![](media/image1.png)

**Bureau of Land Management**

#### Lessons Learned

**Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management**

**Competitive Sourcing Standard Study**

**Maintenance Functions**

September 24, 2004

TouchstoneGlobal

5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 440

Washington, D.C. 20015

\(202\) 274-4760

Under BLM Contract No. GS-10F-0086L

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[**Executive Summary 3**](#executive-summary)

[PRELIMINARY PLANNING 6](#preliminary-planning)

[Study Budget and Schedule 6](#study-budget-and-schedule)

[Business Unit Definition 7](#business-unit-definition)

[Generating Workload Data 7](#generating-workload-data)

[Communication Plan 7](#communication-plan)

[Relationship between BLM and Contractors
7](#relationship-between-blm-and-contractors)

[Inventory of GFP/GFE 7](#inventory-of-gfpgfe)

[PWS DEVELOPMENT 7](#pws-development)

[PWS Tasks 7](#pws-tasks)

[PWS Workload 7](#pws-workload)

[PWS Performance Measures 7](#pws-performance-measures)

[Performance-based Contract 7](#performance-based-contract)

[MEO DEVELOPMENT 7](#meo-development)

[Starting Inventory 7](#starting-inventory)

[Study Sizing Strategy 7](#study-sizing-strategy)

[Management of MEO Design 7](#management-of-meo-design)

[Technical Performance Planning 7](#technical-performance-planning)

[Control of Quality in MEO Operations
7](#control-of-quality-in-meo-operations)

[Transition Planning 7](#transition-planning)

[Costing Issues 7](#costing-issues)

[COST COMPARISON 7](#cost-comparison)

[PROCUREMENT PROCESS 7](#procurement-process)

#  

# Executive Summary

From November 2002 through April 2004, the Oregon/Washington (OR/WA)
State Office of the Bureau of Land Management conducted an Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) A-76 standard competitive sourcing study of
maintenance functions. The functions included facilities, road, and
recreation site maintenance. This report addresses lessons learned
during the study and what those lessons might mean for the design and
conduct of future studies.

The OR/WA study is the largest competitive sourcing study conducted
within the Department of Interior to-date. It was also probably the
first standard study in Government that followed the revised A-76
Circular. The size of the study contains some important lessons. The
maintenance organization studied in OR/WA is large, diverse, and
dispersed. The determining factors for a successful study of large
organizations and multiple functions are not only whether vendors exist
with the capability to perform these functions or whether we can expect
to find efficiencies and improve performance of scale across the entire
organization. The determining factors for a successful study lie within
the organization itself. These internal determining factors include:

-   Recognizing the existing cultural context around the group or
    function being studied and the readiness to undertake change,

-   Readiness of management structures, policies, and geographical
    requirements to being integrated along the functional lines required
    by the PWS,

-   Ability of integrated functional planning at the regional scale to
    replace work planning designed to flexibly respond to multiple
    demands at the local level,

-   Ability of integrated functional planning at the regional scale to
    deliver similar or better service, and

-   Capacity of the organization to meet the challenges of a large
    reorganization, redesign, and implementation effort.

As this report is being finalized, the OR/WA State Office is actively
implementing the Most Efficient Organization (MEO). BLM's ability to
meet the challenges reflected above will be more evident over the next
six-twelve months.

Related to the above discussion is the significance of the business unit
identified for study. OR/WA identified its business unit with the
assistance of a support contractor, who emphasized the need to define
the business unit as everything required to perform the activity being
studied. Unfortunately, BLM learned that defining appropriate business
units sometimes can be exceedingly difficult, because there can be more
than one option in drawing the line between the MEO and the residual
governmental organization. And each option will produce its own set of
issues. For this study, especially, issues such as geographic
differences and complexities inherent in the manner in which maintenance
activities are performed within BLM introduced problems that were not
wholly predictable and that are still being managed as OR/WA implements
the MEO. For example, in the MEO, OR/WA has integrated its maintenance
activities along functional lines rather than geographic areas. In some
geographic areas there is a greater percent of maintenance work
integrated with other activities, and thus a higher percent of part-time
FTE dedicated to maintenance. In these areas, the MEO and the residual
governmental organization will be especially challenged to perform the
work efficiently.

