Acquisition Plan

OOI Acquisition Plan

Version 1-09

Document Control Number 1008-00000

2009-01-30

Consortium for Ocean Leadership

1201 New York Ave NW, 4th Floor, Washington DC 20005

in Cooperation with

University of California, San Diego

University of Washington

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Oregon State University

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Acquisition Plan

Document Control Sheet

Version / Date / Description / Originator
1-00 / Oct 14, 2008 / Draft / J. Christman
1-01 / Oct 23, 2008 / Edit /Added 7.1 Common Sensor Procurement / J. Christman
1-02 / Oct 24, 2008 / Formatting / L. Snow
1-03 / Oct 24, 2008 / Editing / E. Griffin
1-04 / Oct 27, 2008 / Editing / L. Snow
1-05 / Oct 28, 2008 / Minor corrections, Added “Common Item Sensor Procurement” / J. Christman
1-06 / Oct 30, 2008 / Minor editing / J. Christman, P. Yeung
1-07 / Jan 23, 2009 / Consolidate doc per NSF direction / J. Hubler, J. Christman, L Brasseur, S Williams
1-08 / Jan 29, 2009 / Incorporate edits from IOs / J. Christman
1-09 / Jan 30, 2009 / Formatting / A. Ferlaino, E. Griffin

Table of Contents:

1Introduction......

2OOI Acquisition Background......

3IO Selection, Performance Management and Acquisition Planning......

3.1Management of IO Subaward Performance......

3.2Acquisition Planning for New Subawards......

3.3Specific Strategies for IO-based Acquisitions......

3.3.1CI Acquisition Strategy......

3.3.2Coastal Global Scale Node (CGSN) Acquisition Strategy......

3.3.3Regional Scale Node (RSN) Acquisition Strategy......

4Consortium for Ocean Leadership – Prime Contractor Role......

4.1Monitoring and Evaluation......

4.1.1Monitoring Objectives......

4.1.2Monitoring Process......

4.1.3Quality Assurance Reviews......

4.1.4Purchasing System Reviews......

4.1.5Purchasing Procedure Evaluations......

4.1.6Make or Buy Decision Analysis......

5Conflict of Interest Policy......

6Competition Strategy......

7Types of Contracts to be awarded......

8OOI Acquisition Strategy for Sensors......

8.1Establishing the OOI Core Sensor Suite......

8.2Common Item Sensor Procurement......

1

Ver 1-091008-00000

Acquisition Plan

1Introduction

Development of the OOI acquisition strategy is a collaboration between the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Consortium for Ocean Leadership (OL) and the four Implementing Organizations (IOs) that will design, develop, produce, test, deploy, operate, maintain and educate the public about the various systems that comprise the Ocean Observing Initiative (OOI). The Marine IOs are Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the University of Washington, the Cyberinfrasturcture (CI) IO is the University of California San Diego and the Education and Public Engagement IO is yet to be determined following the successful response to the RFP.

The OL Program Director is the single point of accountability for accomplishing the OOI program objectives, for the OOI Acquisition Strategyand for the total OOI life-cycle systems management, including post deployment systems operations and maintenance. The OL Program Director has, and will continue to exercise, executive leadership over OOI program decisions and will use common sense and sound business judgment in continued development of this Acquisition Strategy and in its execution. To accomplish this, the OL Program Director has organized an Integrated Product Team (IPT) to develop, refine, implement and coordinate this OOI Acquisition Strategy. The IPT will provide oversight of acquisition processes used by OL and subawardees.

