Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 52
7
EVALUATION AND AWARD
I.,
In which the FTS2000 proposals are evaluated and awards
are snide to AT&T and US Sprint.
THE SOURCE SELECTION PLAN
With the receipt of proposals from AT&T, Martin-Marietta, and US
Sprint, the project now moved into the evaluation and award phase.
Chapter 6 described the formation of the final REP and the events
leading up to the submission of the three proposals. GSA had also
completed the source selection plan in parallel with this (Note 1~.
The source selection plan included:
· the organization, responsibilities, and resources to
undertake the evaluation and award process;
· the evaluation method, including evaluation criteria, scoring
system, and the scoring logistics; and finally
the plan for security during the evaluation process.
THE SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The source selection organization is as shown in Figure 7-1.
The main components consist of:
· the source selection authority;
· the advisory committee; and
· the source selection evaluation board.
The source selection authority is required by government
procurement regulations, and is the single official of the government
who makes the award decision. This decision takes into account the
recommendations of the evaluation board and the advisory committee. As
was described in the last chapter, Golden had agreed to serve as the
52
OCR for page 53
53
rip
, Ray Kline, Chairman
l
l
l
. ~
James Burrows
Roger Cooper
Donald Scott
Jon Seymour
Roscoe Egger
Thomas Morris
Eli Noam
1.
SOURCE SELECTION
AUTHORITY
Administrator of GSA
ADVISORY COMMITTEE |
Telecommunications
Interagency Management
Council
' Legal Counsel |
Contracting Officer |
SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD
ADVISORS
E.G., CPA Firm
Interagency Task Force I
1
· I
TECHNICAL
CHAIRPERSON
Sherman Naidor!
i_
CHAIRPERSON
Bruce Brignull9 GSA
TRANSITION MANAGEIV ENT AND
CHAIRPERSON BUSINESS
CHAIRPERSON
Dave Cleveland
Martin Wagner
COST
CHAIRPERSON
James Owens
FIGURE 7-1 FTS2000 Source Selection Organization. SOURCE: General
Services Administration news release, "FTS2000 Procurement Advisory
Committee Named by Golden," April 22, 1988.
OCR for page 54
54
source selection authority for the procurement. There were, however,
administrator changes. Golden left GSA on March 4, 1988, having ensured
the receipt of proposals, a viable procurement, and a robust REP. The
role of source selection authority now became the responsibility of the
new-acting administrator, and after his resignation later that summer, it
became the responsibility of his successor. Continuity in keeping the
project as one of GSA's highest priority was ensured by Rep. Brooks.
The advisory committee was not a required part of the government
regulations for evaluation and award of procurements. It was, however,
one used successfully in very large procurements, for example, in NASA and
the DOD. An advisory committee provides an independent body to oversee
the selection. The committee was also to advise the administrator of GSA
concerning the procurement, and the committee's key responsibility was to
assure the administrator that the evaluation plan was adequate and, most
important, that it was followed. The committee was composed of a mixture
of senior government employees and experts from outside of government. As
with all people on the selection organization, the members had to be
cleared according to the security procedures.
The source selection evaluation board, required by regulation,
contained most of the resources devoted to the evaluation and award
process. This was composed of a mixture of GSA staff, staff from GSA's
customer agencies, and the MITRE Corporation. The major responsibilities
of the source selection evaluation board was to actually evaluate the
proposals and produce the evaluation reports, with recommendations for the
awards of the two contracts.
Proposals were to be submitted in four separate volumes:
a technical proposal, containing the executive summary, a
checklist showing adherence to the mandatory and optional
requirements, a cross-referenced chart showing compliance to
evaluation criteria, analysis of the service requirements, and
the detailed technical approach;
a management proposal, with the management response to the REP,
showing the ongoing management plan for network operations, the
transition and implementation descriptions, the approach that
was being taken to meeting NSEP requirements, and corporate
qualifications;
a business proposal, with the government-required declaration
forms, representations and certifications, qualification and
financial information, and the vendor's annual report; and
the cost proposal, containing all of the elemental cost data
that was to be delivered as a computer model.