Another set of lessons is associated with monitoring performance-based
organizations. If the study results in an in-house win, the government
executes a Letter of Obligation (LOO). A private sector win results in a
contract award. Both the LOO and the contract are performance-based
documents. Performance-based contracts and LOOs focus on performance
results, and require measurable workload data and performance standards.
BLM found that quantifiable workload data at the level required in a
competitive sourcing study are often not available. In the preliminary
planning phase, it is essential to develop a system for tracking
workload that, at a minimum, identifies tasks performed, task frequency,
and hours expended per task. An on-going tracking system will be
required to monitor performance and control costs if an LOO is put in
place.

Competitive sourcing studies are conducted by workforce teams, guided by
study support contractors, if possible. The makeup of these teams
influences how readily they can accomplish their tasks. For example, the
MEO Team is usually composed of persons familiar with and assigned to
the organization under study. The MEO team can tend to resist the notion
that serious organizational change is needed or even desired. Strong
facilitation is needed to ensure effectiveness of the MEO Team and to
develop a commitment to success. The MEO Team needs to continually
collaborate with affected managers, to ensure that all MEO design
features are vetted as much and as often as necessary with key managers

A competitive sourcing standard study has a significant impact on the
workforce, no matter what its outcome. Attention to continuous
communication throughout the study is critical. Unfortunately, once a
performance decision has been made, there is a period of at least 30
days before specifics on the decision's impact can be shared. This time
period allows for challenges to the decision. In the OR/WA study, there
was an additional delay due to the fact that the Voluntary Separation
Incentive Pay (VSIP) and Voluntary Early Retirement (VERA) authorities
had not been approved by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The
delay in being able to provide VSIP/VERA offers to impacted employees
lengthened the time of anxiety for BLM employees. The Department of the
Interior is working with the Office of Management and Budget and OPM to
secure provisional VSIP/VERA authority for future competitive sourcing
studies, which would provide a bit more certainty to BLM employees.

The remainder of this report covers what has been learned in five areas
-- Preliminary Planning, Performance Work Statement (PWS) Development,
MEO Development, Procurement Process and Cost Comparison. Several
practical findings that relate to the above discussion are summarized
below and discussed in more detail in the report.

1.  The time allowed for this standard study was not adequate; a problem
    which was aggravated by the time elapsed between the announcement of
    the study and its initiation. More time was needed to meet with
    managers and workers on PWS tasks. Workshops were not an effective
    means to gather information/data.

2.  Early involvement of experts on the A-76 process can save time and
    alleviate problems in design of the PWS. A costing specialist needs
    to be available to the team working on the MEO, to assist in
    accurately capturing costs without overstating them. Early and
    periodic involvement of procurement expertise assists in coping with
    the complicated and unique nature of a large A-76 study.

3.  Identification of lead individuals to evaluate progress, ensure
    reporting of results, monitor data quality, and identify trends or
    concerns is necessary.

4.  Development of a business unit needs to include the necessary
    components of the function, including management and supervision.

5.  BLM systems for collecting and auditing information on workload
    generally do not fit the A-76 process. Where tracking systems for
    individual job or task orders for employees are lacking, asking
    employees to record tasks over time could substitute.

6.  Definitive sideboards and early/periodic management review of
    workload data submitted are needed quality control steps to promote
    consistency. The inclusion of a "20% rule" (if you spend less than
    20% of your time, don't include it) meant some work and some tasks
    were not in the PWS.

7.  The A-76 process requires changes in how BLM thinks about
    relationships with contractors (e.g. use of equipment, interface
    with the public, scheduling work).

8.  Inventory of Government furnished property to be assigned to, or
    shared with, the contractor could be developed in advance of the
    study process.

9.  Unresolved issues over the management of some functions or tasks
    (e.g. supervision of volunteers, inclusion of currently contracted
    work) lead to frequent revisions to the PWS.

