State of NIH Acquisition

1
(No Transcript)
2
State of NIH Acquisition

• Presented by
• Diane J. Frasier
• Head of Contracting Activity
• Director, Office of Acquisition and Logistics
  Management
• November 17, 2008

3
FY 08 Initiatives/Challenges

• Dashboard
• Metrics, in particular Workforce, Accuracy of
  FPDS-NG Data, Strategic Sourcing, Small Business,
  Closeouts
• Obligations
• FY08 Solar Chart
• Top 10 contractors
• Comparison of last three years
• Oversight
• Protests/External Reports
• Board Reviews and Reviews of Simplified
  Acquisition
• Vendor Pay

4
HHS Dashboard
5
Workforce Data for NIH 1102s

• We have 364 1102s at NIH.
• 18 are 56 or older today.
• 56 will be 56 or older within 10 years. (Gov.
  wide 51 will be eligible to retire within 10
  years.)
• 98 of our 1102s are registered in ACMIS.
• 79 of reporting 1102s have a college degree,
  versus 70 of 1102s government wide.
• 61 of the reporting 1102s have both a college
  degree and 24 semester hours in business.

6
Workforce Data 1102s
7
Workforce Data 1102s
8
Accuracy of FPDS-NG Data

• NIH DCIS Verification and Validation Plan
• Enter all award data on time
• Make significant improvements in data entry
• Learn the correct entry for each data field to
  reduce errors
• Steps to implement the plan
• Met with AMC, Intramural and Extramural AOs to
  discuss the NIH Plan
• Distributed memo and instructions to acquisition
  community
• Developed training materials and trained both OA
  staff and staff in delegated community
• Developed method to compare DCIS and nVison
  reports to identify awards not entered into DCIS
• Review DCIS print out prior to award print out
  of DCIS data entry must be in award file
• Conduct sample review to assess error in data
  entry
• Continue to work with DCIS Configuration Control
  Board to improve edits and descriptions of fields
• Benefits to NIH
• Provides a complete picture of our workload and
  accomplishments
• Reports to NIH management, DHHS, OMB, Congress
  and the public more reliable. We can trust our
  data!
• Less time spent on responding to data calls

9
Strategic Sourcing

• Underlying concept is that consolidation of buys
  from throughout NIH will result in lower prices. 
  HHS has currently awarded SS BPAs for a number of
  commodities and services. These may be found at
  http//intranet.hhs.gov/ssc
• NIH along with the other HHS OPDIVs recently
  began participating in the Federal Strategic
  Sourcing Initiative (FSSI) which now includes
  additional office supply vendors.
• OPDIVs are expected to increase their spending to
  the Strategic Sourcing vendors by 5 each
  quarter.  For the 4th quarter of FY2008, NIH
  received a Green rating. 
• NIH supports strategic sourcing. Those vendors
  offer another option to the priority sources,
  which include the NIH BPAs, GSA FSSs and open
  market.  Awards should be made to that vendor who
  offers the best value, price and other factors
  considered. Files must be clearly documented to
  reflect the action taken.

10
Closeouts Small Business

• Closeouts
• As of September 30, 2008, NIH has 935 contracts
  and 9,957 orders that need to be closed. 
• We need to address this large number of actions
  to be closed Executive Officers will be made
  aware of the need to obtain help for this
  activity.
• Small Business

11
Obligations

• FY08 Solar Chart
• Top 10 contractors
• Breakout of transactions
• 3 year comparison
• Dollars obligated
• Transactions
• Top 10 contractors

12
(No Transcript)
13
Top Ten Contractors FY06 / FY07 / FY08
14
NIH TOP TEN CONTRACTORS FY 2008

• SAIC FREDERICK 443.5 M
• WESTAT INC. 130.8 M
• SRA INTERNATIONAL INC. 59.5 M
• UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA 58.4 M
• SAN FRANCISCO
• BEARINGPOINT, LLC 54.7 M
• THE EMMES CORP. 47.5 M
• FISHER BIOSERVICES 46.8 M
• JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 43.8 M
• MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DESIGNERS 43.7 M
• DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER PHILADELPHIA 36.0 M