As a consequence of having four different proposal volumes to
evaluate, the evaluation board consisted of four panels, each with defined
responsibilities to evaluate certain sections of the proposals. The
technical panel was responsible for evaluating the technical volume and
the NSEP section of the management volume. The management and business
OCR for page 55
55
panel was responsible for the remainder of the management volume and the
business volume. The transition panel was responsible for the transition
section of the management volume. The cost panel was responsible for the
cost volume.
Each of the four panels was headed by e' chairmen (a government
employee) who was responsible for managing the individual panel effort.
The panels were composed of government employees supported by MITRE. The
complete evaluation board was headed by a chairman (a GSA employee) and
the whole board was supported, as needed, by government employees, MITRE
experts, and private consultants. All participants had to be cleared as
described below under security.
Finally, of major importance in the source selecting organization,
there was the contracting officer. This is the single individual
responsible for executing the contracts consistent with federal
procurement law, policies, and regulations. The officer also acted as
chief negotiator and served as the'single point of contact with the
vendors.
THE EVALUATION AND AWARD PROCESS
The evaluation~process was broken into several tasks, the main ones
of which were: ~ -
.
initial evaluation of proposals to screen proposals for
completeness,- roughly score the proposals, and generate
questions. -Also during this task, to develop- raw scores', and
apply~weights, hence completing'a first~round ranking;
- establishment of the competitive range to determine if it was
reasonable that all proposals tee' considered. This would be done
by the contracting officer and the advisory committee;
· notification to the vendors and preparation for the site visits
for operational and capability demonstrations and to validate
claims in the proposals and complete a second round of scoring;
· carry out negotiations with each vendor and develop any
necessary amendments to clarify items; ''
· develop the request for best and final offers, obtain submission
of best and final offers; and
perform final evaluation, develop the source evaluation board
reports, brief the source selecting official, select the
winners, and award the contracts.
This was-planned to be accomplished in 26 weeks--a most ambitious
schedule, one frequently' faking as much as 18 months on large
procurements. However, this'' schedule would bring the award into November
1988, when the presidential election was due. -
There is always a concern in major government efforts, that a new
administration might change direction or halt a major project (like
OCR for page 56
56
FTS2000) while it evaluates the benefits. There was little risk of this
as the Republican administration supported the project and Brooks, the
congressional supporter, was a powerful Democrat. However, Brooks was
expected to move out of his role as chairman of the House Government
Operations Committee after the election, into the more senior role of
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Hence, his focus on FTS2000
would inevitably change.
The evaluation process included a definition of the evaluation
factors. By regulation, the evaluation factors, weights, and scoring
mechanisms had to be determined before proposals were accepted.
Technical, management, and business qualifications and cost were all
accorded approximately equal weights in the evaluation. (Originally,
before breaking up the contract into two awards, which put much of the
transition responsibility on the government, the transition was about
one-sixth the weight. This was now less.) As technical, management, and
business scores became more equal, the importance of prices would
increase.
Pass/fail checklists had been developed for the team's use, from
the REP specification. Basically these asked: is the item there? Does it
comply with the performance requirement? Is it up to the required
standard?
The technical subfactors that were scored were: an understanding of
the requirements; are they all addressed; the soundness of the approach;
the flexibility and growth potential of the architecture; network control
and diagnostics; and migration to switched ISDN.
The management and business subfactors were: quality of transition
and implementation plan; experience in managing multisupplier projects;
experience in managing large telecommunications systems; management and
operations plans; the service oversight center; billing systems; and
maintainance of system performance under stress and failure conditions
(including emergency preparedness and national security requirements).
In the evaluation of cost, the offeror was to make the calculations
for the cost figures used in the award and they were to provide the
pricing model and tables. The cost evaluation was based on total cost to
the government of FTS, FTS2000, and temporary interconnections--more cost
meant less points. The cost panel verified offerors' calculations and
submission, but more than that, most of the effort went to ensure common
understanding, common definition of items, and hence common costs.
SECURITY
With these products, GSA was now ready to move to the evaluation
process. The transition from REP development to evaluation and award
involved establishing all the components of the source selection plan,
handing over control and authority to the source selection organization,
and "buttoning up" the secure facility in which the evaluation would be
accomplished.
