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

What is “good” acquisition?

GSA’s Balanced Scorecard Approach to Measuring “Good Acquisition”

Vision for a Future GSA Acquisition Balanced Scorecard

4

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

Small Business Utilization Tool

GSA Acquisition Dashboard

Workforce Analytics Tool

Competition Tool

Customer Satisfaction Tool

Acquisition Efficiency Tool

5

GSA’s Current Acquisition Balanced Scorecard

6

GSA’s Acquisition Dashboard

7

GSA Acquisition Analytic Tools

8

Integrated Competition Tool

9

Small Business Utilization Tool

10

High Risk Contract Type Tool

11

Performance Based Acquisition Tool

12

Acquisition 360 Tool

13

Transactions Tool

14

Procurement Administrative Lead Time Tool

15

Procurement Management Review Tool

16

Acquisition Human Capital Tool

17

Metrics and data analytic tools are great, but how does this impact acquisition performance?

Competition Case Study

18

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 17.502-1(b)(1)(i))

19

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

Solution – Integrated Competition Tool •

•

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

21

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

How to translate analysis into action?

23

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

Comparison of Results FY 14

FY 15

$9,070,075,324 obligated

$9,010,410, 374 obligated

160,515 Actions (Base Awards and Modifications)

148,545 Actions (Base Awards and Modifications)

66.7% Effective 71.8% Effective Competition Rate Competition Rate 78.9% 82.6% Competition Rate Competitions Rate 15.6% Competitive One Bid 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%

How can data analysis be used to drive operational efficiency?

Case Study # 2

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

GSA Solution: Transaction Tool •

Tool comprises of 4 metrics – – – –

•

Transaction Details - Every GSA procurement transaction by: – – – – – – – – –

•

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 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

Efficiency Metrics Visualization

29

Transaction Detail Visualization

30

Customized List

31

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

User Adoption of Data Analytics in FY 15

33

Contact Information

• Mark Lee – Email at [email protected]

• Jeffrey Koses – Email at [email protected]

34