THE IMPLEMENTING ACQUISITION VISION

To facilitate this challenge, the revised FAR incorporates a “statement of guiding principles” early in the process. This statement includes: (1) a vision statement, or mission statement, for the Federal Acquisition System, (2) organizational relationships, and (3) standards for performance that apply to all acquisition participants. This “statement of guiding principles” is an expression of the mission of the Federal Acquisition System and how the federal government intends to acquire goods and services. For the first time, a written statement of acquisition doctrine, clearly defining the core objectives of the system and the performance standards of the federal acquisition system, has been articulated to participants in the process (see Figure 1-3).

This implementing vision statement complements NPR’s core vision for the federal government. It declares that the primary goal of the acquisition system is “to deliver on a timely basis best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public trust and fulfilling public policy objectives.” It also concludes that participants can best achieve the primary goal by “working together as a team empowered to make decisions within their areas of responsibility.”

The implementing vision answers the question, “What business are we in?” First and foremost, the goal of every acquisition is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer while maintaining the public trust and fulfilling policy objectives. Further examination of the vision provides the following insight into its meaning:

• The customers are “the users and line managers acting on behalf of the American taxpayer.”

• The primary purpose of each acquisition is service to the customer, not the process itself.

• The use of the term “best value product or service” means that the government buyer can use subjective judgment to procure a product that provides the greatest overall benefit to the customer. The 1997 rewrite of FAR Part 15.101, The Best Value Continuum, rather than using the term “best value,” used the term “tradeoff.” This was because: (1) there was no standard definition of “best value,” and (2) an accurate reflection of what occurs during source selection, when price is not the only determining factor for contract award, is a tradeoff between the factors and subfactors that are mandated by statute. These are cost or price, quality (technical merit and other measures of the proposal’s worth), and past performance (unless the Contracting Officer has made a written determination that it is not applicable to the instant acquisition).

Figure 1-3 Implementing Vision for the Federal Acquisition System

• The required product must be available when and where the customer needs it. The economists refer to this as “time and place utility,” meaning that a product or service has no value unless it is at the required place at the required time.

• The participants in the acquisition process must apply high ethical standards and maintain the public trust through openness, fairness, and integrity.

The vision also decrees that implementation can best be achieved when an integrated acquisition team works together and when all members are authorized to make decisions within their areas of responsibility. The FAR describes the integrated acquisition team as “including not only representatives of the technical, supply, and procurement communities but also the customers they serve and the contractors who provide the products and services.” Including the contractor as an advisor to the integrated acquisition team is a departure from the “past arm’s-length” relationship and represents an attempt to restore a closer buyer-seller relationship. It also recognizes that a positive buyer-seller relationship is vital to the success of any contract. In the case of small procurements or routine purchases, the integrated acquisition team can be limited to the line manager, contracting officer, and seller’s purchasing agent.

The DoD has implemented a process management concept called Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD), which integrates all activities from product concept through production and support, to optimizing simultaneously the product and its manufacturing and sustaining processes to meet cost, schedule, and performance objectives. Key to the success of this management concept is the Integrated Product Team (IPT). The IPT is a multifunctional team that is assembled around a product or service and is responsible for advising the project leader, program manager (PM), or Milestone Decision Authorities (MDA) on cost, schedule, and performance of the product.

Each integrated acquisition team member is expected to “exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet customer needs.” Authority (and hence accountability) to make these decisions must be delegated to the lowest level within the system permitted by law. Business judgment, based on the core values, includes establishing objectives, developing plans, and identifying potential risk and opportunities associated with each acquisition. Prior to contract award the team’s tasks include establishing the project’s objectives and developing plans that consider the potential risk and opportunities associated with meeting or exceeding the objectives. After award the integrated acquisition team focuses on the variances from the original objectives by managing risk and opportunities.

Acquisition doctrine places a great deal of importance on the use of integrated acquisition teams. In addition, including the user and contractor as members of the team highlights the need for synergy and timely decisions that can only be achieved through effective communications. Acquisition doctrine is also an admission that the traditional stovepipe-like organizational relationships make it difficult to communicate laterally among disciplines, especially when separate organizations are involved. The integrated acquisition team is designed to facilitate organizational and individual interaction by creating a multifunctional critical mass so that the acquisition functions (i.e., product design, test and evaluation, production, purchasing, logistics support, and contracting) will “sign up” to a shared objective and thus have a greater sense of commitment to the acquisition process.

In discussing the role of the integrated acquisition team, the FAR states that “the contracting officer must have authority to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with law, to determine the application of rules, regulations, and policies on a specific contract.” Ralph C. Nash, Jr., founder of the Government Contracts Program at The George Washington University, suggests that placing the contracting officer (CO) on the integrated acquisition team is very important because it ensures that the CO will function as a member of a team and not as the person responsible for the back end of the procurement process.

The strongest endorsement of using individual initiative in the acquisition process is the FAR policy statement: “if it is in the best interest of the Government and not addressed in the FAR, nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order, or other regulation that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority.” This policy ends an age-old question as to whether or not a course of action not specifically prohibited by law or policy is permitted to be implemented. To many it represents another departure from previous practice.