice is there?
1 comment:
Joe;
Your words strike chords of pain in my heart. As a former war-fighter and a current and progressive supporter of our U.S. Military at-large, I see these "Fair Competitions" and become sullen. As long as Section "L" & "M" of the RFPs remain in their respective archaic designs, The USG will continue to summarily disregard the very best of innovation, creativity, and ingenuity which our sharpest minds create. We will continue to blatantly disregard the learned-lessons over ~40yrs that our most seasoned minds have fine-tuned....The USG procurement process remains on the fast-track to being the most effective, ~15year-behind-the-technological-curve organization in history.
I can only find solace in the apparent reality that despite the inordinate inability of the USG Procurement Leadership to recognize that the system in-place enables, strictly, the USG to buy what THEY think they need, versus presenting a problem and asking for innovation at the speed of the United States of America.
At it's fundamental core, the USG isn't looking to purchase the best technology at the lowest price (Best Value), nor is it attempting to procure the Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) solutions. the USG is attempting to gain access to "The Best for the Less...of what THEY know."
All I know is that when faced with the choice--or should I say decision--to either: A) continue in the USG "Fair competition" rat-race, investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in proposals...for a ~9% Pw (at best!)...with a ~6-7% margin to stay realistically competitive, or; B) 'BREAK-ENGAGE' from USG competitive procurement, and shift focus to the commercial and FMS (Foreign Military Sales) domains where margins are fair and at least everyone is on the same 'unfair advantage' playing field... Guess where my time is spent.
In closing, the next time you ask yourself why those with the brightest of futures leave the USG and Govt domain, and go work for...or create...innovation meccas... I offer, humbly, and for your consideration, that it's because we make them go.
I will be on the battlefield...of Education. Where innovation is welcomed.
Come join me.
R,
L
Post a Comment