Army STRICOM Revamps Contracting Process.

Officials predict that 'omnibus' procurements will expedite training programs

The Army's Simulation Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM), headquartered in Orlando, Fla., is initiating the first in a series of so-called omnibus contracts, designed to shorten the time between proposals and contract awards. Instead of the usual nine to 18 months, officials said, the contracting process would be whittled down to about three months.

The new arrangements are referred to as STOCs, or STRICOM omnibus contracts. They will become the command's "acquisition vehicle of choice," said STRICOM's civilian deputy commander, James Skurka, in a recent interview.

Another popular contracting technique today is called Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/JQ), which often is confused with omnibus contracts, according to Kim Denver, contracting officer for advanced distributed systems at STRICOM.

Probably 75 percent of business managers still don't understand the difference between ID/IQs and omnibus contracts, he estimated. The differences are many, he said.

For example, Denver explained, an ID/IQ would cover particular parts for a vehicle, such as tires. A spending cap would hold spending on the tires to a specified dollar amount, obligating an agency to buy a certain number of tires over a period of time, such as five years. As orders for tires came in from customers, the contractor would fill orders until the ceiling amount was exhausted. The only guarantee for the contractor would be the dollar amount stipulated by the spending limit. In other words, when the tires would be bought and how many would be bought at a time, and who would buy them, remains an unknown factor with ID/IQ contracts, Denver explained.

Omnibus contracts, on the other hand, would cover the entire vehicle, not one piece at a time, he said.

Neither are STOCs to be confused with umbrella contracts, which cover several product lines at one time, Skurka said. Instead, the omnibus contracts are divided into four "domains," or acquisition areas, Skurka explained. The domains are live, constructive, virtual, and test and instrumentation.

"[In this way,] STOCs can address particular areas like flight or mechanical training," Skurka said. "Omnibus is adaptable and adjustable. Everything from [leveraging] to developing a technology base to production will fit."

STOCs are particularly good for small business participation, because of the speed with which they are awarded," noted Skurka.

In addition, savings are realized because the bid and proposal (B&P) process is accomplished only once, Denver offered. With omnibus contracts there would not be separate B&P for component parts contracts for simulator trainers.

Increasing small business participation in STRICOM's work has been encouraged in recent years, Jim McBrayer, chief information officer for STRICOM omnibus contracts told an industry briefing in Orlando, sponsored by the National Training Systems Association (NTSA).

There is a mandated goal that requires that Ii percent of STRICOM'S work be set aside for small businesses, Denver said. In addition, 20 percent of task orders which are not set-asides--and are awarded to large contractors--must be handed off to subcontractors for the purpose of cultivating a broader contractor base for STRICOM, he noted.

Speeding Up Service

STOCs also should speed up service to STRICOM customers, McBrayer explained. In the past, slow response and delivery has cost STRICOM business, he said.

STRICOM intends to provide customers with faster access to simulator training devices, instrumentation systems and accompanying support services, McBrayer said.

The omnibus contract allows defense contractors to deal with the military services in the same way that business is conducted in the private sector, McBrayer explained. These contracts will last from eight to 10 years, and use a single prime contractor who initially gave STRICOM the best deal.

"The problem is this," McBrayer said. "We are raking too long to acquire. The idea is to become smarter and nor make things harder than they already are."

The goal is to get a project under award and have it delivered to the customer in a timely manner, he re-emphasized.

In 1999, STRICOM awarded $789 million in contracts, McBrayer said. In 2000, he predicted, that figure will grow to nearly $1 billion.

Of that amount, STRICOM wants $480 million--nearly half--to be omnibus or ID/IQ contracts. This goal would only affect new work coming through the door, McBrayer noted. "Contracts that are already in place will not be omnibused," he said.

For new business, omnibus contracts will become STRICOM's preferred vehicle for doing business, officials said. In the future, STRICOM commanders will, in fact, have to approve any conventional-type contract arrangements before they can be implemented.

The need to expedite the Army's procurement cycle has been a major impetus for STRICOM to seek quicker solutions for reviewing proposals and making awards, Skurka explained.

