PART 7 -- ACQUISITION PLANNING
(REVISED DECEMBER 2007, DISA AC03-19)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBPART 7.1 -- ACQUISITION PLANS
7.105 Acquisition considerations
7.107 Additional requirements for acquisitions involving bundling
7.170 Consolidation of contract requirements
SUBPART 7.3 -- CONTRACTOR VERSUS GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
7.301 Policy
7.306 Evaluation
7.307 Appeals
SUBPART 7.5 -- INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS
7.503 Policy
SUBPART 7.90 -- ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM PLANS
7.9000 Definitions
7.9001 Policy
7.9002 AP thresholds
7.9003 Required AP signatures/coordinations
7.9004 AP procedures
7.9005 AP approval authority
7.9006 AP revisions
7.9007 AP files
7.9008 Program Plan Reviews
PART 7 -- ACQUISITION PLANNING
SUBPART 7.1 -- ACQUISITION PLANS
7.105(b)(4) Acquisition considerations.
Funding for the minimum guarantee for indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts shall be obligated at time of contract award (see DARS 16.504(a)(2)). The acquisition plan (AP) should address the minimum guarantee (dollars to be obligated at contract award for the base period) and the maximum dollar amount to be ordered.
(a) If bundling of contract requirements is being considered, the planner shall conduct market research to determine whether bundling is necessary and justified in accordance with FAR 7.107.
(f) The planner shall include the appropriate justification or business case to support bundling in the AP. See FAR 7.107 for additional guidance on bundling.
(a) A Determination and Findings (D&F) is required with supporting rationale, including a business case analysis that supports the proposed consolidation approach (see DFARS 207.170). The D&F shall accompany the AP through the approval process. The consolidation of requirements shall also be addressed in the AP. The AP discussion of consolidation of requirements shall be addressed under the paragraph on Sources, as required at FAR 7.105(b)(1) and shall reference the D&F and provide a brief summary thereof. Additional guidance is provided in DFARS 207.170-3. The following approval thresholds and authorities are established for processing the D&F:
Dollar Threshold: Approval Authority:
$5.5M to $100M Head of Contracting Activity (HCA)
$100M or greater Senior Procurement Executive (SPE)
(b) If the proposed consolidation exceeds $5.5M, the AP must include: (1) results of the market research, (2) consideration of alternatives requiring less consolidation, and (3) a determination by the HCA or the SPE that the consolidation is necessary and justified.
SUBPART 7.3 — CONTRACTOR VERSUS GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
(a) The planner shall examine all options and perform all mission responsibilities and functions using their own resources to the maximum extent practicable.
(b) DISA’s point of contact for matters under this subpart is the Analysis and Internal Controls Division (CFE4).
(a)(3) Upon completion of the final Government review of the cost comparison under FAR 7.306, include resolution of any request under FAR 7.307. The HCA makes the final determination for performance by the Government or by a contractor.
(b)(3) Upon completion of the public review period under FAR 7.306, and resolution of any questions raised under FAR 7.307, the HCA shall provide the Contracting Officer (CO) a written notification of the final cost comparison decision.
(a) The SPE provides informal administrative review of the initial cost comparison result.
(b) The CO shall forward requests to the Director for Procurement (PLD), who will coordinate the review with DISA’s Chief Financial Executive (CFE) and the Vice-Director (DV).
SUBPART 7.5 -- INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS
(e) The planner may satisfy this requirement by including a written statement (FAR 7.503) in the AP or providing the statement as an attachment to the specification, (i.e., statement of work (SOW), statement of objectives (SOO) or performance work statement (PWS)). Disagreements regarding the determination shall be resolved by a contracting official one level above the CO before the issuance of the solicitation.
SUBPART 7.90 -- ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM PLANS
Acquisition Strategy Review Board (ASRB). The ASRB is an oversight board established and chaired by the Component Acquisition Executive (CAE). This strategic level board is chartered to implement Information Technology (IT) acquisitions and provide procurement planning oversight. All DISA programs, projects, services, special interest items, and contracting efforts are included under the purview of the ASRB (refer to DISA Instruction 610-225-2, Information Services Acquisition Oversight and Management for additional guidance).
Class of Actions. Multiple Plans of Action (POA) under one AP that have identical or similar requirements.