10. Development of the Technical Performance Plan should begin early in
    MEO design and development.

11. The Quality Control Plan (used to monitor MEO effectiveness) needs
    to be a practical tool with a limited set of measures that are well
    understood.

12. Transition planning should address important details like equipment
    inventory, facility handoff and training, while avoiding excessive
    detail on minor requirements.

13. In an interagency setting, regular coordination and communication
    across agency lines is essential. Even with a carefully implemented
    communication plan, there will be continued concern and need for
    additional communication

# PRELIMINARY PLANNING

The original approach for the FY03 Oregon/Washington competitive
sourcing program was to conduct a series of express and streamlined
studies for the recreation site and facilities maintenance functions
(primarily based on a District breakdown) and conduct a single statewide
standard study for the road maintenance function. However, following an
on-site review of each district plus discussions with senior functional
and procurement managers, it was decided a more logical approach, with a
potential for increased economic benefits, was to combine recreation
site, facilities, and road maintenance into a single statewide (Oregon
and Washington) standard study. The following observations relate to the
early planning effort for the study.

### Study Budget and Schedule

The study budget and schedule didn't anticipate the vast and complex
nature of the organization and the work performed. The diversity of the
effort (in terms of both geography and work performed) in Oregon and
Washington made it very difficult to generate a common approach to
maintenance work and prevented a "one-size-fits-all" approach to PWS and
MEO development. As a result, the effort expended by both the support
Contractor and the Government was more than initially anticipated and
planned for in the Project Management Plan.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** The initial study schedule was forced
to fit the time available. Without preliminary planning, this was an
unrealistic timeframe for completing a standard study. Too much time
elapsed between the formal announcement of the study and the beginning
of the effort to develop the required study documentation.

-   **Meeting with BLM Personnel**

More time was needed to meet with the workers and managers responsible
for the accomplishing the PWS tasks. The original plan was to minimize
travel costs by conducting short visits to each District and then
holding a few centralized workshops to develop both the PWS and the MEO.
The District visits weren't long enough to complete the data capture
process and we had to spend considerable time in the workshops gathering
missing data from each District. Workshops are not effective means for
gathering individual District information because they are meant for
group participation, consensus, and compromise. Thus, we wasted a lot of
everyone's time during the workshops and were forced to conduct more
workshops than planned to complete both the PWS and MEO.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** The process requires that we plan for
and utilize realistic time frames to capture workload data at the local
sites.

-   **Understanding the impact of early decisions and guidance provided
    for the study.**

The lack of understanding of how certain decisions would be impacted by
the A-76 process caused some initial decisions to be re-evaluated during
the PWS development process. These included:

-   20% task rule.

-   Use of volunteers.

-   Decision on whether to include Government Furnished Property (GFP)
    as part of the PWS.

-   Use of current contracts.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Key policy decisions need to be
discussed and evaluated in the Preliminary Planning phase of the A-76
process. Earlier involvement of a support contractor and other A-76
experts should eliminate the need for the PWS Team to make changes to
the PWS, PWS workload, and re-examine previously done work.

### Business Unit Definition

A business unit should include everything needed to accomplish the
function under study. Given the geographic differences and the
complexities inherent in the way maintenance is performed in BLM, it was
difficult to decide how best to define the business unit to be studied.
Also, much of the management, supervision, and those functions that
accounted for less than 20% of a person's time were excluded from the
study. As a result, a rather large residual organization had to be
retained by the Government, which will likely reduce the efficiency of
the overall organization.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Development of a business unit must
incorporate an entire entity. A business unit should function
independently and thus include management and supervision along with the
functional workforce. In the future, BLM must define everything required
to perform the function being studied.

-   **Use of USFS personnel**

The use of USFS personnel and their tasks caused some problems; mainly
in the cases where USFS personnel were not informed their tasks were
included in the study scope.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Better coordination between agencies
is needed to ensure all affected employees are aware of their status
under the A-76 rules.