The OL IPT staff members are:

Tim CowlesOL Program Director

Jeanine HublerDirector of Contracts and Grants

Stu WilliamsEngineering Director

Susan BanahanAssoc. Science Director

Anthony FerlainoSystems Engineer

Alex TalalayevskyProgram Engineer

Jim ChristmanProgram Engineer

Lorraine BrasseurPost Doctoral Oceanographer

TBDQA Manager

TBDEnvironmental Health and Safety Manager

2OOI Acquisition Background

Three Implementing Organizations were awarded separate subawards in 2007. The Regional Scale Node (RSN) subaward was awarded to the University of Washington on March 29, 2007, the Cyberinfrastructure (CI) subaward was awarded to the University of California, San Diego on May 9, 2007, and the Coastal Global Scale Node (CGSN) subaward was awarded to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on August 6, 2007. A new subaward will be executed for the Education and Public Engagement (EPE) IO when MREFC funds are awarded for the OOI project. All three of the existing subawards are Cost Reimbursement, No Fee type subawards. The three subawards have performance periods of five base years with a total of five Operations and Maintenance (O&M) option years if the options are exercised. The subawards were modified in May 2008 to restructure the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) arrangement for each subaward to allow for a pre-FDR Period and for a Pilot Period. The modifications also extend to the base Implementation-MREFC years and the Operations and Maintenance option year periods of performance to accommodate the two year (approximate) delay in receipt of MREFC funding for the project. The Implementation – MREFC periods of performance now continue through June 30, 2015. The five one-year O&M option years now run through June 30, 2015. Each of the three subawards allow for incremental funding based on funding availability from NSF.

The following table shows total projected O&M and MREFC combined budget estimates for Ocean Leadership and the proposed OOI subawards through FY16:

FY10 / FY11 / FY12 / FY13 / FY14 / FY15 / FY16
MREFC / 28.89M / 96.63M / 111.83M / 91.53M / 45.53M / 21.87M
O&M / 6.71M / 11.22M / 16.72M / 32.23M / 51.04M / 55.00M / 57.75M
Total / 35.60M / 107.85M / 128.55M / 123.76M / 96.57M / 76.87M / 57.75M

Table 21 Total projected O&M and MREFC combined (FDR) budget estimates for OL and proposed subawards.

3IO Selection, Performance Management and Acquisition Planning

Ocean Leadership utilized a formal source selection process similar to the federal process followed for competitive, high-level awards. Each IO procurement started with a Notice of Intent, which provided information to potential bidders about the scope of work and estimated date for solicitation release; interested parties were requested to reply with a non-binding letter of intent to bid. Formal solicitations were then released, allowing an average of 120 calendar days to prepare proposals. An amendment to the solicitation provided answers to all potential bidders on all questions that were received. The solicitation detailed clearly the basis for source selection (i.e., greatest value assessment) and delineated the information required for this assessment. Proposals were in two volumes - Technical and Cost/Past Performance – and were rated by two separate source selection panels. These panels included outside representatives from the science community as well as industry experts. The chair of each panel briefed the source selection committee who, in turn, made selection recommendations to the source selection official (the then President of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions, now Ocean Leadership). Prior to entering into final negotiations, a complete package of the solicitation, scoring, and best value analysis was provided to NSF for concurrence. In some cases oral presentations preceded negotiations. The resulting subawards incorporate all the NSF flowdown provisions, and the award documents were provided to NSF.

3.1Management of IO Subaward Performance

Each subaward contains a “Reporting Requirements” clause which lists all deliverables, the due date for each deliverable, and a reference to the task/sub-task area of the Statement of Work. Ocean Leadership Contracting Officer Technical Representatives (COTRs) are identified in the subaward along with clear parameters as to when their technical direction is valid within the scope of the contract. COTRs provide a general technical liaison between the IO and OL and monitor the timeliness and quality of deliverables.

Monthly invoices are reviewed to assess costs incurred in relationship to subaward milestones and planned work. The subawards provide Ocean Leadership with the right to withhold additional funding if contract deliverables are deficient in quality and/or untimely. Each subaward requires the IO to notify Ocean Leadership in writing when 75% of the incremental funding has been expended and to provide an estimate of additional funding needed to continue performance for the next performance period. With commencement of MREFC funding and full implementation of the Project Management Control System, COTRs will review variance between planned value and earned value with IOs at a work package level on a monthly basis. Progress on risk mitigation and input from the quality process will be reviewed monthly to understand the technical and programmatic issues raised by the variations indicated by the earned value analysis.