Conceptually, GSA was creating a secure, self-contained bubble into
which the proposals would be received and out of which would eventually
OCR for page 57
57
come the award decisions. This concept of a secure bubble was very
important as no information concerning the bids would be allowed to move
between the bubble and the outside world until the award was made. Very
soon, the implementors of the source selection plan were discussing
actions, people, information, and transactions in terms of "in the bubbler
or "out of the bubble." Any competitive government procurement follows
such principles. However, the size of the procurement and its controversy
dictated much more visible, stringent, and serious measures than normal to
ensure the bubble would not be breached.
Prior even to release of the initial REP, senior management had
decided to establish a secure facility and protect the bid information
according to procedures for information classified "secret." The
information could not legally be so classified, but it could be protected
accordingly. These procedures were chosen as there are no established
protection procedures for unclassified information of such sensitivity.
New procedures, established for this procurement, were likely to be
faulty. Hence, using established procedures that were well documented and
well understood by many organizations, and being supported by an
infrastructure of clearance organizations, cleared facilities, and so on,
would be the most reliable and robust.
The new team was to be housed in secure facilities on the premises
of the MITRE Corporation. MITRE already undertook classified work and
hence had facilities established already for this purpose. These were
regularly audited by the Defense Investigative Service.
The initial requirements for protection of FTS2000 bid materials
were exactly the same as for secret materials, and the need to know
principle was applied at all times. Security encompassed building
security, the use of picture badges, and the use of safe files. Panel
work areas were secured by locked entrances with changeable cipher locks
and, in almost all cases, it was ensured that walls were true floor to
ceiling. The room that would contain cost proposals was fitted with
alarms and monitored continually from a central station.
The rules of working with secret materials were followed,
including, for example, no unofficial visitors, no shop talk outside of
work areas, no phone calls to discuss materials, protection of notes and
drafts (as were all documents) within the document control system, and no
materials to be removed from work areas.
Document control consisted of all sensitive materials being entered
into a computerized registry with a receipt system utilized for checking
materials in and out. MITRE secure document custodians kept all of the
registered documents, inventories were kept and checked regularly, and
safe files were used for after-hours use. Reproductions could only be
made if approved by the contracting officer or chairman of the evaluation
board and if carried out under security's supervision. All copies were
entered into the document registry. Transmission of documents, for
example, between buildings, could only be approved by the contracting
officer using double-wrapped bags and a chain of receipts. Destruction of
documents had to be reflected in the registry, with disposal of waste in
burn bags and incineration by MITRE security staff.
All staff in the selection organization were cleared to work on bid
OCR for page 58
58
materials. As part of this process, all staff were briefed on the
relevant government ethics laws and regulations and security procedures.
Each had to document and declare no conflict of interest. This was done
by means of a statement of employment and financial interests,
certification regarding conflict of interest, and certification regarding
nondisclosure of information.
Most of the staff, however, who would be in the bubble and governed
by these procedures had not worked under secret classification
previously. As much of the effectiveness of the classification process is
good work habits: and a culture of protection, these had to be forcibly,
and quickly, established with the team. In the classified arena, the
quickest way to test procedures is to try and breach them and correct the
mistakes that are found. This technique was utilized effectively. The
button-up date was selected as April 27, 1988. Prior to that, senior team
members attempted breaches to establish where there were holes and to
reinforce the seriousness of the process.
A security check of the special facility was made by the GSA's
security management on April 26 . On April 27 readiness to receive
proposals was declared and the project was formally handed over from the
old team to the source selection organization--the new team.
Shaking down security, in the first few days, was not without its
incidents. On the day of delivery of proposals, AT&T apparently tried to
get access to the facility in an effort to assure themselves of the
adequacy of procedures. They were rebuffed. Also at the same time a
reporter tried and was rebuffed also. An alleged breaching incident
(later proved to be without foundation) in the early days was brought to
the attention of congressional interests. People on the new team were
called to have depositions taken, with questioning about security and who
had handled materials in the first few days. The MITRE guards~and the
people at the reception desk were also deposed (Note 2~.
Congressional staff also arrived and were denied entrance. They
called MITRE officials to escort them into the premises and during
escorted visits to nonsecure parts of the facility, they reviewed secure
areas from their perimeter. Congressional suggestions for changes to the
physical security based on these reviews were acted upon. All of these
endeavors helped to ensure that security was taken seriously and was
tight.