### Generating Workload Data

We didn't establish a basis for defining and collecting workload data
before we started the PWS effort. Where the same function is performed
in multiple Districts, a definition of what constitutes measurable
workload and a standardized method of collecting it would have added
consistency to the PWS. Program Element (PE) codes were used early in
the process to determine the historical scope of the work required in
terms of staff hours and FTEs. However, PE codes were not designed for
this purpose and they did not provide the level of detail needed. It was
also determined that the accuracy of PE code reporting is questionable
due to differing guidance within the workforce on how and when to report
time against a PE code.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Since BLM does not have a work
management system that tracks maintenance job orders, it would have made
sense to ask the maintenance workers to manually keep track of what they
did (type of work and how long it takes) for a period of time leading up
to the study. This would have provided a stronger basis for documenting
the amount of work to be accomplished.

### Communication Plan

The communications plan prepared by ORSO provided an excellent approach
to keeping employees, internal groups, and external groups informed of
events in the competitive sourcing process. The plan, which was
integrated into the Project Management Plan, assigned responsibilities
for continuous communications with unions, human resource managers, and
other stakeholders. The competitive sourcing team did a good job of
coordinating information and providing information to stakeholders.

### Relationship between BLM and Contractors

The A-76 process requires a change in the way an organization like BLM
views contractor support. This culture change was most noticeable in
areas such as contractors using Government equipment, contractors
interfacing with the public, contractors setting their own daily work
schedule, and using a performance rather than process orientation as the
basis for defining what a contractor is to accomplish.

### Inventory of GFP/GFE

GFP has to be inventoried, whether or not it is offered in the PWS. If
it is offered, it has to appear as a Technical Exhibit in the PWS. If it
is not offered, it still needs to be inventoried so the Agency Tender
Team can know how much of what type of equipment and supplies to include
in the Tender.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Inventory GFP during the Preliminary
Planning phase when time is not an issue. This includes identifying GFP
that will remain with the residual governmental organization and any
equipment that may have to be shared between the residual governmental
organization and the service provider.

# PWS DEVELOPMENT

Creating a Performance Work Statement (PWS) can be a challenging and
complex process. However, the basic requirements of any PWS are fairly
simple:

-   Identification of the tasks to be performed.

-   Identification of task workload (the frequency each task is
    performed).

-   Identification of the performance measures against which task
    completion is evaluated.

-   Identification of guidance and/or regulations that provide
    additional direction in performing the tasks.

The first three items are vital in the development of a
performance-based work statement since they quantify "what" needs to be
performed, as opposed to "how" it should be done. The last item provides
additional regulatory or agency guidance that may be needed to fully
understand the scope of the task and task requirements. As such, the
last item is not required for every task, but should be provided when
necessary.

While the PWS Team for Roads, Facilities, and Recreation Site
Maintenance did an excellent job in preparing a performance-based
document, there were several areas that could be improved prior to any
future competitive sourcing studies. These are addressed in the sections
below.

### PWS Tasks

The absolute first step in developing any work statement is to identify
the tasks to be performed. The biggest challenge that had to be overcome
was the fact there were 10 separate districts whose task requirements
varied greatly (e.g., fighting range fires in the east forest fires in
the west; or maintaining water guzzlers in the east vs. supporting
logging operations in the west). However, this was mitigated by the use
of Subject Matter Experts (SME) from each district. The experience and
"corporate memory" of these SMEs was invaluable in identifying common
tasks each district performed as well as tasks that were specific to
their district.

Other issues:

-   None of the districts had a system (automated or manual) for
    tracking tasks, task completion, or task frequency.

-   Most districts did not have written SOPs or other documents to
    assist in task identification.

-   There was little task standardization, due to the varied type of
    equipment used in the districts. This meant the PWS had to identify
    tasks common to all districts as well as exceptions for specific
    districts.

-   The type of equipment to be maintained varied widely between
    districts. This meant the task frequency also varied widely (see
    Paragraph 2, PWS Workload, below).

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Implement a system for identifying and
tracking tasks. Many organizations outside of BLM use an automated
management information system to provide historical information on tasks
and task workload. These systems can usually provide other useful
management information, such as funds, supplies and materials, and hours
expended in accomplishing each task. In addition, automated systems can
provide data to differentiate routine maintenance from repair
requirements, since these actions typically have different resource
requirements. The use of an automated system is a valuable asset, both
in the preliminary planning phase of an A-76 study as well as during the
actual development of the PWS. At a minimum, in the preliminary planning
phase, develop a spreadsheet-based system for each district that
identifies tasks performed, task frequency, and hours expended per task.