Ocean Leadership holds regularly scheduled calls with the IO Program Managers, Principal Investigators, and Systems Engineers on a weekly basis. Initially, monthly two-day meetings were rotated among the IOs for coordination and review of the work underway. In the run up to FDR these meetings have been held every other month, due to budgetary constraints.

IOs are required to meet regularly with suppliers and vendors to review status, issues, action items, payment forecasts, and schedules. The results of these reviews are discussed at weekly conference calls with the COTR and at monthly coordination meetings where all IO Program Managers and the NSF Program Officer are present.

3.2Acquisition Planning for New Subawards

Solicitations for new hardware and software will be conducted in accordance with each IO’s approved purchasing policies/procedures. These purchasing procedures have been reviewed by independent auditors as well as by each of the IOs cognizant federal agency. (For WHOI it is Defense Contract Audit Agency/Office of Navel Research; for UCSD it is U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and for UW it is U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Review and approval of new awards shall adhere to the NSF cooperative agreement flowdown clause entitled “Subaward Requirements”, which authorizes Ocean Leadership and each IO to enter into proposed contractual arrangements and to fund such arrangements up to the amount indicated in their respective budgets. Ocean Leadership is required to notify the NSF Program Officer prior to awarding any new subaward or subcontract not already in the approved budget that exceeds $250,000 award value. This clause has been incorporated into the IO subawards; therefore Ocean Leadership will review and approve new IO subawards above $250,000 and submit these for NSF approval before the IOs can sign them.

To provide NSF with insight into all planned awards greater than $250,000 in each budget year, Ocean Leadership and the IOs have developed an Advanced Procurement Plan Worksheet for OOI Acquisitions to be included in the IO annual work plans. These will be provided to NSF as an attachment to Ocean Leadership’s Annual Work Plan to identify anticipated new high-value awards or acquisitions across the program. The Procurement Plan Worksheets specify whether the anticipated acquisitions are sole source versus competitive, the estimated award value, award lead-times, and contract type. With other coordination measures, this planning process will assist the OOI Program Office in integrating acquisitions across the IOs when technically appropriate. (See Appendix A)

3.3Specific Strategies for IO-based Acquisitions

The majority of the OOI construction budget will be executed by the IOs. The type and complexity of IO-specific acquisitions is determined by the scope of work of each award. The following sections describe the specific acquisition strategies for each of the IOs.

3.3.1CI Acquisition Strategy

The scope of requirements for the OOI Cyberinfrastructure demands that the CI IO develop and deploy infrastructure over a very wide geography in a field where rapid change is the norm. The strategy for acquiring the necessary CI capabilities is to build a core, unified design utilizing integration and operation teams that contract with specific institutions and vendors having the specific expertise, technologies, and/or services required for execution. The CI IO has three categories of supplier relationships. Two are strategic and the third is a straightforward product/service relationship with Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) vendors.

The CI hardware acquisition strategy for the OOI is based on a five year IT component refresh schedule. To accommodate the five-year cycle, the CI proposes to enter into direct buy purchases of IT components. The CI plans to purchase base OOI capacity for cloud computing and base computational needs. These will be purchased from TerraGrid and Amazon. If more capacity is required for additional OOI capabilities, the capacity will be purchased as needed.

3.3.1.1CI Acquisition Program Structure

The University of California is governed by a Board of Regents. Under Article IX, Section 9 of the California Constitution, the Board has "full powers of organization and governance" subject only to specific areas of legislative control. The President has been delegated authority by The Regents to set policy in numerous areas. Presidential policy may be established as a result of action by the Board of Regents, changes in federal or state law, or University-based initiatives.

The Division of Business Operations is responsible for policy development for and oversight of the University's financial management and business operations. Functions include internal audit, technology transfer, facilities administration, information resources, human resources and benefits. The Executive Vice President's duties include responsibility for the Office of the President, including the development and implementation of prudent control practices and recognized management techniques, and establishment of division goals and guiding principles.