As the evaluation progressed, additional measures were taken,
including the sweeping of areas for bugs. After best and final offers
came in, intermittent searches of briefcases were made by security
officials.
CHANGING TEAMS
Everyone in the organization established inside the bubble was new
to the project. The only person left in the project who had any length of
experience of FTS2000 was Kowalczyk, who became the primary person
interfacing with the bubble on behalf of the GSA administrator.
As a consequence of this wholesale change to a new team, if the REP
OCR for page 59
59
had not been accurate and detailed, if the source selection plan had not
been robust, and if the new team members had not been mature and highly
motivated to reach contract award. the project could have broken down at
this point. Taking over this huge and complex task without the ability to
reach outside the bubble for advice and help was a monumental task, and it
is to the credit of all concerned that the process continued smoothly to a
conclusion.
As the team was formed and responsibilities were handed over from
the old team, the new members refined the organization and supplemented
their panels as they felt necessary. They then openly reached agreement
that they would work to ensure that the intent of the specification was
not changed. This was the greatest risk in enclosing a new-team out of
touch with the original team. However, the bubble had to be firmly
closed. In the early stages, as the term looked to Kowalczyk to solve
problems for them, he firmly pushed the problems back in the bubble to
accelerate the new te~m's gelling as a self-contained unit.
EVALUATION
With the team and procedures in place, at the end of April 1988,
just over three years after the announcement of the project, the proposals
came in (Note 3~. US Sprint's proposal arrived a day early, and AT&T's
and Martin-Marietta's arrived on the appointed day, April 29, 1988. The
proposals were massive and this alone required immediate changes to the
processes and procedures for handling documents. In-total the proposals
constituted 2,700 cubic feet of paper--enough to fill a room 9 feet high,
30 feet long, and 10 feet wide from floor to ceiling. -
Logging in, breaking the proposals up into segments for each panel,
and moving the documents to the evaluation teams took three days longer
than the four days planned. The receipt was not without its trying
moments. For example, one vendor had labeled its volumes wrongly. Since
the rigor of the government process could have voided its proposals for
this simple mistake, the vendor had to scramble to relabel them for log-in
and acceptance.
The proposals included the cost models, which in turn included the
hardware to run them. In AT&T's case, the cost model was presented on a
personal computer. In the other two cases, the cost model was accessed by
means of a terminal hooked up via communications to the vendors' off-site
computer. This required additional security procedures that had been put
in place before receipt, and all equipment was swept for possible bugs.
The team worked hard throughout the evaluation. The only official
day off from April to award in December was Thanksgiving. The official
team schedule, covered in shifts, was a 14-hour day, 7 days a week. Hotel
rooms were available in the vicinity of the evaluation facilities for
people who could not make it home~at key points, and in fact the chairman
of the evaluation board lived in a hotel next to the site for a
significant portion of the time. Th;is was the kind of dedication it took
to keep on schedule. It is to the credit of the new team, formed from a
variety of people from different agencies, organizations, and affiliations
OCR for page 60
60
that they met it all with good grace and camaraderie.
The court actions of the prior year, the bad press over the winter,
and the questioning and depositions which continued throughout the
evaluation had a chilling but temporary effect upon the team. Some people
bought liability insurance; some took a position that they would not give
depositions to congressional staff; some said they would not talk to
lawyers. Some panel members got their own lawyers and MITRE offered the
service of lawyers for their people. To the end, people were loathe to
sign some documents. But, as the bubble closed around them and they knit
into a team, the chill subsided so that in no way did it hamper the
government position in negotiations.
The technical evaluation proved a smoother process than the cost
evaluation and the schedule was adhered to although it took very long work
hours. The cost evaluation was more problematic than the technical
evaluation as dilemmas were created by bids being different in their
interpretation of cost elements. An absolute need to establish a common
understanding in all segments of the proposals was particularly true in
the cost volumes. There was a need to ensure consistent understanding
across all proposals of what was bid and a need to ensure absolutely that
the competing vendors had bid the same things if the bottom-line prices
were to be meaningful. There was also a need to check for errors and
consistency. This was a long, slow process and it meant no firm
indication of the relative positions of the price proposals until six
weeks before award.