### PWS Workload

After a PWS task is identified, the next step is to identify how often
the task is performed. The main challenge in this step was that the
districts did not have a system for tracking tasks or task frequency.
Once again, the SMEs were crucial in providing technical estimates of
workload.

Other issues:

-   There was no system in place for collecting and auditing workload.
    This meant that there was no independent means for establishing
    historical workload. The significant amount of special project work
    and fire assignments made the collection of workload data more
    difficult.

-   The use of volunteer labor was not resolved prior to writing the
    PWS. This meant PWS workload had to be repeatedly revised to remove
    volunteer workload and supervision of volunteer labor.

-   The inclusion of workload for PWS tasks currently being performed by
    contractors. This issue was not resolved until the PWS was almost
    complete. The late decision to allow each district to decide which
    contracts to continue and which to include in the PWS meant last
    minute changes to PWS workload.

-   The "20% task rule" excluded PWS work performed by personnel less
    than 20% of their productive time. This affected the PWS since not
    all workload for PWS tasks would be accounted for in the PWS.

-   There was little management engagement at the local and state level
    for oversight of the workload information and data. Despite two
    field visits and e-mail verifications of the workload data, it was
    not until the MEO reviewed the workload data that errors, omissions,
    and padding became evident.

-   The PWS workload generation did not have definitive sideboards.
    Workload levels appeared to be reported as "should do" instead of
    meeting a realistic level based on past and future budget scenarios.

-   Some Districts purposely omitted workload that should have been
    included in the PWS.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Implement a system for tracking
workload. This can be part of the same system recommended for in
Paragraph 1, PWS Tasks, above. Overestimating or underestimating the
amount of workload has a direct impact on determining the number of
personnel actually required to perform the PWS tasks and must be as
accurate as possible. A budgeting level should be used in guiding the
workload estimates.

The system for tracking workload should also track the time required to
perform the task so that cycle times can be established for each task.
While this is not a PWS requirement, it would be very helpful to the
personnel developing the Agency Tender.

All employees performing PWS tasks (no matter how small) report the
workload so that it can be included in the PWS. The emphasis should be
on the PWS tasks being performed, not the position performing them.

Finally, an independent review of the workload data should be performed
by a management official or team knowledgeable in the activity being
studied at draft and final stage to assure workload integrity.

### PWS Performance Measures

The main difficulty with developing performance evaluation measures was
that there were no consistent performance measures across the districts,
or even within districts. This situation is not unique to the BLM study
-- most Government agencies are not used to formally evaluating task
performance or enforcing a quality control program. However,
quantifiable performance measures are a critical part of any
performance-based work statement, for obvious reasons. Again, the SMEs
were a great resource in developing PWS performance measures that they
felt were realistic and achievable.

The use of decentralized execution is a real advantage across all the
districts. This, coupled with the customer-oriented attitude of most of
the employees we met, meant a lot of good things were getting
accomplished in the districts. However, it appeared that most work was
accomplished based on "knowing what needs to be done" with little
emphasis placed on formally evaluating quality. This lack of a feedback
system could pose problems in monitoring and achieving PWS task
standards.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Developing a Quality Control Plan is
relatively easy. The hard part is actually implementing the plan and
monitoring the quality metrics to ensure PWS standards are being met.
This is where many agencies have difficulties.

Evaluating performance requires a two-step process. First, a system must
be developed for evaluating task performance per PWS standards. This
includes designating who will evaluate performance and developing a
process for reporting the results. Second, an overall quality
improvement process must be developed to monitor overall task
performance against PWS standards. This includes designating an
individual(s) who will identify trends as well as investigate the causes
for sub-par performance and recommend corrective measures. The bottom
line is that a qualified individual must be responsible for monitoring
compliance with PWS standards.