It is imperative that STRICOM adapts to the pace with which information technology (IT) is changing, he emphasized. Old lead times would cause needed innovations in computer and IT applications to be obsolete by the time they would come on line.

"Our performance is being driven by the gaming industry," Skurka said. "In the private sector, the half life for new technology is one year. We can't afford to take a lot of time to award contracts because of how fast technology is changing."

In the near future, industry alliances--temporary partnerships between companies--will become more important for doing business with STRICOM, said Col. Craig Hanford, director of training device development at the command. "You may want to look for partners to help you," he said. "However, if you're waiting for me to show you the R&D, you are already too late...

"There will be no free rides," Hanford told an industry conference. "If you mess up, it will be documented. If you are successful, it will be documented. It's a shallow trough. I can't go back to the well. You lie to me [about development and delivery], and you're toast!"

Teaming--while it maybe strongly encouraged--will not become a requirement for winning contracts at STRICOM, Skurka noted. Things such as past performance and quality of subcontractors, however, will be major determining factors when deciding on awards, he said.

Still, Skurka said, the door remains open to new contractors with little or no experience in dealing with the government. In such cases, he explained, experience in the commercial arena would be evaluated.

STRICOM is confident that omnibus contracts will attract the right kind of players," experienced or not, McBrayer said.

ID/IQ Contracts

IDIIQ contracts caught on and actually paved the way for STOCs, Denver said.

STRICOM first experimented with this kind of contract in 1993, according to Skurka. That year, the command awarded a contract for Advanced Distributed Simulation Technology I (ADST-T), which turned out to be a precursor for where Army simulation training was headed, said Skurka. "ADST-I and II, is what sold the Navy and the Air Force on ID/IQ," he said. "The Navy and the Air Force know a good idea when they see one.

"STRICOM was a trailblazer for IDIIQ contracts," said Denver. "Ten years ago ID/IQs were being used primarily for supplies. ADST-I and TI actually began procuring services with ID/IQs."

Once again, STRICOM is taking the acquisition reform lead by introducing STOCs. Awards for this first series of omnibus contracts will be announced in September, Skurka said.

Omnibus contracts and ID/IQs are creating great opportunities outside of the Army for STRICOM, Skurka continued. For example, STRICOM is handling an increased amount of training devices and support work for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), at MacDill Air Force Base, in Florida.

"We are already extremely joint in nature," Skurka cited. "By reducing lead times we also encourage joint endeavors by saving on initial costs. The old way is more expensive for both [STRICOM and its partners]. Also, STOCs are an open process from the beginning."

Before moving to omnibus contracts, STRICOM first sought industry's response. To date, STRICOM has received hundreds of comments, which "we have taken into account," while making the move to faster awards, McBrayer explained.

"We are accommodating and acting on industry concerns about what it says it needs from Omnibus contracts, added Skurka, "These reforms were not undertaken in a void."

One cost and time saving decision that STRICOM made is to reduce the customizing of learning systems for each customer, Skurka indicated. This should enhance training interoperability between the services, he said.

Contractors are eyeing the new system warily. Stanley M. Aronberg, president of Aronberg and Associates, a marketing consulting firm based in Orlando, said he liked the simpler approach to the STOCs.

"If you're a winner, it's good," he commented. "However, if you lose," he noted, "you're out of it for the next eight years," the minimum length of the omnibus contracts.

"The only alternative left open to a loser, he added, "would be to get back in as a subcontractor.

From what Aronberg has seen of the new contracts, he believes that "the bidding process will be expedited and take a shorter period of time," he said.

"I have seen contracts turned in 30 days," he continued. "That includes 10 to 15 days to respond to a task order, and another 10 to 15 days to award the contract.

STOCs could be used for larger projects, Aronberg said, but he noted: "The more complex the project, the longer it takes to do the review.

Omnibus contracts may increase small business participation, but once a company gets the contract, it has to get the job done, Aronberg said. He warned against over-selling capabilities just to secure a contract.

"If you don't or can't perform the task, then you're gone," he said, "and they will soon forget who you are.

Aronberg said that he didn't believe that STRICOM is tacitly requiring the practice of teaming. "Everyone uses sub [contrator]s anyway," he said. "If you're not a prime [contractor], you don't have control over the contract in the first place. It is up to the primes to see that work flows down to the partners."

