Dan Taylor replied to the topic Thoughts on sharing draft Concept of Operations and/or Operational Requirements Document with industry in the forum Acquisition2.0 9 years, 11 months ago
If it helps anyone to help me, here was my quick evaluation of benefit and risk before I asked our contracting shop to consider sharing the drafts. There are additional risks that I deleted that impact other acquisitions but don’t change the basic issue. If there are additional downsides that are obvious to some of you who have done this, I welcome that feedback as well.
-Industry has better idea what we want, without us having to do any extra work to spell it out for them.
-We’re more like to get focused feedback from industry that’ll help us put together RFP or help sponsor with next update to ORD.
-Consistent with our approach to do this as transparently as possible. The contract specs will be acq sensitive until awarded, the ORD isn’t. Putting it out there will also level the playing field.
-Consistent with gov’ts goal of transparency
-CONOP and ORD are still draft, final version will change, industry may not like change. I think we can accept that.
-Contract language will be different from ORD. I think we can accept that. I think everyone understands CONOP and ORD are not contractual documents.
-Someone may ask for an extension to the current deadline. We can mitigate that by just adding a week to the response deadline.
-Could generate lots more questions, creating admin burden for KO and PM. Accept risk. We can manage how we respond. We’ve shown that we can be brief. Just knowing what the questions are will help us put together solicitation down the road
Poll of the Week
Could your inbox use a little more awesome?
Sign up to get a daily dose of awesome gov-focused resources, trainings, blogs and articles to help you do you job better.