ACC_APG_S3CoE_OTA_SymposiumFinal_Summary10Apr19.pdf

ACC APG Source Selection Support Center of Excellence ~S3CoE Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) Symposium on April 10, 2019

Key Information Summary

There were a total of 393 registrants; 148 Industry partners and 52 Government partners attended for a total attendance of 200 participants. We started at 9:00 am and ended at 12:00 pm.

The ACC APG Executive Director welcomed the audience and solicited questions at the symposium commencement.

The lead representative from the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) provided enlightening information and discussed the OTA briefing slides as attached.

The consortia and industry panel representatives from Advanced Technology International (ATI), Consortium Management Group (CMG), Sensor Communication and Electronics Consortium (SOSSEC Inc.) and W.L. Gore and Associates provided some of the types of DoD OTAs they have been awarded. The panel commented on how being a non-traditional contractor allowed opportunities for technology collaboration with the Government.

The PEO panel representatives from the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND), Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communication Systems (PEO C3T), Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors (PEO IEW&S) and the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command C5ISR provided some of the OTAs currently in use by their agencies. The PEO panel also provided information related to how they consider OTAs based on their requirements and acquisition strategies to insert new technologies.

There were questions asked during the presentation of the briefing slides and during the panel discussions; the combined key summarized questions and responses are listed below.

CONSORTIA, INDUSTRY PANEL QUESTIONS:

1. Audience question: Could you talk a little bit about if a business has something interesting what is your recommendation for them on working the system to get the opportunity for an OTA?

Panel response: Recommend discussing with program office to determine if it fits within the scope for a competitive OTA.

2. Audience question: I think that one of the concerns from industry about OTAs and the pop-up nature of the request for white papers (RWPs) specifically how quick the turnaround is, is there any thought given by the OTA consortium to publish a list of those RWPs that you have in administration; so that we have a little bit more lead time to prepare for the OTA RWPs as opposed to having only 10 days to respond?

Panel response: We started to produce a list of upcoming solicitations and then as soon as we are able to release a draft statement of objectives, we notify consortium membership so that that draft is out there. It could be a couple days or a couple weeks but that adds to the time for members to start to form their teams and do some initial collaboration in advance.

3. Audience question: Can you talk about some of the processes for coach-mentoring with the responses how can they do better on future white papers?

Panel response: The communication aspect prior to the submission of white papers certainly can really improve the quality of the white papers. We do provide feedback from the government on their evaluation so that the member does have information to go back and help refine their process and communication lines are always open, so that the next go-round the member can provide a better response which is part of the responsibility of the consortium managers have to our membership especially our non-traditional members. When a statement of objectives is written in many cases; it is written in government language and in many cases the companies not familiar with doing business with the government cannot understand it. Part of what we feel is our responsibility is to work with the project office to get it to a language they can understand. The other part is when a member begins writing its response, our goal is to get fully compliant proposals to the government.

PEO PANEL QUESTIONS:

1. Audience question: Could you also talk a little bit more about the endgame;

what the endgame can look like to help industry better understand that?

Panel response: ACC-NJ makes me tell you what my full production capacity may be or we could also say maybe we are never going to get into production, we just want the prototype and we try to put that into the documentation so you can get a sense if it’s a $20M or a $500K prototyping opportunity. We also try to find what a successful prototype will look like in a sort of goes back to something like a performance specification (it has to weigh this much, it has to fly this fast, etc.). We try to put this in the documentation so you can see what we’re looking for as the end state.

2. Audience question: Do you expect your prototypes that have transitioned into production, have they been by follow on OTs or FAR based contracts and what goes into that decision making process on the government side?

Panel response: Some of our acquisition strategies if the prototype pans out, passes tests and passes user engagement, we do have cases where we plan to use both OT or FAR based acquisitions. Recently section 804 really allows program managers to accelerate rapid prototyping and rapid fielding. It doesn’t say you have to use an OTA; that’s just the acquisition part of moving quickly.

ACC APG Government supplemental response: It is important to ensure the initial OTA has language to give us a right to choose to go to a FAR-based procurement or award on the follow on for production. If that language isn’t in there, then we don’t even have the right to consider if it will be a FAR-based procurement. Also, if the initial OTA was competed or sole source will determine which options are available. If it was competed, we still have the choice. If it was sole source, there is no choice to go in, it will be a FAR-based acquisition for production. The way the OTA is written will determine which protections the government has when it comes to the limited purpose rights, fielding rights and if initial low rate reproduction will make sure what is produced; is going to be to the right standards and specifications; to do what it was intended before we go on to full rate production. It is a joint decision that the program office and the agreements officer have to take into account; to understand what the PM really needs to field to the Army and what language was in the initial agreement and overall desired outcome.

Additional Takeaways:

OTAs are not necessarily faster.

OTAs have been used for classified efforts; classified status prior to award is required. If a company does not have the facility/security clearance then partner with a company with the required facility/clearance.

OTAs will be listed at the APG APBI 29 Apr 19-3 May 19.

Outstanding Action Items:

1. Requirements Owners would like training on how to write OTAs; will follow up with DAU.

2. Industry would like to have one place to see all DOD or Army OTAs; ACC APG will work with their mission partners and consortia managers to determine wha may be released.