Under the scheme for two awards, the bidding was structured in such
a way that each bidder had to present proposals for each of the two sets
of requirements, one representing 60 percent of the government's traffic
(Network A) and one representing 40 percent (Network B). GSA evaluated
the proposals for Network A and effectively eliminated the successful
vendor for consideration of an award under Network B. No proposal was
submitted for the entire requirement, thereby effectively preventing GSA
from considering the trade-offs between a single award and a multiple
award.
Of course, the evaluation team and the Advisory Committee had
access to information concerning the Network B proposal of the successful
offeror for Network A. However, given the realities of the procurement,
and the clear direction that two awards be made as a national policy,
there was no ability to make an award to a single vendor. As a result,
there was no ability to officially judge the potential impact of the
competition on the total cost to the government of two awards versus one
award.
PROPOSALS
The three proposals were different. There had been much
speculation during development of the REP as to how each vendor would
configure their network. AT&T, with a large, national software-defined
network, could have defined a virtual private network within its national
net allowing the economy of scale of the large network to carry through.
Rough modeling by GSA indicated that economics between major
a..
OCR for page 61
61
concentrations of government traffic would probably call for dedication of
circuits. This indicated that a hybrid solution of dedicated and virtual
facilities might be possible.
Prior speculations about Martin-Marietta, which did not have a
national network, had indicated different approaches from AT&T (though one
of its subcontractors, MCI, had a national network allowing similar
solutions to those of AT&T and US Sprint). Martin-Marietta's division of
responsibilities between its major subcontractors (MCI, Northern Telecom,
Tymenet, and the BOCs) was unknown. However, the events that took place
in court the previous year indicated a high probability that the BOCs
would provide switching. Consequently, GSA had conjectured a dedicated
private line architecture with BOC switching, and perhaps MCI handling
off-net traffic at the head of the network.
US Sprint, with a new national fiber network which was software
controlled, like AT&T, was in a position to offer a software-defined
virtual network. -
The actual bids brought some surprises (Note 4~. AT&T bid a
dedicated private line fiber network with 18 nodes, each consisting of a
#5ESS switch. On the surface this may seem to have a price disadvantage
compared with a software-defined network. However, it did have the
advantage that all costs associated with provision of FTS2000 services
were easily identifiable. Hence, as a regulated company, the subsequent
tariff would be more easily defendable against possible protest by the
loser or by other common carriers. From GSA's point of view this
architecture also had an advantage in that it meant an immediate financial
commitment by AT&T in ordering the 18 switches. Hence, this would provide
an incentive for AT&T to speed transition in order to generate revenues,
as was proved after award.
The AT&T proposal was simply outstanding. There were fewest
questions about technical issues, fewest problems with cost, and fewest
questions about possible misunderstandings developed from its proposal.
One area where AT&T did recast its proposal was in the transition from the
old FTS. Here, it had proposed a series of very large cutovers that, in
response to the evaluation team's concerns, it modified to be a more
gradual process.
Martin-Marietta's and US Sprint's proposals were not of the same
quality as AT&T's, although they were comparable in quality with each
other. Martin-Marietta had proposed a situation not unlike GSA's role in
the old FTS, that of an integrator of a dedicated private line network.
Martin-Marietta's roles for its teaming partners were a surprise.
Martin-Marietta had defined significant roles for itself but consequently,
its staff proposed to lead teams were weak compared with equivalent staff
from the common carriers. Also, compared with the common carriers, the
experience Martin-Marietta demonstrated in telecommunications was
shallow. Also, because of its use of subcontractors, the level of
integration was not as strong in the whole design. For example, some
information was to be moved by paper and magnetic tapes because no
interface existed between components. The proposal showed that this would
be worked out, but it inevitably raised questions as to the certainty of
this. Finally, the company's prices were not as competitive, but this did
OCR for page 62
62
not become clear until the end.
During the evaluation, as weaknesses were identified and questions
posed to all vendors, Martin-Marietta substantially redid their network
design, unlike AT&T and US Sprint. This raised more questions, for
example, about blockage rates that seemed unduly high in portions of the
network. This, in turn, raised questions as to the validity of the
design-. In effect the company had recast the network to cut prices but
this cut the technical quality. One aspect of Martin-Marietta's proposal
that was excellent, however, was its transition plan.
