Best Practices and
Lessons Learned in
Preparing for a Next
Generation Contract
Writing Solution
Erin Lambert
Slide #2
Overview
• ONR’s Current Process/Needs
• ONR’s Award Decision
• Award Structure (Proof of Concept)
• Lessons Learned
ONR’s Current Process
•
PR’s created in Legacy System (NAVRIS)
– Commitment sent from NAVRIS to STARS
•
Contracts created in Microsoft Word
– Contracting Personnel manually enter select data into NAVRIS (including obligation information)
•
Award Execution in NAVRIS
– Obligation sent from NAVRIS to STARS
•
Word Document signed and scanned
•
Send Award info to other procurement/assistance related
systems
– Data clerk manually posts to FPDS
– Select POCs manually post to FedBizOps
– Custom interfaces built for other systems (EDA, DAADS, etc.) -requires manual intervention
Slide #4
ONR’s General Needs
•
Contracts AND Grants functionality
•
FAR/DFARS compliance
•
Deployment by Oct 2012 (when Navy ERP is deployed at ONR)
•
Web-based (no client footprint - to eliminate NMCI issues
related to upgrades)
•
Ability to send XML to external systems (EDA, FPDS, etc.) (PDS
Compliance)
ONR’s Requirements (Solicitation)
•
Software Functionality
– Functional Requirements (FAR/DFARS/DODGARS)
(create/execute/administer awards/solicitations, workflows, clauses, milestones, reports, closeout, archiving, etc.)
– Intuitiveness / Ease of use
– Flexibility of software to accommodate agency unique requirements
• Grants (no CLINs)
• S&T focus (issue BAA, then PR, then Award)
•
Integration and Technical Adaptability
– System Architecture, Extensibility, Security, System Management, etc.
– Interfacing/Integration Ability – Scalability of Software
Slide #6
Options (Business Case)
• Deploy Existing System (SPS)
– Pro – already in production throughout DoD
– Con – Lack of grants functionality
– Con – Outdated architecture (client/server)
– Con – Program being sunset (users know they would have to be trained and re-trained)
• Wait for Navy next-gen CWS solution
– Pro – Will be in-line with the rest of Navy
– Con – Not guaranteed to be ready in time to prepare for a NERP deployment at ONR in Oct 2012 (still unknown) – extends manual processes
• Expand Navy ERP to meet ONR’s functional needs
– Pro – everything would be in one system (reduces integration)
– Con – Too costly and previous efforts by other organizations to incorporate contract writing into ERPs has not been successful
• Build GOTS System
– Pro – Will have some control over functionality and enhancements (govt. owns)
– Con – Starting from scratch (takes a lot to get to an 80% solution)
– Con – Not guaranteed to be ready in time to prepare for a NERP deployment at ONR in Oct 2012 (still unknown) – extends manual processes
• *Deploy COTS CWS*
– Pro – Existing product already in production throughout the Federal government
ONR’s Decision / Way Ahead
• Compusearch’s PRISM system was selected • Benefits of PRISM:
– Deployed at other Federal Granting Organizations (i.e. NASA)
– Integrated with other SAP and Oracle requirements/financial systems (similar to Navy ERP/NAVRIS)
– Configurable system
ONR Needs PRISM
Contracts AND Grants functionality Yes
FAR/DFARS compliance Yes – regular updates
Deployment by Oct 2012 (when Navy ERP is deployed at ONR)
Yes – deployment (without integration) expected in 6 months
Web-based (to eliminate NMCI issues related to upgrades)
Yes – web page look and feel (intuitive GUI)
Ability to send XML to external systems EDA, FPDS, DAADS, etc.)
Yes – Will be accommodating all PDS requirements
Slide #8
Award Structure
•
Base Contract – Proof of Concept
•
Option 1 – Integration to legacy financial system
•
Option 2 – Implementation (configuration, testing, training,
deployment)
•
Option 3 – Operations and Maintenance
•
Option 4 – Operations and Maintenance
Proof of Concept
•
Mini-deployment
– User demo
– Configuration and testing of select scenarios – No user licenses
•
Scenarios (included integration to NAVRIS)
– Basic FFP Award Created from CR
• Line Items
– 1 fully funded line
– 1 fully funded line obligated for less than CR amount – 1 unfunded line (future funding)
– 1 Option line
– Incremental Funding Mod – Exercise Option Mod
– Reduction Mod (De-Ob and reduce TAV) – Admin Mod
Slide #10
POC Results
•
Basic Data exchange between NAVRIS and PRISM worked
•
User Comments
– Quick learning curve of PRISM functionality by users
– Appears to improve processing time (especially with Mods)
– Users liked many of the features included with PRISM (look and feel, help options, etc.)
– No training needed for testing (intuitive)
Lessons Learned
•
What Didn’t Work
– Administrative delays led us to realize that integration to the legacy system was not going to provide an effective ROI
– Will need additional contract for integrating with Navy ERP
• Need Navy ERP Program Office approval for integration with non SPS system (Support from DASN)
•
What Worked
– POC was a success
• Early user involvement
– Users were involved with developing business processes and testing the system – this gave them an early look at the solution and helped form bottom-up buy-in for the product
– Users can’t wait for the system to be deployed – Users invited to the product demos
– Flexibility in contract structure (provided an “out” for integration and implementation)
Slide #12
The Way Ahead
•
Skipping Option 1 (Integration)
•
PRISM will be deployed on its own - No longer integrating to
legacy financial system
– Users will become familiar with the product – Integrations to external systems still exist – Reduced processing time for mods
•
Next Steps
– Hold Configuration Workshops with users
– Integration requirements will focus on Navy ERP
– Data Migration (needs to be complete prior to Navy ERP deployment)
