1 / 17

Defense Task Force DFARS Transformation

Defense Task Force DFARS Transformation. Presented to: National Contract Management Association West Coast Educational Conference . July 18, 2003. Ron Poussard Deputy Director, Def Acq Regulations Ronald.poussard@osd.mil. Rules Tools Uniformity Innovation

annabella
Télécharger la présentation

Defense Task Force DFARS Transformation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Defense Task Force DFARS Transformation Presented to: National Contract Management Association West Coast Educational Conference July 18, 2003 Ron Poussard Deputy Director, Def Acq Regulations Ronald.poussard@osd.mil

  2. Rules Tools Uniformity Innovation Prescription Principles Controls Freedom Compliance Partnership Regulation Guidance CO Bus. Advisor BalancingRisk and Reward

  3. Conduct a comprehensive review and transformationof the FAR and DFARS Reduce DFARS by 40% Include operational proceedings used to revise and implement the DFARS DoD Direction Fits within OSD Goals and Priorities √ Improve credibility and effectiveness of acquisition and logistics support process √Enhance higher priority activities and improve responsiveness and efficiency √Shorten DoD Processes by 50%

  4. Too many laws? Too expensive? Creates obstacles? Unclear? Non-responsive? Difficult to understand? Why?What’s Wrong? “Most contracts assume failure and set up rules by which the government and the contractors could slap each other silly when things went wrong. Why don’t we write contracts that contemplate success?” Mr. Lee Evey, former Pentagon Renovation Program Manager from Washington Post, Sep 7, 2002

  5. Resource intensive 300 plus people support the FAR/DFARS creation 28 Committees (24 led by DoD) Paper-based processes Many Agencies involved – can hinder an efficiency Time consuming Idea to reality – 14 month average for FAR changes. 11 months for DFARS Difficult to participate in the rule process Distinction between true regulation (what to do) and guidance (how to do it) is blurred Why?Another Perspective

  6. Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Why? - A Case in Point • Temporary Emergency Procurement Authority • FAR change to implement Section 836 of the FY02 NDAA • Increased micro-purchase threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold for defense against terrorism. • Allows PCOs to treat biotechnology supplies and services as commercial items. • Timeline DAR Council Sends to CAAC Interim Rule Published in Fed Reg OFPP/OIRA/GSA/AT&L Approval Cmte Tasked Law 9 months to publish an Interim Rule!

  7. Important to sound business relationships Supports ~ $140 B in contract obligations per FY $2.4 Trillion in obligations since publication On-line - DFARS is not available in paper Eliminated 40,000 paper copies + 160,000 copies of changes per year Service FAR supplements are shrinking Greater focus on program execution Greater need flexibility to meet unique missions Rule-making/policy resources are strained Cumbersome committee process (26 committees) Outdated/inefficient technology Today’s DFARS

  8. Goal Create a responsive tool so acquisition teams can build successful contracts and business relationships every time A Dramatically Changed DoD FAR Supplement

  9. Value-based approach Identify opportunities and potential for improvement Policy, process, procedure, authority Identify opportunities to reduce regulatory requirements Recast the purpose, process and content of the DFARS Focus on opportunities with measurable benefit Strengthen procurement process, reduce cost, cycle time, administrative burden, foster innovation Increase effectiveness Objectives

  10. Phase 1 Results 273 pages 900 pages 255 pages Total DFARS Words: 360K Pages: 1400 (avg. 250 words/page) Based on DFARS total word count

  11. Task Force Structure DPAP Policy Direction/Approval Oversight/Resolution/Recommendations DAR Council Team Lead Ron Poussard, DPAP Deputy Team Lead John Robuck, AF FAR ProcessTransformation Bo McBride, OSD/General Counsel Legal Advisor Acquisition Law Amy Williams, DPAP DAR To-Be ProcessJohn Robuck, AF Acquisition Finance Clarence Belton, Navy Acquisition Strategy Lynn Lovell, Army Ynette Shelkin, DLA Acquisition Implementation Marolyn Russell, DCMA Ivana Sustersic, Navy legal Susie Schneider, DAR Staff Teresa Brooks, DPAP/Policy Jennifer Jones, DLA* Jerry Miskelly, Navy* Chris Pigott, Navy* John Thrasher, AF MAJ Ken Pippen, AF Paula Zaleski, DCMA legal Steve Cohen, DAR Staff Debbie Woods, DAR Staff Angela Chew, DCMA* Dave Stocking, AF* Corlyss Drinkard, NASA legal Angelena Moy, DAR Staff Michele Peterson, DAR Staff Darryl Gatlin, DAR Staff Gail Cruz, DAR Staff Peggy Patterson, Army legal Ted Godlewski, DAR Staff Sandy Haberlin, DAR Staff Kate Drost, DLA legal Euclides Barrera, DAR Staff Maj George Budz, AF* Elizabeth Smith, Army* Committee Reps/DCAA** Committee Reps/DCAA** Committee Reps** Committee Reps/DCAA** Total: 30 participants DAR Council will continue to work priority FAR/DFARS cases *Full-time augmentee from Services and Agencies. **As required.

  12. Phase 2 SummaryResults • Comprehensive DFARS review accomplished in 75 days • 30 Full time participants • 200+ Stakeholders participated • Outreach to more than 1000 in acquisition community • 253 web proposals received by conclusion of Phase 2 • 83 significant proposal papers developed • Legislative and FAR changes included • 700+ other proposal recommendations developed

  13. Phase 2 Summary Results* Changes result in additional 7% reduction Additional reductions would result from legislative and FAR changes Streamline Clarify Reduce burden 40% Change 22% 7% Retain 38% Remove 33% Statutory DoD ‘must have’ Relocate to procedures Or eliminate * Based on estimated word reductions * Requires full implementation of all proposals

  14. “Relocate” • PROPOSAL: Create non-regulatory “Procedures and Guidance” • Internal guidance, instructions and procedures (optional and mandatory) • No significant impact on public • Not a codified federal regulation • Fundamental approach to meet AT&L objectives • VALUE: • Fosters an environment of flexibility and innovation • Shortens DAR Council processes • Supports rapid change process • APPROACH: Develop clear objectives • Seamless access (Web based) • Managed content (DARC direction and processes) • Demonstrate alternative technical solutions before implementation

  15. Phase 3 Schedule Phase 1 Complete Proposals Complete - May 2 Phase 3, Wave 1 Complete Kickoff, Feb 18 Phase 3 Transition Wave 1 Proposed RulesPublished in Fed Reg Draft 1st Wave Rules Nov 02 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

  16. Comprehensive review of the regulation Add value to achieving the mission Demo approaches to procedures and guidance resource Transform DFARS rule making process Better process = better product with value to the acquisition community Improve responsiveness, effectiveness, transparency and simplicity Create a value-based product (what, why and training on how) Exploit technology Build an responsive acquisition rule making system Create a forum for idea generation, publishing, collaboration, feedback, data, research, retrieval Bring the PCO and the public to the rule-making table - early DFARS Transformation Summary

  17. Established A Webpage

More Related