Minutes NITAAC IAC

Date 22 Jan 2004

Time 10:30  - 11:30 AM

 

Announcements:

  • The previous meeting (3 months ago) was cancelled due to weather.
  • No meeting minutes were produced from the meeting 6 months ago for lack of a designated note-taker.  Debbie Rieger offered to type up her notes and submit them to Esther Burgess who will provide for their review and dissemination.
  • Meetings will now be held each 2 months in order to provide greater continuity of actions and to lessen the impact of someone missing a meeting.
  • Dr. Leamon Lee has retired after 43 years of Government service
  • Debbie Mays is now Debbie Rieger, having married earlier in January
  • David Ramos is now acting chair of IAC.  He is serving in various positions in NIH/OD, including director of OLAO.

 

Information shared by David Ramos:

  • Several OMB and HHS mandates are underway as part of ongoing consolidation of business operations, including implementation of Oracle ERP, the consolidation of acquisition functions.  Mr. Paul Horton, a senior member of the OLAO staff has been assigned by Mr. Ramos to serve as Director of Operations of OLAO in order to meet highly aggressive goals for competitive sourcing.  Among the highest priorities of current OMB A-76 studies are Real Property management and Grants Administration (Extramural Research)
  • OMB continues to scrutinize the number and function of GWACs, looking at utilization not just inside the sponsoring agencies, but government-wide to identify how the vehicles perform according to current government policies.  GSA’s travel module was mentioned as an example of the results of procurement consolidation.  The strategy of current consolidation initiatives is attributable to the strategy developed by the Heritage Foundation, and was developed prior to the current administration taking office. 

(See: e.g. http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG1380.cfm; or e.g. http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/BG1452.cfm

  • An example of consolidation’s impact on NIH Human Resources is the reduction of a 40 person HR staff to now 4.
  • Two GAO-driven issues concerning GWACs were noted:
    • (per Victor Powers) at a recent conference of GWAC personnel were asked if they would be willing to discontinue minimally-utilized GWACs;
    • A 5% assessment will allegedly be levied on the 1% contracting fee now collected by GWAC contracting offices.  The accruals will serve to fund the training of contracting office employees in civilian agencies in a fashion similar to DAU (Defense Acquisition University) DoD users of civilian agency GWACs would be exempt from the 5% )  [insert link to pertinent enabling legislation?]
  • HHS-driven policy changes are also being considered or implemented, including:
    • An increased emphasis on strategic sourcing
    • Increasing consolidation of procurements, e.g. a recent RFQ specifically for peripherals;
  • Consideration of HWACs, meaning HHS-wide acquisition contracts.
  • Historically, centralized procurement has been among the functions of NIH/OD, hence there may be some measure of distrust among the ICs as procurement becomes more consolidated.

 

General Discussion, Questions, Views:

  • Perception of NITAAC contracts in the NIH community was discussed. Some opinions expressed include:
    • NITAAC contracts have become much more of a standard within NIH
    • Much more promotion within NIH is warranted.
    • The flexibility and utility has been demonstrated to many new users who are now “converts” to NITAAC vehicles.
    • The relative depth and breadth is a good combination (together with ease an no-fee) for NIH users.
  • HHS is looking at Strategic Sourcing initiatives that may include:
    • Designation of HHS and CDC as procurement services regarding IT
    • Program Support Center at Parklawn will be led by Bob Woods and has been designated as Shared Services Lead for the Department.
  • This is a particularly important season for the promotion of NITAAC contracts
    • Elmer Sembly and BMOCO team have a leadership role
    • The responsibility is shared with Industry to promote the NITAAC Brand
    • The 05 Feb 2004 event at Natcher Center is an example of the type of event that the NITAAC community should capitalize on to promote the brand.  Important elements include:
      • Marketing directly to the right people
        • How do we identify to whom we ought to be marketing?
        • Note that the key decisionmakers are not always physically at the IT sites.

 

  • The Marketing Subcommittee, chaired by Tom White of iGov provided a verbal report that included the results of a survey conducted since the last meeting.  A written report will be provided after additional analysis is conducted.  Following-up with respondents maybe worthwhile to better understand their comments.  Key data reported includes:
    • 45 of 135 Primes responded
    • Much was learned regarding the ways that different recipients can interpret questions.  Careful thought by multiple, experienced people could be very helpful in generating useful, focused feedback.
    • These results will benefit greatly from analysis and interpretation due to the various perceptions of the respondents.

 

  • The Program Subcommittee – Just getting started, so there is nothing to report at this time.

 

  • The Government Affairs Subcommittee did not report. 
    • The former chair left the industry.  A new chair is being sought.
    • It is very important to ensure that NIH contracts are keeping up with any changes in the legislative requirements and the FARs.

 

  • A volunteer is sought to take meeting notes.
  • The next meeting is the 3rd Thursday in March (18 March 2004 1130 to 1300)
  • Handling of Meeting Minutes
    • Website updates will continue.
      • After approval by NITAAC, Tim Warrington put the meeting minutes on the Web
  • A discussion of the perception of NITAAC contracts included:
    • The DoD procurement community has confused the message regarding “refrain from parking money in franchise funds” with a policy of “don’t use non-DoD contracts”
    • The attractiveness of GWACs is a swinging pendulum and DoD will likely come around
    • There are a wide variety of regulations—even within a given Federal entity—that affect decisions on what vehicle to use.
    • Buyers are more pragmatic at some seasons than others
    • DCCW’s considerations are principally keeping the procurement volumes high on their own vehicles to prevent their organization from losing position, grade, staff and/or work.
    • The advantages of using NITAAC GWACs are considerable, but need to be widely and effectively communicated.
  • Additional discussion of the Federal GWAC business included:
    • The MOA between CECOM and NITAAC (for mutual promotion and utilization of each others’ ID/IQ vehicles) is no longer in effect due to reorganizations at CECOM.
    • GSA and now VA are targeting NITAAC as competition to their mandates.
    • OMB is looking particularly at Franchise Fund vehicles for their alleged role in usurping competitive or other processes.  GWACS will probably receive additional scrutiny as well.
    • Perhaps the IAC and its subcommittees should consider the Federal “marketplace” and identify contracting groups that would respond to the message.  “Let’s win back their mindshare.”
    • DoD and other Departments have been obliged to recompete several of their vehicles including MOBIS due to several factors, including:
      • Alleged misuse of the designation of money protected by schedule 70 IT revolving fund
      • The rotation of audits through all regions that sooner or later will reach all GWACs, including CIO-SP2.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11:38 PM

Back