The Central Florida Chapter of the National Defense Industrial Association plans to collect data on how well the STOCs perform, said Aronberg, who is the current chapter president.

"We will collect contractors thoughts and comments, both pro and con, for an after-action report," he said. There are 73 companies currently doing business with STRICOM, he noted.

Aronberg predicted that the new contracts will make life easier for Army trainers. "I have been out there training," he said, "and it's frustrating to not have enough equipment or the right stuff to properly do your job."

Navy Pursuing 'Smaller, Deployable, Interactive' Networked Systems

With more than $500 million slated for simulation-based training systems during the next eight years, the Navy plans to rely on Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to acquire new products and services.

The largest portion of the Navy's simulation plan is worth about $375 million, said Capt. Jay Hixson, former commander of Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD), headquartered in Orlando, where he addressed an industry briefing earlier this year.

This piece of the training pie includes both flight simulators and maintenance trainers, "and just about everything else across the board," he said.

Keeping up with the frenetic pace of technology changes during the past decade propelled the Navy and the Marine Corps into ID/IQ-type acquisition practices, Hixson said.

The Marine Corps Simulation Master Plan, worth $300 million, includes simulator operations and maintenance for the entire Marine inventory.

"There used to be a lot of big, mechanical devices, like large, dome simulators," he explained. "But this curve has been broken. The future is smaller, deployable, interactive systems. There will be no more $50 million or $100 million mechanical simulators."

The goal is to bring simulators to Navy and Marine air crews, reversing the old method of transporting crews to the simulator. This way, they can train aboard ships on their way to forward deployment theaters in order to keep their skills sharp, Navy training officials said.

"Information superiority is what is being bought now," said Hixson. And the necessary acquisition tools for obtaining these systems has had to change accordingly, he said. "Better information gives you certain advantages over [simply] larger forces and greater numbers," he said.

In 1997, Hixson reported the Navy had 22 flight simulators on back order. ID/IQ contracts are credited with reducing that number to three for fiscal year 2000, he said.

"ID/IQ contracts have created more efficiency and better technology utilization," by getting simulation trainers into the hands of users sooner, rather than later, said Hixson.

U.S. Air Force to Invest $500 Million in Simulators Through 2006

The first big Air Force Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for simulators is the Training System Acquisition (TSA) program, which could be worth up to $500 million. TSA is scheduled to run through 2006.

This program is managed by the Training Systems Product Group (TSPG) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. TSPG--part of the Air Force Material Command--acquires and sustains training systems, according to its director, Air Force Col. Larry Skapin. TSPG allows the Air Force to present a single face to the simulation industry, "to let you know exactly what the requirements are," Skapin told an industry briefing in Orlando.

The TSA program covers a broad spectrum of simulation training needs, which includes not only design and development of training devices, but also courseware, hardware, visual-sensor systems, databases and logistic support for contractors. In addition, TSA provides installation, testing, maintenance and sustaining aircrews.

"Training is not the top priority of all commands," he said.

"It keeps us busy trying to keep our training simulators current and up to speed," said Skapin.

A significant portion of Air Force dollars are spent on training, said Col. Jerry Straw, chief of the Warfighting Training Division, at the Air Force Research Laboratory in Mesa, Ariz. "If we aren't out killing people and breaking their stuff, then we are training."

It costs $4,000 to fly one training sortie, Straw told industry executives. "If the trainee busts the sortie (performs badly), then we have to go do it all over again."

In a simulator, said Straw, "we can have a trainee fly eight to 10 sorties a day, which is more than actual flight training can provide. Then, we can replay the tape and show them exactly where mistakes where made. This way, trainees are much better prepared for flight time when they finish a simulator course," Straw said.

"Simulation makes a fighter pilot a better fighter pilot," Straw continued. "I can take a kid and put him or her in a simulator, and, in two weeks, I can have one fine simulator fighter pilot."

Simulators can never take the place of actual flight training, Straw cautioned. "Will he or she be a good pilot?" he asked. "[Until a pilot solos] I'm not sure."