US Sprint, as had been anticipated by many, proposed a virtual
software-defined network within its national net. This was a simpler and
better strategy for them compared with AT&T's because Sprint had no
problems of questions being raised about public tariffs. The initial
quality of US Sprint's proposal was not high. As was described earlier,
the company had to some extent always been playing catch up, first, due to
the merger between GTE Sprint and U.S. Telcom, and, second, with the
in-and-out relationship with its partner, EDS. EDS had finally left the
teaming arrangement in February 1988, scarcely two months before
submission of proposals. To some extent US Sprint's initial submission
was a foot in the door. While every initial proposal had problems, its
had the most. However, the company worked to substantially improve the
bid over the duration of the evaluation.
To summarize broadly: although Martin-Marietta was consistently
below its competition, the differences between it and US Sprint were not
very large compared with the differences between both of them and the
leading AT&T proposal. However, it should be emphasized that there were
three viable proposals even to the end, and any of the three vendors was
eminently qualified to provide the government's telecommunications.
Because of this, there were no problems with establishing the competitive
range and passing all three proposals through for consideration up to
negotiations and award.
~ Hundreds of questions were generated by the team throughout the
evaluation process. As soon as they were generated they were sent out to
the vendors to keep the process moving. AT&T's answers were quick and
clear. It was obvious that it had devoted many resources to the effort.
Even though AT&T's answers were generated quickly, it continued the
strategy of moving deliberately and cautiously and were most detailed as
to the meaning of every word. It argued for delays when it felt-they were
necessary. Martin-Marietta, on the other hand, in clarifying questions,
wanted quick response times even though it was recasting its network. It
pushed to minimize delays. The evaluation team got the impression that
Martin-Marietta's bid team, which had been put together with people from
all over the country, seemed to have been partly disbanded.
Sprint proved very willing to respond quickly, but seemed to have
fewer resources than AT&T. Thus it supported AT&T on delaying the
schedule for answering some questions. However, all in all, the vendors
were very responsive to the questions even though they frequently had only
24 hours to reply.
OCR for page 63
63
NEGOTIATIONS
With the establishment of competitive range, and with all proposals
found worthy, the team then undertook site visits to verify certain
aspects of the proposals.' In some ways this was a welcome break even
though the pace did not slacken. Initially there were discussions of how
many team members should go and~who they should be. Eventually it was'
decided that almost everyone should go except the cost panel.
Following the site~visits, further evaluation was accomplished and
the government team was now ready for negotiations. It was a normal,-
although spirited, negotiation, complex more than anything else because of
the difficulty in establishing a common understanding of cost elements.
Negotiations,'however,~were a critical point in the life of the project.
It was difficult to strike a balance between the amendments that would be
issued to all three bidders for final resolution and the need to keep them
all in the bidding process. If at any time a vendor had felt it was not
likely to win, and had withdrawn, GSA would have been left with two awards
to make and only two bidders. 'In this position, GSA would have had to
abandon the project, resetting the clock back to 1985.
Therefore the conduct of negotiations was the point at which
project could break down. GSA was particularly concerned with AT&T.
AT&T's mistrust had virtually died 'es the project was handed to the new
team for evaluation and the security procedures were put in place.
However, it was still difficult to establish a sense of trust and
competence so AT&T would remain. ~ ~ ~
Negotiations also presented some of the final opportunities for the
vendors to jockey for position. They proceeded smoothly, even in sessions
with as many as'60 pe-ople in a room~and lasting several days. As the -
negotiations drew to a close, final amendments were drawn and the call was
made to the vendors for best and final offers that would be finally
evaluated for award. - ~
AWARD
Due to-delays principally in refining the pricing, the award date,
originally October 30, was jeopardized. The team came under intense '
pressure from Congress to complete the award by November. It was at this
point that the advisory committee came to the fore. The advisory
committee had met several times and had been briefed on progress and
issues. It was a major player in changing the early specificity of the
scoring scheme to ensure that differences among bids would be more easily
discernible at later stages. It had'also advised on proceeding with the
evaluations of best~and final offers in parallel so that problems could
surface quickly. The advisory committe'e now 'took a leadership role to
advocate that the team take the- necessary time to ensure a proper award.