Component Acquisition Executive. The CAE is the review authority for all acquisition matters and reports to the Director, DISA. The CAE has the authority, and is accountable, for all acquisition functions and activities in the Agency. The CAE is also the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) for all of DISA’s Acquisition Category (ACAT) Programs, as delegated by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks Intelligence and Integration (ASD NII).
Director for Procurement (PLD). Serves as the HCA for the Agency and the approval authority for APs with a specific threshold, for classified and unclassified procurements. The PLD also serves as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for competitive negotiated procurements at/or exceeding $10 million in value.
DISA Program/Project. A DISA directed, funded logical grouping of requirements designed to provide a new, improved, or continuing capability in response to a validated operational capability.
DISA Program Plan. A budgetary plan of requirements supporting a specific DISA Program for any given fiscal year (FY). The Annual Program Plan Review is the forum for obtaining program plan approval.
Information Technology (IT) Acquisition (DARS 39). Acquiring IT, including National Security System (NSS) IT, by any method including contract, grant, cooperative agreement, international agreement, interagency (Economy Act) order, or any “other transaction.”
Integrated Product Team (IPT). A cross-functional team formed for the specific purpose of delivering a capability for an external or internal customer.
Program Executive Officer (PEO). Appointed by the CAE and is responsible for all aspects of their assigned program and will direct and implement their assigned acquisitions. The PEOs are appointed for ACAT-I through ACAT-III Programs, special interest items, and the acquisition of services.
Planner. The designated person (i.e., requirements official or program manager) or office responsible for developing and maintaining a written plan, or for the planning function in those acquisitions not requiring a written plan.
System Decision Authority (SDA). An SDA is appointed by the CAE and is responsible for projects and services within a defined portfolio, which may be designated as a Decision Authority (DA) for the acquisition of services.
(a) PLD prescribes policies and procedures for acquisition planning in accordance with FAR 7.103 and DFARS 207.103 that are consistent with the guidelines provided therein. Format and content of APs are contained in the DISA Acquisition Planning Deskbook: http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/deskbooks.asp. In support of the AP, the planner may be asked for a draft statement of objectives and/or Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) or cost estimate.
(b) Electronic submissions are encouraged. APs contain source selection information and must be protected and marked with the appropriate legend in accordance with FAR/DARS 3.104-4. Also, see DISAI 630-230-30 for guidance on e-mail security practices for electronic transmission of sensitive but unclassified information.
(c) Written APs should be prepared for requirements on a program basis, an individual contract basis or on an individual order basis.
(d) DISA contracting offices shall be used to support DISA requirements to the maximum extent practicable. See http://www.ditco.disa.mil/Default.asp for additional information about the DITCO contracting offices.
(e) The Government and the DISA support contractors have a joint responsibility to ensure that there is no actual or potential conflict of interest (COI) before a contractor is provided the opportunity to review and comment on an AP. Since the approval of an AP is an inherently governmental function government personnel shall make all decisions regarding its format and content. Contractor personnel should be familiar with FAR 3.104, Procurement Integrity to be apprised of the current regulations regarding this issue. Contractors shall also obtain and complete a “Certificate of Nondisclosure prior to reviewing any AP. (Examples of inherently governmental functions are referenced in FAR 7.503). Caution is to be used when considering a contractor proposal from a company that has participated in the development of the AP.
(f) DISA has established an implementation policy and procedures on the “Proper Use of Non-DoD Contracts,” which requires specific preconditions prior to using a non-DoD contract vehicle in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($100,000). This guidance applies to both "direct acquisitions" (orders placed by DISA against non-DoD contracts) and "assisted acquisitions" (contracts awarded or orders placed by Non-DoD entities, including franchise funds on behalf of DISA using DoD funds). The application of this supplemental policy is implemented during the planning phase of the acquisition.
(g) The planner shall ensure compliance with regulations, instructions, directives and policy governing Information Assurance. Compliance with the following Directive and Instruction are mandatory: DOD Directive 8500.1-Information Assurance, DOD Instruction 8500.2 - Information Assurance (IA) Implementation, and DOD Instruction 8580.1 - Information Assurance (IA) in the Defense Acquisition System. This guidance “establishes policy and assigns responsibilities to achieve Department of Defense (DOD) information assurance (IA) through a ‘defense-in-depth’ layered approach that integrates the capabilities of personnel, operations, and technology, and supports the evolution to network centric warfare.” Additional questions concerning specific interpretations and implementation guidance should be referred to SPI’s Information Assurance Division (SI34).
(h) See DARS Part 39 for Information Technology/National Security Systems (IT/NSS) AP requirements.