### Performance-based Contract

The inability to specifically tie down workload and standards made it
extremely difficult to create a performance-based contract. When
standards were not available, "as directed by the authorized
representative" was placed in the PWS. Not until the Contracting
Officers review, was it determined that the PWS was written as a
personal services contract and was unacceptable to the Government. A
change in Contracting Officers during the review and acceptance phase
further complicated and delayed the PWS.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Full understanding between the
contractor providing support and Contracting Officer on what constitutes
a performance-based contract would have prevented the delay and re-write
of the PWS.

# MEO DEVELOPMENT

### Starting Inventory

The solicitation, PWS, and A-76 rules require that a valid response
(industry bid or Agency Tender) must include the cost of all labor
associated with the function under study. The MEO Team began their
analysis with an inventory of positions that did not include everyone
who was impacted by the maintenance functions being studied. Management,
supervisory, and critical support staff were excluded from the starting
inventory given to the MEO team. As a result, considerable extra time
and effort was spent identifying the deficiencies and correcting the
inventory. An accurate starting inventory is important because it is the
basis for the public announcement of what is to be studied; it is the
basis for determining any savings resulting from the study; and
personnel impacted by the study (included in the inventory) need to be
notified.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** A complete business unit for a
starting inventory is extremely critical. Adhere to OMB A-76 guidance to
define a complete business unit of positions and functions for study in
order to ensure optimal MEO results and for an efficient MEO development
process. The concept of a well-defined business unit as the basis for
the study is also addressed in paragraph 1.3. This should take place
during preliminary planning in order to avoid problems like those
encountered by the MEO Team.

### Study Sizing Strategy

If the organization being studied is too large, too diverse, or too
dispersed, MEO designers are faced with extremely difficult and possibly
intractable MEO design decisions. The determining factors for a
successful study of large organizations and multiple functions are not
whether vendors exist with the capability and reach to perform functions
or whether it makes sense to expect to find efficiencies of scale across
the entire organization. The determining factors for a successful study
lie within the organization itself. These internal determining factors
include:

-   Can the existing organization culture adjust to thinking of itself
    as a more integrated [entity?]{.underline}

-   Can the diversity of the functional and management structures as
    well as policies and geographical differences be integrated as
    required by the PWS?

-   Can the lack of integrated and adaptive planning be compensated for
    by automation or by imposing a planning integration?

-   Can the organization rise to the challenge of a massive
    reorganization, redesign, and implementation effort?

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** Studies should be sized to recognize
cultural differences across the organization, diversity in operational
practices, capability to achieve the economies of scale that are desired
and experience with and commitment to change (automation adoption
experience, understanding and skill in using procedural and operational
change mechanisms, ability and willingness of management to encourage,
motivate, and promote change across the organization). These
considerations must be weighed for the study size being recommended.
Based on the reasons mentioned above, the recommendation of the support
contractor to consolidate the streamlined, express, and standard studies
originally envisioned into a single standard study may not have been the
best approach.

### Management of MEO Design

MEO design must be managed at each step to ensure timely and successful
development. This management requires facilitation, collaboration, and
continuous communication. Strong facilitation of the MEO Team by the
support contractor is necessary. Mere support contractor collaboration
and willingness to assist is not adequate. MEO Teams are composed of
persons usually familiar with and assigned to the organization under
study. They tend to reflect the agendas and desires of their managers
for study outcomes and can tend to remain in denial of the notion that
serious organizational change is needed or even desired. Strong
facilitation is needed to ensure early buy-in by the MEO Team and
development of a commitment to success. Much collaboration is usually
needed across the organization but especially with managers who can
influence the level of buy-in and commitment of the MEO Team members.
Communications often break down with other key stakeholders including
union representatives, human resource managers, and others.

**[Lesson Leaned:]{.underline}** Begin every study with strong
facilitation aimed at early buy-in and commitment to success by the MEO
Team. Collaborate often with affected managers. Generally, this should
be in the format of one-to-one meetings by MEO Team Leads with all
managers affected as often as required. No MEO design features should be
taken for granted but should be vetted as much and as often as necessary
with key managers. Feedback should be integrated by the support
contractor and indexed back to final MEO design features. These concepts
must then be documented in the appropriate plan (Technical Performance
Plan, Quality Control Plan, and Transition Plan).