Otherwise the whole project would be in danger of making a mistake, which
could result in a sustainable protest after the award. The committee
provided a counter-force to congressional pressures, 'and the schedule
publicly slipped to December 10. ~ .'
OCR for page 64
64
By December, the final evaluation was completed and preparation was
made for award of the larger portion (60 percent of the requirements) to
AT&T and the smaller portion (40 percent of the requirements) to US
Sprint. To avoid speculation on the part of vendors or in the press, GSA
called vendors to tell them to come in and see the contracting officer
because of problems with the procurement. The vendors raced in on
December 7, 1988, and to their surprise the award announcement was made
(Note 5~.
FTS2000 was awarded only four years, to the week, after formal
approval was given to go ahead within GSA; and this was only five years
after GSA decided to replace the network and began to look for a suitable
strategy. This was a very speedy schedule for the largest procurement
ever undertaken by the civilian agencies of government and the largest
replacement project ever in the history of information technology. GSA
could be proud of its achievement.
FINAL THOUGHTS
A case study necessarily has to cut off at some point, though
projects continue to develop and do not stop. The point of award was
selected to mark the end of the case but the FTS2000 project continues to
move through major activities which, in their turn, could provide
interesting lessons. The most immediate event after award that should be
mentioned in closing, is that Martin-Marietta chose not to protest the
award though a protest on the part of the losing vendor had been
anticipated from the beginning. This was to Martin-Marietta's credit as
protests have become the norm rather than the exception. Had
Martin-Marietta protested the award, this case would not have been
published for perhaps another year.
As stated in the Foreword, one of the purposes of this document is
to serve as a case study for teaching purposes. Consequently, no
conclusions are drawn (other than that success had an element of chance
unique to the times). It is up to the individual reader to determine the
lessons learned from the FTS2000 procurement.
However, FTS2000 has demonstrated many things that should be
pointed out. FTS2000 will impact the telecommunications industry, the
taxpayer, and government operations as it is implemented and used.
For the telecommunications industry:
FTS2000 has demonstrated that customers can obtain lower service
prices outside of standard tariff offerings by use of market
power and competition, instead of the traditional approach of
engineering a private system.
FTS2000 has demonstrated the existence of a viable, competitive,
common-carrier industry at large demand levels. It has also
demonstrated that telecommunications needs can be met by a
variety of organizations, not necessarily the traditional common
carriers. Although Martin-Marietta's bid lost the competition,
OCR for page 65
65
it was a viable proposal, and one with many advantages over
public alternatives.
FTS2000 was the largest corporate award to a non-AT&T common
carrier and demonstrated US Sprint's ability to bid and win
large complicated arrangements.
FTS2000 is a major commitment by the world's largest
organization, the U.S. federal government, to integrated
services and ISDN.
FTS2000 was a deliberate insertion of the newest technology into
government to help it face the challenges of the l990s.
FTS2000 presents a unified source of supply and management
method to the agencies of the government to meet voice, data,
video, and integrated service needs.
· FTS2000 provides a massive infrastructure on which government
agencies can build new systems.
· FTS2000 makes possible new applications such as: a national
unified electronic mail system for government and highspeed fax
between government locations. Both of these bode a new era of
intragovernment communication.
For the taxpayer, FTS2000 means annual savings well in excess of
$150 million, enough to support a major government program to address
education needs, skills upgrading, or hopelessness.
For the operations of government, FTS2000 has proved that:
· agencies can buy the best, most advanced technology; and
~ agencies can undertake successful, speedy procurements.
Events will continue to unfold for FTS2000 in the 1990's.
transition, the largest in the history of technology, is yet to be
undertaken. Many issues remain still to be tested, such as:
.
.
mandatory versus voluntary use (Note 6~;
the effectiveness of competition within the contract at the
fourth and seventh year; ~
the cost versus benefit of two awards compared to one;
o whether, in spite of the Freedom of Information Act, prices can
be kept secret as was desired by vendors (Note 7~; and
whether the telecommunications user industry will really attempt
to capitalize on the example of FTS2000.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
evaluation board