11/12/08
15
NIH TOP TEN CONTRACTORS FY 2008 TOP PROGRAMS

• SAIC FREDERICK
• OPERATIONS TECH SUPPORT, NCI, FREDERICK, MD
• 340.8 M NCI NON RD
• WESTAT INC.
• CANCER TRIALS AND SUPPORT UNIT (CTSU)
• 42.6 M NCI NON RD
• SRA INTERNATIONAL
• INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
• 42.9 M OLAO NON RD
• UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
• IMMUNE TOLERANCE NETWORK
• 48.8 M NIAID RD
• BEARINGPOINT, LLC
• COMPUTER SYSTEMS DESIGN SERVICES
• 54.8 M OLAO, NITAAC NON RD

11/12/08
16
NIH TOP TEN CONTRACTORSFY 2008 TOP
PROGRAMS(CONT.)

• THE EMMES CORP.
• STATISTICAL DATA COORDINATING CENTER (SDCC)FOR
  CLINICAL RESEARCH IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
• 23.7 M NIAID RD
• FISHER BIOSERVICES
• BASIC BIOMEDICAL
• 11.5 M NIAID RD
• JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
• HIGH THROUGHPUT GENOTYPING FOR STUDYING GENETIC
  CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN DISEASE
• 16.6M NHLBI RD
• MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DESIGNERS
• OTHER COMPUTER RELATED SERVICES
• 13.8 M NLM NON RD
• DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER PHILADELPHIA
• DRUGS AND BIOLOGICALS
• 35.3 M CC NON RD

11/12/08
17
3-year Comparison
COMPARISON OF NIH ACQUISITION OBLIGATIONS IN
MILLIONS FY 2006 THRU FY 2008
COMPARISON OF NIH ACQUISITION ACTIONS
FY 2006 THRU FY 2008
COMPARISON OF NIH ACQUISITION PURCHASE CARD
OBLIGATIONS FY 2006 THRU FY 2008
COMPARISON OF NIH ACQUISITION PURCHASE CARD
ACTIONS FY 2006 THRU FY 2008
18
Oversight
NIH PROTESTS

• Hot Topic Conflict of Interest
• GAO Reports
• Increasing potential for Conflicts of Interest
• Need for safeguards
• Section 841 and FY 2009 National Defense
  Authorization Act
• Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) to
  take lead

19
Oversight

• Major issues from Board of Contract Award reviews
• Inconsistent or Missing Past Performance
  Evaluations
• Automatic ratings.  Proposals cannot be
  automatically assigned a rating in the absence of
  an evaluation.
• Assigning the same rating to all proposals
  without an evaluation.  The CO cannot give an
  across-the-board rating to all proposals
  presumably to expedite the review. 
• Only scoring Past Performance of offerors likely
  eligible for the competitive range when technical
  evaluation points are assigned to PP.
• Failure to provide offerors with guidance on how
  Past Performance would be evaluated when included
  as an evaluation factor.
• Acquisition Plan and/or Solicitation Concerns
• The Government cannot direct a contractor to
  subcontract with a specific source.
• Non-compliance with Federal Information Security
  Management Act (FISMA).
• Failure to consider a Performance Based
  Acquisition.
• Awards without Complete Documentation
• No documentation in the file to support the
  contractors financial responsibility.
• Insufficient cost analysis.
• Failure to obtain an EEO Clearance.

20
Oversight

• Review and oversight of simplified acquisition is
  done through reviews, data mining, and in
  partnership with OMA, OIG and OHR.  Since NBS
  deployed, simplified acquisition reviews,
  including purchase cards, have been cut back in
  order to allow acquisition staff time to
  familiarize themselves with the new system. 
• Some on-line reviews occurred, and OIG continued
  their reviews of purchase card buys based on bank
  data.  Other simplified acquisition reviews have
  been done on an informal as requested basis. 
• Data mining, a daily behind the scenes look at
  awards, is being implemented for all simplified
  acquisition mechanisms, with in person reviews
  set to resume for non-purchase card awards until
  data mining is fully implemented. 
• Reviews and oversight of award actions are
  critical to ensure that policies and procedures
  are being complied with, and to reduce instances
  of fraud, waste and abuse.  It should be noted
  that NIH staff have been penalized, including
  going to jail, for abuses in the simplified
  acquisition arena.

