Click here a filler image only no relevency to acquisition, logistic, contracting or program management image of a classical greek architechture representing DAU's strength as a business university instructing in DoD Acquisition
          Home      Contact      About ACC      Privacy      Tutorial      DoD Certificate      Feedback
.

Tailoring ARRT (Acquisition Requirements Roadmap Tool) to support Task Order Contract Execution? (0 answers)

Question
0
Helpful Votes
Guest portrait
Private

I'm looking for a way to standardize, and to the extent possible, automate the development, issuance, and management of individual delivery orders on a long-term IDIQ studies contract. 

Currently, individual stakeholders (task sponsors) draft performance work statements that form the basis of task orders that we put on contract.  There is little standardization, and therefore considerable variation in the structure and quality of these PWS's.  Correspondingly, there is considerable variation in the quality of task surveillance, so except for generic and subjective "user satisfaction" measures, we cannot objectively evaluate contractor performance. 

Having reviewed the ARRT overview slides & videos, it appears that ARRT imposes a consistent structure on requirements, and corresponding evaluation criteria (i.e., PWS and QASP).  I wonder, therefore, if there might be a way to impose a "lightweight" version of ARRT as a way to structure the development of individual task order PWSs, and task evaluation methods, to help the task sponsors clarify their requirements, and to help them conduct effective oversight of the task during performance? 

Presumably, if we did this on our contract, we would substitute the current unstructured task statement (PWS) format (in MS Word) with the requirement to log into this "lightweight" ARRT, and enter requirements for the task, using the ARRT logic to ensure the requirements are objective, properly articulated, and readily evaluated.  The resulting ARRT-generated PWS would form the basis of the Task Order we'd issue on the IDIQ contract; the resulting ARRT-generated QASP would form the task sponsor's and COR's "yardstick" for evaluating the contractor's performance on that task. 

I imagine that by imposing a more consistent structure on the individual tasks, we would be better able to evaluate contractor performance (at the individual task and at a macro level) and respond to issues more promptly with greater focus--the result being better contractor performance and greater user satisfaction.

Has anyone attempted to use ARRT during contract execution for a Task-Order or and IDIQ contract? 

Has anyone attempted to "tailor" ARRT to focus primarily on PWS / QASP drafting? 

Does anyone have recommendations for how I might explore this issue further?

Thanks!

Page Information

Popularity of this question:
#1 of 200 items
0 Helpful votes
At this page:
0 Answers 1 Pages Emailed
234 Page Views 0 Attachments Downloaded
0 Meta-card Views 0 Videos Downloaded
0 Relationships and Highlights
ID630798
Date CreatedWednesday, February 13, 2013 2:42 PM
Date ModifiedWednesday, February 13, 2013 2:42 PM
Version Comment:

Sign In

Login with your CAC

Insert your CAC now, and click this button.


Login with your Password

User Name:

Password:

Forgot your password?

  

Benefits of ACC Membership


ACC Practice Center Version 3.2
  • Application Build 3.2.8
  • Database Version 3.2.8