Slide1: A-76 A Consultant’s Perspective Presented to the Defense Logistics Agency for the 2nd Annual DLA A-76 Conference Presented by Arthur L. Smith asmith@mainet.com Management Analysis, Incorporated (MAI) 9 June 2004


Slide2: Hi. I’m here to discuss your comments on the draft MEO that we sent two weeks ago. Well…uh….we don’t really have any comments yet. A-76, The Consultant’s Perspective Act I 1


A-76, The Consultant’s PerspectiveAct II: A-76, The Consultant’s Perspective Act II The ATO’s on her honeymoon in Fiji. Her deputy retired to manage an ostrich farm.


A-76, The Consultant’s PerspectiveAct III: A-76, The Consultant’s Perspective Act III The rest of the team can’t reach a consensus. This won’t affect your deadline, right?


A-76, The Consultant’s PerspectiveEpilogue: A New Career: A-76, The Consultant’s Perspective Epilogue: A New Career So…tell me more about that ostrich farm.


Working Effectively with Consultants: Working Effectively with Consultants Help your consultants use their time productively. Define your expectations clearly. Keep an open mind to alternative solutions - or, if you have a preconceived solution, say so. Provide candid feedback. Communicate promptly and proactively. Provide clear, consolidated comments, reflective of an agency position. Focus on the end product, not on the process. Remain involved; retain ownership of the product.


The Consultant’s Role: The Consultant’s Role 'I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.' Dudley Malone 'The difference between what the client thinks they need and what they actually do need is the consultant’s value added.' Bob Norton


Slide8: Miss your deadlines – preferably without advance warning. Provide your data in a different format than requested- consultants love a challenge. Express different views in the review sessions than in prior meetings - keep them guessing. Never provide positive feedback – it only encourages them. How to Make Your Consultants Consider Alternative Career Paths


The OMB Competitive Sourcing Report: The OMB Competitive Sourcing Report The OMB 'Report on Competitive Sourcing Results, Fiscal Year 2003' provides a great deal of useful information on program status in FY 2003. It does not, however: Distinguish between results under the 'old' and 'Revised' Circular, or Track study results by size of study


The National Council for Public Private Partnerships (NCPPP) Methodology: The National Council for Public Private Partnerships (NCPPP) Methodology Collect data on studies under the Revised Circular. Send questionnaires, contact agencies Analyze data, compare to OMB data Identify trends, areas of interest For more information please see www.ncppp.org.


Data Set Limitations: Data Set Limitations Not a random sample; based on agency responses No Department of Defense participation Small sample size; 34 total studies Information on savings not yet available


Streamlined Competitions Without MEO: Streamlined Competitions Without MEO


Streamlined Competition with MEO: Streamlined Competition with MEO


Standard Competition: Standard Competition * Study conducted using Tradeoff Source Selection


Results by Study Type: Results by Study Type


Conclusion: Conclusion Two Standard Competitions were conducted using Tradeoff Source Selection procedures. One received no private sector proposals; the other had private sector competition, but also remained in-house. This very preliminary data indicates that contractors receive no significant advantage from the tradeoff provisions. In Streamlined competitions with MEO, the Government appears to be more successful than in 'traditional' streamlined competitions. This, of course, is the anticipated outcome. The Government is more competitive in smaller streamlined competitions, for reasons already outlined. Combining both types of Streamlined Competitions, the Government won 84.6 percent of studies under 9 FTE, 75.0 percent of studies over 5 FTE.


Conclusions (continued): Conclusions (continued) The percentage of FTE remaining in-house is remarkably similar between the OMB report (89.0%) and the NCPPP sample (90.5%), and higher than historical precedents would lead one to expect. Whether NCPPP’s figure would decline with a larger, more representative sample remains to be seen. Based upon additional input, we will supplement this data in the coming months.


Case Study- Mailroom Support: Case Study- Mailroom Support Streamlined Competition of Mailroom Support; One mail FTE, with Government-furnished space, equipment, and supplies. First year costs:


Slide19: A-76 Contract Administration Staffing


Slide20: Contract Administration Factors and Allowable Grades A-76 Contract Administration Staffing


Case study – Mailroom Services: Case study – Mailroom Services Contract Administration Costs


Case Study, Mailroom SupportCost Comparison: Case Study, Mailroom Support Cost Comparison Total Cost of In-house Performance $53,592 Total Cost of Contract Contract Administration $45,648 + Cost of Contract X If cost of contract exceeds $7,944 the service remains in-house.


The Solution: The Solution Emphasize study of logical business units, in particular, larger studies with more potential for savings Change the contract administration staffing factor for studies under 10 FTE, making it more proportional to the size of the study