Using Data to Drive Improved Acquisition Performance

Transcription

1

2 Using Data to Drive Improved Acquisition Performance Breakout Session #: B12 Jeffrey Koses, GSA Senior Procurement Executive Mark Lee, Deputy Director, Office of General Services Acquisition Policy, Integrity & Workforce Date: Monday, July 25 Time: 2:30pm-3:45pm

3 What is good acquisition?

4 GSA s Balanced Scorecard Approach to Measuring Good Acquisition

5 Vision for a Future GSA Acquisition Balanced Scorecard 4

6 GSA s Vision for Using Acquisition Data Analytics Vision: An expanded set of data analytics tools addressing BSC measures available to acquisition workforce to learn and improve performance Savings Measurement Tool Workforce Analytics Tool GSA Acquisition Dashboard Small Business Utilization Tool Customer Satisfaction Tool Competition Tool Acquisition Efficiency Tool 5

7 GSA s Current Acquisition Balanced Scorecard 6

8 GSA s Acquisition Dashboard 7

9 GSA Acquisition Analytic Tools 8

10 Integrated Competition Tool 9

11 Small Business Utilization Tool 10

12 High Risk Contract Type Tool 11

13 Performance Based Acquisition Tool 12

14 Acquisition 360 Tool 13

15 Transactions Tool 14

16 Procurement Administrative Lead Time Tool 15

17 Procurement Management Review Tool 16

18 Acquisition Human Capital Tool 17

19 Metrics and data analytic tools are great, but how does this impact acquisition performance? Competition Case Study 18

20 GSA s Competition Challenge FY 13 GSA competition rate was 79.7% and competitive one bid rate was 16.5% across approximately $8.3 billion in obligations GSA wanted to improve, but how? One solution was to adopt similar policies to DoD and DHS that if you receive a one bid and you solicited for less than 30 days then you need to go out for additional 30 days* GSA engaged in a dialogue Heads of Contract Activity (HCAs) and Competition Advocates (CAs) to explore an alternative solution *When performing assisted acquisition GSA follows the requesting agency unique policy requirements (See FAR (b)(1)(i)) 19

21 Results of the Dialogue FAR Part 6 outlines policies and procedures to promote competition and the competition advocate role Structure built upon acquisition chain of command reviewing exclusions to competition HCAs and CAs noting a couple of challenges to improving competition Knowing when and why competitive one bids occur Understanding the trends in exclusions to competition and competitive one bids Greater visibility into contract options and expiration

22 Solution Integrated Competition Tool In the 3 rd and 4 th of FY14, GSA experiment with a competitive one bid tool In FY 15, GSA released an Integrated Competition Tool 21

23 Integrated Competition Tool Features Analyze spend by the following metrics effective competition rate, competition rate, and competitive one bid rate across three fiscal years Analysis by: Contract Activity Spend Category Reasons not competed Individuals awards impact rate results Contract Attributes Ranking Analysis Date of contract completion and action list 22

24 How to translate analysis into action? 23

25 Change Management Process Goal: Create capability for HCAs, CAs and staff to develop strategies based on data to drive competition performance improvement. Key Principal: 80/20 rule applies; 20% of effort for 80% of the result Develop a step-by-step analysis process to aid stakeholders in strategic planning Demonstration Structured Analysis Create worksheets that guide stakeholders through the analysis process. Provide step-by-step directions and sample completed worksheets Step-by-Step Guidance Implementation Publish results and HCA review monthly Quarterly at Acquisition Steering Committee Ongoing target training and messaging 24

26 Comparison of Results FY 14 FY 15 $9,070,075,324 obligated 160,515 Actions (Base Awards and Modifications) 66.7% Effective Competition Rate 78.9% Competition Rate 15.6% Competitive One Bid Rate $9,010,410, 374 obligated 148,545 Actions (Base Awards and Modifications) 71.8% Effective Competition Rate 82.6% Competitions Rate 13.1% Competitive One Bid Rate Key Takeaways Approximately, $420 million more effectively competed in FY 15 while obligating $60 million less Effective competition rate went up 5.1% Competition rate went up 3.7% Competitive One Bid Rate down 2.5%

27 How can data analysis be used to drive operational efficiency? Case Study # 2

28 Why is operational efficiency important in Federal Acquisition? Reducing the administrative costs of acquisition is a guiding principal outlined in FAR 1.102

29 GSA Solution: Transaction Tool Tool comprises of 4 metrics Spend per FTE: $ Obligated/FTEs (1102s, 1105s, and 1106s) Transaction per FTE: Actions (Base Awards and Modifications)/FTEs (1102s, 1105s, and 1106s) Function cost to spend ratio Function cost per transaction Transaction Details - Every GSA procurement transaction by: Spend Category Base award and modification breakdown Distribution of obligated amount Funding agency Above and below the SAT Procurement Type (Commercial & Non-commercial) Award Type Contract Type Socio-economic Type Custom List Establish targets to change the demographics of your procurement transactions 28

30 Efficiency Metrics Visualization 29

31 Transaction Detail Visualization 30

32 Customized List 31

33 The tool is great, but what is GSA doing with this? Key Takeaways - Visibility into GSA s procurement transaction landscape points to opportunities for improved efficiency Greater use of commercial item procedures Reduce the number of overall transactions (awards and mods) Contract aggregation Readjust staff levels to size and scope of procurement of transactions Workload redistribution Adjust award type selection Issuing more task and delivery orders than open market contracts Assign high risk contracts to organizations that possess the best expertise in that category of spend

34 User Adoption of Data Analytics in FY 15 33

35 Mark Lee Contact Information at Jeffrey Koses at 34