(i) For determinations on assistance and advisory service see FAR 7.103(p).
Written APs shall be prepared for acquisition requirements meeting the thresholds stated below and referenced in DFARS Part 207.103(d)(i).
Concurrence Requirements
Type of Action Threshold SPD PEO CAE Approval
Authority
Developmental Contracts $ 10M to $ 50M Yes Yes No HCA
(total cost of all contracts > $ 50M to $100M Yes Yes Yes HCA
is estimated at $10M or > $100M Yes Yes Yes SPE
more) Special Interest Yes Yes Yes SPE
Production & Services > $ 50M to $100M Yes Yes Yes HCA
(Total cost of all contracts > $100M Yes Yes Yes SPE
is estimated at $50M or more Special Interest Yes Yes Yes SPE
for all years)
Production & Services $ 25M to $ 50M Yes Yes No HCA
(Total cost of all contracts is > $ 50M to $100M Yes Yes Yes HCA
estimated at $25M or more > $100M Yes Yes Yes SPE
for any fiscal year) Special Interest Yes Yes Yes SPE
SPE – Senior Procurement Executive
HCA – Head of the Contracting Activity
PEO – Program Executive Officer
SPD – System Program Director
Footnotes:
* Non-DISA requirements:
1. Acquisitions that will result in the award of a task or delivery order under an existing indefinite delivery contract do not require an AP.
2. Acquisitions that will result in the award of a new contract that meets or exceeds the thresholds above requires an AP subject to approval by the DISA HCA.
**DISA requirements:
1. Acquisitions that will result in the award of a task or delivery order under an existing indefinite delivery contract that is estimated to meet or exceed the minimum thresholds above require an AP.
2. Acquisitions that will result in the award of an order under a GSA Federal Supply Schedule that is estimated to meet or exceed the minimum thresholds above require an AP.
3. The CAE’s exclusion from concurrence on requirements under $50M does not apply to MAIS designated programs.
Developmental Contracts referenced above refers to contracts that are governed by FAR and DFARS Part 35, Research and Development Contracting.
7.9003 Required AP signatures/coordinations.
(a) AP Signatures. Secure the signatures of the signatories listed below when applicable
1) Planner
2) SDA, PEO, CAE or Head of the requirements office
3) CO
4) Head of the Contracting Office (HCO)
5) AP Approving Authority (HCA or SPE)
(b) The following individuals must coordinate on the DISA Form 9, Summary Sheet.
1) Planner
2) SDA
3) PEO
4) CAE or head of the requirements office
5) SPI/CIO (Chief Information Officer) or designee, coordination is required for Clinger Cohen compliance and for review and approval with ASDNII when a single planned IT/NSS IT acquisition’s total estimated IT cost is greater than $32M for a single year; greater than $126M total IT costs, or greater than $378M life cycle costs. (Applicable to DISA requirements only)
6) CO
7) HCO
8) Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) or designee
9) Legal Counsel
10) Agency Competition Advocate (PLA) (not required unless OTFAOC is planned)
11) Deputy Director for Procurement (PLD)
12) HCA
13) SPE (if the SPE is the approving authority)
For Sample Form 9, Justification for OTFAOC, see Appendix j
(a) The planner is responsible for tracking and monitoring the AP through the approval process. The planner may be a PM, project planner, SPD or PEO. One of the primary functions of the planner is to secure the concurrence and approval signatures for the approval of the AP, which includes the preparation of the DISA Form 9, Summary Sheet, (for DISA planners).
(b) Before drafting the AP, the planner should contact the CO to discuss various acquisition strategies and/or approaches. The purpose of this dialogue is to establish what approach should be adopted to achieve two key acquisition objectives: (1) greater utilization of commercial items and (2) full and open competition.
(c) The CO will provide procurement guidance to the planner for the development of agreed upon procurement documents.
(d) The ASRB may request a briefing on any DISA acquisition to assess its overall acquisition strategy and approach. The criteria for this review will be based on the dollar value and its importance to the Agency’s mission. The ASRB is chaired by the CAE. For additional guidance on the ASRB refer to DISA Instruction 610-225-2, Information Systems - Acquisition Oversight and Management.
(e) The planner should use an Integrated Product Team (IPT), Groupware, or other collaborative approaches to obtain stakeholders buy-in. Inviting stakeholders responsible for significant aspects of the AP will ensure that the Agency’s interests are fully represented. The planner should commence the development of the AP when the need has been identified, preferably well in advance of the fiscal year in which contract award is necessary.