21
Oversight and Risk Management

• Updated NIH Simplified Acquisition Guide and
  supplement to the HHS Purchase Card Guide. 
  Compliance with regulations and policies, plus
  checks and balances will result.
• Updated training on the Guide and supplement,
  including annual on-line refresher training.
  On-line simplified training will teach and
  reinforce the nuts and bolts of simplified
  acquisition, as well as the ethical standards
  inherent in the function.
• Data mining (review within 24 hours of award),
  will allow questionable actions to be addressed
  quickly.  Allows tracking trends and problem
  areas needing more training, guidance, and
  individual follow-up. 
• Will continue in-person reviews as part of an AMR
  team and individually.
• Will meet with OA and delegated staffs to address
  purchasing issues and areas of concern.  Goal is
  to improve visibility to community so that they
  are comfortable calling when there is a question.
• Will do topic presentations for all purchasers
  and approvers- town hall or forum.  Disseminate
  new information provide opportunity to ask
  questions.
• Present to existing communities, e.g., Intramural
  and Extramural AOs, as a way of becoming more
  integrated into NIH purchasing community.  Direct
  interaction will help reduce risks.

22
What Lies Ahead

• Dashboard
• Metrics focus on improvements and meeting
  standards
• Developing KPIs, e.g.,
• Balanced Scorecard Improvement Plans
• NIH wide plan to address cross cutting issues
• OA plans to address individual issues and
  reporting to OALM
• Weighted workload formula
• Tool for OAs to forecast distribute workload to
  match workforce
• Develop measures that account for work complexity

23
What Lies Ahead

• Vendor Pay
• The goals for Vendor Pay are
• NBS prompt pay percentage - 95 to end DDM
  meetings - 98 final objective
• Pay all invoices from a single system NBS
• NBS Greater than 30 day holds - 5 or less of
  monthly volume to end DDM meetings - 2 or less
  of monthly volume is final objective

24
Activities Impacting Vendor Pay Goals

• Collaboration between OM and ICs to oversee
  approaches to system, organizational, staffing,
  customer service, reporting and training issues.
• Short-term actions
• Pursue Electronic Invoicing (E-Invoicing)
• Continue to improve OFM Customer Service
• Provide flexibility with assignment of Invoice
  Specialists while keeping the overall numbers the
  same due to cost considerations
• Provide and update training
• Develop nVision reports with requirements as
  defined by the community
• Implemented a process for expediting performance
  issues reported to the NIH Help Desk
• Implemented automated payment batch processes in
  August Release to minimize likelihood of new
  cascade invoices
• Corrected invoices with incorrect due dates and
  implemented a nightly query to identify future
  errors and make corrections

25
Activities Impacting Vendor Pay Goals

• Longer-term actions
• Comprehensive review of current business
  processes
• Meet the OMB Prompt Pay directive without impact
  to our research mission.
• Complete E-Invoicing Evaluation

26
What Else Lies Ahead

• Risk Management and Oversight
• Update Acquisition Policies
• Conduct Acquisition Management Reviews of the 10
  Offices of Acquisition and the delegated
  community
• Continue to perform Board of Contract Awards
  reviews
• Develop appropriate Conflict of Interest language
• Ensure appropriate use of FISMA language
• Integrity and quality of the entire acquisition
  process.
• Separate the RD data in DCIS so disease
  categories and population tracking can be
  reported to Congress without need for manual
  input from OAs.
• Increase the use of competition.
• Complete and accurate documentation.
• SharePoint Site
• Provides a collaborative work space that
  facilitates timely information distribution
• Allows the spread of Best Practices and
  leveraging business insight
• Leveraging the NIH Dollar
• Improve cost effectiveness
• Change Control Board
• Review and Approval of NBS and nVision
  enhancements

27
Questions?