ITINDUSTRYGOVERNMENTCOUNCILPolicySubcommittee

1、IT INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT COUNCILPolicy SubcommitteeRon Segal, Industry ChairCheryl Thornton, GSA Chair August 17, 2009Policy SubcommitteeAgendaDiscussion IssuesLast Option Year issues - Relief needed nowLOS without OEM Authorization now permitted (Refresh 23) GSA COs and Vendors need guidanceSome Agen

2、cies trying to circumvent SW Maintenance as a Product rulesRecommendationsSCA exemption clauses (52.222-51 and 52.222-53) need clarificationIT Labor Category Requirements - need clarificationNAICS Codes Designations - Do by contract, not SINSW Maintenance SIN designations Please ReconsiderCoverage f

3、or Emerging Technologies and Service Delivery approachesSample rewrite of SIN 132-51description to include Cloud computing et alCommentsGSA Communications - Greatly improved, but Industry would like even betterCO Desktop Guide Status = ? Perception that it is urgently neededUnpriced Schedule/SINsLas

4、t Option Year issuesMany vendors are well into their last 5 year option period.They are currently precluded from responding to BPAs and other GSA based RFPs whose period of performance exceeds their schedule expiration date. They need something from GSA to permit them to respond/compete. (E.g., lang

5、uage stating that, for vendors in good standing, it is GSAs intent to negotiate a successor schedule of at least X years that will maintain continuity and allow the automatic transfer of all GSA-based BPAs and other contracts.)This is an urgent problem - RFPs are on the street today that many GSA Ve

6、ndors cant respond to. Issue under study by Acquisition Management.Speeding up award of next contract wont help, problem occurs well before expiration datePossible suggested fix - Ruling that awards made while current schedule in place can be carried to completion (may not be legal)Potential related

7、 problem: GSA based BPAs may also have to be transitioned and/or terminated (including ESI, SmartBuy, etc.)LOS without OEM Authorization(as of Refresh 23)Refresh 23 explicitly permits Letters of Supply from other than OEMs, but gives little guideance on implementationHow do COs negotiate without CSP

8、s from the OEM if the Reseller and/or supplier has no substantial commercial business? What if the CO doesnt have access to the OEMs discount policies to its direct dealers.What if the OEM has a dealer certification program and refuses to support these uncertified dealers?Major dilemma: One proposed

9、 approach would be to mandate that supplier needs permission from OEM to issue LOS and, if necessary, OEM would forward CSP to GSA. Problem with this approach is that the rule was implemented because of the perception that some OEMs were limiting competition by restricting LOSs.Needs further discuss

10、ion. A strong candidate for explicit guidance to both Vendors and GSA COs (e.g., desktop guide).Some Agencies Trying to Circumvent SW Maintenance as a Product RulesE.G., e-Buy 8/13/09 DOJ RFPSome Agencies Trying to Circumvent SW Maintenance as a Product Rules(Continued)Can vendor add ODCs to cover a

11、dministrative and financing costs since this is a deviation from Schedule rules?Feasibility of vendor submitting two bids?GSA Action items = ?SCA Exemption Clauses (as of Refresh 23)Schedule now explicitly specifies exemptions(52.221-51 and 52.221-53)Solicitations that are not exempt now fall under

12、the Services Contract Act. This was intended, legitimate, and necessary. Clarifying language is needed.Perhaps also a matrix by SIN showing applicability of SCA (e.g., doesnt apply to 132-51). IT Labor Category RequirementsLanguage in current IT solicitation and refresh ambiguous. Many COs believe t

13、hat education and/or years of experience must be written into labor category descriptions. Many vendors do not have these in their commercial labor categories or other government contracts.See Draft position paper by Kitty Klaus dated 08-07-09Consensus: Specific qualifications like degrees should be

14、 not be required, but all category descriptions should be explicit enough to guarantee that the individual has sufficient qualifications to do the assigned job. Recommendation: Provide guidance to COs.NAICS Codes Designations (as of Refresh 23)Explicit NAICS codes were added for each SIN in Refresh

15、23. Note: None of the codes given include the NAICS code designed explicitly for IT VARs (541519 Computer Related Services, Information Technology Value Added Resellers) which should apply to most SINs.This can cause great difficulty in multi-SIN procurements.No other GWAC does this by SIN or other

16、category; all others do it by contract (e.g., Alliant and Alliant SB).Recommendation: Drop the individual NAICS code listings by SIN and assign a single NAICS Code to each contract that represents the vendors predominant Schedules business.SW Maintenance SIN Designations(See Jason Brouillettes Posit

17、ion Paper)Definitions of SW Maintenance as a product and SW Maintenance as a service are excellent and should not be changed. SIN 132-34 is now designated as Professional Services - most line items currently on schedule now meet the product definition and will have to be moved into 132-32 or 132-33

18、(a few OEMs and others have historically listed them this way.) Typical issues:Many VARs and OEMs will need administrative mods for approximately 50-70% of their SW CLINsDo Resellers need revised LOSs to move SW Maint from 132-34 to -32 or -33?Maintenance for Perpetual Licenses (132-33) is sold annu

19、ally, should it be listed under 132-32?Reporting and tracking by SIN will change dramatically (both venders to GSA and GSA itself)Will they also have to mod all BPAs including SmartBuy, DOD ESI, and many S&L contracts?Needs discussion. One suggested approach: Permit those vendors (the majority) that

20、 so choose to continue to define 132-34 as a product - as long as they do so consistently for all items. Those vendors could move any “software maintenance as a service” items to 132-51. Coverage for Emerging Technologies(and new approaches to service delivery)Update language of all IT Service SINs

21、(e.g., 132-51, 132-52, 132-53) to cover new technologies as they emerge such as cloud computing, business transformation, and disaster recoveryExplicitly encourage solution based and performance based requirements and delivery offerings tailored to customer needs.These Services may include elements

22、in other SINs of the vendors IT Schedule.See example for 132-51 Professional ServicesSample Rewrite of SIN 132-51Current wording:132 51 Information Technology Professional Services - SUBJECT TO COOPERATIVE PURCHASINGIncludes resources and facilities management, database planning and design, systems

23、analysis and design, network services, programming, millennium conversion services, conversion and implementation support, network services project management, data/records management, subscriptions/ publications (electronic media), and other services.Suggested wording:132 51 Information Technology

24、Professional Services - SUBJECT TO COOPERATIVE PURCHASINGIncludes, but not limited to: network, resources and facilities management; database planning and design, systems analysis and design, Cloud Computing, Business Recovery Services, Business Transformation Services, programming, conversion and i

25、mplementation support, project management, data/records management, and other professional and solution or performance based services.GSA Communications with VendorsSubcommittee members acknowledged great positive strides from GSA, but still room for improvement: Examples: Refresh 24 effective as of 6/24, but not yet posted on vendor support center and many vendors have still not been notified of its release. GSA had earlier promised to run draft Refreshes past ITIGC before publication, now have several issues on todays list that should/cou