(f) When drafting the AP the planner will use the template provided in the Acquisition Planning Deskbook. The AP should also reference any applicable budget submission and any decision coordinating paper or program memorandum.
(g) The planner, in close coordination with the CO, directs the development of the AP with personnel responsible for significant aspects of the plan, (e.g., contracting, fiscal, legal, technical, small business, competition advocate, and logistics). The staffing and coordination will be completed using a “DISA Form 9, Summary Sheet” (see DARS 7.9003, Required AP signatures/coordinations).
(h) The planner must resolve all outstanding issues from personnel responsible for their significant aspects of the AP before its submission of the AP for approval by the HCA or SPE. Issues that cannot be resolved by the planner will be raised to the CO for final resolution.
(i) Prior to submitting the AP for approval the planner shall ensure that the “milestone dates for the key acquisition and contracting process cycle” documented in the AP are realistic, accurate and complete. The planner will be held responsible and accountable for any variances to the approved milestone dates.
(j) After concurrence by all the stakeholders, the AP is forwarded to the CO. The DISA Form 9 is to be complete, accurate and conform to the instructions and guidance of the Action Officer’s Handbook. After the CO reviews and concurs with the AP and DISA Form 9, Summary Sheet, they are forwarded to the HCO for coordination.
(k) The AP, with its accompanying “DISA Form 9, Summary Sheet” is then forwarded to the HCA for coordination or approval. The planner is responsible for providing periodic status updates to involved parties including the PEO/ CAE/requirements office, and the CO when the review and approval process has commenced. The frequency of these updates is based on its mission impact and criticality.
(l) The planner notifies the CAE/requirements office, the CO, and others as appropriate when the AP has been approved or disapproved.
(m) After the AP is approved, the CO will provide a copy of the AP to the planner and retain the original in the contract file. The planner is responsible for distributing copies of the approved APs to the AP signatories and the organizations/individuals on the “Form 9, Summary Sheet.”
The HCA is the approval authority for all APs supporting non-DISA requirements. The HCA is the approval authority for all APs supporting DISA acquisitions valued up to $100M. The SPE is the approval authority for all APs supporting DISA acquisitions valued at more than $100M and is also the approval authority for acquisitions that are designated as “special interest” by the ASRB or the DV.
(a) Revised APs are required to contain strikeouts, underlined new language, and revised vertical lines bars to highlight changes.
(b) Major revisions:
(1) Major revisions require a new signature page/approval, and depending on the magnitude of the revision may result in developing a new AP.
(2) The planner shall follow the AP approval process for major revisions. Examples of major revisions follow:
a) Funding increase/shortfall (above the AP thresholds under DARS 7.9002. In addition include modifications that breach AP thresholds (which include engineering change proposals).
b) Change of scope (Decision on scope change will be made by the CO.)
c) Change in acquisition or technical strategy
d) Change in funding types
e) Key milestone slippage (one quarter or more)
f) Any significant breach and/or variance of an IT investment cost/schedule/performance baseline/agreement established in compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act and the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA).
(c) Minor revisions:
(1) Minor revisions do not require a new signature page; however, the planner shall provide copies of the revised AP to the original AP signatories.
(2) The planner shall submit minor revisions as an enclosure to an interoffice memorandum, signed by the planner, to the CO. Examples of minor revisions include:
a) Funding increase/shortfall (below the AP thresholds under DARS 7.9002a)
b) Milestone slippage (less than one quarter)
c) Change in key points of contact
d) Recording historical information (e.g., after the award of a planned contract, revise the historical portion of the AP to document the award date, contractor, dollars obligated to date, etc.).
(a) The planner shall maintain a copy of the AP and any subsequent revisions.
(b) The CO shall ensure the original approved AP and all subsequent revisions become part of the official contract file.
(a) The purpose of the CFE sponsored Annual Program Plan Review and Financial Health Assessment (APPR&FHA) is to support DISA acquisition and financial program planning necessary to establish a sound transition from the budget to the execution phase of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution as described in DoDD7045.7 and Management Initiative Decisions incorporating the goals of the President’s Management Agenda.
(b) This document applies to all DISA activities and organizations (that is, an entity requiring resources) for appropriated funds and incorporates Defense Working Capital Funds as practicable. This guidance establishes consistent and proper procedures for execution planning, periodic review and addressing unfunded requirements.