University of California policies are found within various operating manuals. One of these is the Contract and Grant Manual that sets forth UC system-wide policies for the solicitation, acceptance and administration of awards from extramural sponsors. This manual is available online and can be viewed by clicking on the following link:

The specific procedures dealing with purchasing (e.g., acquisitions) can be viewed through this link.:

Additional Contract and Grant policies and guidance can be viewed through the following link:

3.3.1.2CI Acquisition Process Flow

The UCSD acquisition process flow for the CI products and services will follow the following acquisition path:

  • Preparation
  • Define Requirements
  • RFP/RFQ Development
  • Vendor Evaluation
  • Negotiations to Develop a Final Executable Contractual Agreement
  • Approval to Award
  • Award.
3.3.1.3CI Acquisition Strategy and Planning

A) Pre-proposal Period

During the pre-proposal phases intensive research was conducted to identify premier sources of technological expertise, domain knowledge, and engineering manpower. Negotiations were subsequently undertaken with academic institutions, commercial contractors, and product vendors to become partners in preparing and submitting the OOI Cyberinfrastructure proposal. Depending on the skills each organization brought to the table, they were invited to join the team as:

  • Technology Partners, providing extensive expertise in one of the CI core technologies
  • Development Partners, providing engineering manpower coupled with specific core technologies
  • Design Partners, providing specific domain knowledge and experience
  • Infrastructure Partners, providing scalable on-demand computing, online data storage, and high bandwidth network connectivity on a national scale

The appropriate contracting approach has been identified for each of the partners based on the specific product or services they provide, such as subcontracts or purchase orders.

B) Post IO Award Period

The CI IO is incorporating a number of advanced technologies as part of the CI’s core capabilities. These technologies are coming out of a combination of academic, open source and commercial enterprises that are supported by nationally qualified expertise. Our acquisition strategy for effectively and efficiently integrating these technologies is establishing and fostering direct collaboration between the authors of the technology and the CI program. This is accomplished through funded engagements with recognized experts from these enterprises to work with the CI System Integration team. The followingten enterprises were identified in CI’s original proposal to OL for developing specific technology areas:

  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech & NASA
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
  • National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research
  • North Carolina State University
  • Rutgers University
  • University of Chicago - Argonne National Laboratory
  • University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
  • University of Southern California
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

If other technology areas are identified in the future, institutional acquisition approaches for acquiring the technology will be followed. Statements of work will be generated for each of these areas and competitive bids will be solicited from the responding universities or commercial concerns with expertise in these areas. Bids will be evaluated for technical, cost, management and other factors. Award will be made based on best value approach for all factors. The only remaining infrastructure needed is some hardware procurements for development and testing platforms, for Cyber Pops and for Control and Display Equipment. See Table 3.1

Technology Area / Vendors / Estimated
Dollar Amount / Need by Date
Routing Hardware / Various / $398.0K / 12/2010
Dev/Test Platforms / Various / $190.3K / 07/2010
Cyber Pops / Various / $1,082.0K / 12/2010
Software (Antelope, DOORS, etc.) / Various / $273K / 07/2010
Control/ Display Equipment / Various / $89.3K / 07/2011

Table 31 Procurement, planned contract size, estimated dollar amount and need-by date.

3.3.2Coastal Global Scale Node (CGSN) Acquisition Strategy

For the CCSSN IO, two specific subawards were approved within the initial subaward from Ocean Leadership. These subawards are between WHOI and its two partner institutions, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) and Oregon State University (OSU). They are executed to cover the entire period of performance. Work will be shared among the partners based on capabilities with respect to design and build requirements. In addition, a consulting agreement with an industrial partner, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, was approved in the initial subaward. The procurement to Raytheon for systems engineering and project management support services will extend over the entire period of performance and procurement value will depend on actual tasking.

3.3.2.1CGSN Acquisition Flow

The acquisition of material and services for the CGSN project will be in accordance with the purchasing procedures and policies of WHOI, of subcontractors SIO and OSU, of the NSF, and of Ocean Leadership. The WHOI institutional web based policies and procedures are considered business sensitive information and are available on the WHOI intranet. Softcopies of the documents have been provided to Ocean Leadership. The documents are available for review in the controlled document section of the OOI Alfresco web site.