MEO Team membership was heavily weighted toward subject matter experts.
More management officials would have been helpful when considering the
organizational impacts. The resulting MEO organization bore a strong
resemblance to the originally existing organization. A different balance
on the team may have resulted in a more innovative MEO.

### Technical Performance Planning

The TPP is the operational tool to get the MEO into action. The tendency
is to delay development of the Technical Performance Plan (TPP) until it
is too late to produce a fully viable operational tool. If it is not
begun early enough in the study, the MEO Team will let the support
contractor develop the TPP without their full involvement in the TPP
development process. The TPP is the single most critical document for
assuring a successful MEO.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** The TPP planning effort should begin
early in the MEO design and development stages. Linkages between design
features and future implementation mechanisms often surface early in the
design phase. The TPP must provide specific steps to achieve
organizational synchronization in all aspects of the new MEO (structure,
procedures operational policy, and planning).

### Control of Quality in MEO Operations

The Quality Control Plan (QCP) is the plan that will allow the MEO
manager to assess how well the MEO is measuring up to PWS and internal
MEO performance standards and how to take action if a function is not
meeting the standard. In preparing the QCP, the tendency was to provide
too much detail on how to measure every PWS task. This view of the QCP
will assure its failure as a quality control device due to the sheer
volume of work to be performed. Instead, the QCP must address how
quality of performance is to be measured and specify only those PWS
areas of critical importance. Also, during development of the QCP, there
was a desire to use it as a quality assurance tool and view it from the
Government's perspective as an inspection document. .

**[Lessons Learned:]{.underline}** The QCP must be understood by all
stakeholders to be the tool of the MEO manager, not the Residual
Organization or the Government. The QCP must be developed to sample in a
uniform and effective way PWS tasks without becoming an impossible
measure of everything at once.

### Transition Planning

The Transition Plan (TP) must address key features and major timelines
while leaving the responsibility for detailed transition planning to the
appropriate Government activity (HR, Contracting, etc,). The tendency is
to forget important transition planning actions while being overly
specific about minor requirements. This results in the TP getting messy
with details without being complete.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** At a minimum the TP should address the
following:

-   Equipment inventory and equipment handoff and control.

-   Facility handoff, key control, and special security issues.

-   Training or new qualifications specified by the MEO

-   Planning for recruitment actions and other staffing issues

-   Special one-time costs.

-   Staff orientation and assembly.

-   Automation and system innovation setup, training, and
    implementation.

### Costing Issues

The diverse and complex nature of the functions being studied and the
required personnel and equipment in this study made it very difficult to
develop accurate costs. It was more time-consuming than expected to
achieve a full accounting for all MEO costs and enter them into COMPARE.
Staffing plans across two agencies (BLM and USFS) and over 10 Districts
are difficult to stabilize and thus require frequent changes. This leads
to costing questions, ambiguities, and unnecessary work. The support
contractor did not fully appreciate this and take it into consideration
when preparing the project schedule and budget.

**[Lesson Learned:]{.underline}** A costing specialist needs to be
available to consult with the MEO Team about identification, capture,
and proper documentation of all costs. It is important for costs to be
captured, but just as important, that costs not be overstated. Doing
both takes skill. Final staffing needs to be locked in before costing
begins; not to do so results in multiple changes as grades, titles, and
numbers are adjusted on the fly. Costing associated with special
programs like the Working Capital Fund must be analyzed as completely as
possible since these integrated programs tend to hide real costs.

# COST COMPARISON

Due to the agency's lack of accurate historical accomplishment and
costing data performing a cost comparison in strict accordance with the
Circular was problematic. The total value of what the various studied
functions cost the agency in past years was not accurately ascertainable
since myriad fund codes were used and overhead and other program work
was at times intermingled and adjusted to meet various needs.

Cost savings could only be demonstrated by analyzing differences in
personnel and equipment costs between the in-place organization at the
time of the studies initiation and the organization proposed by the MEO.
Equipment costs were also reduced due to downward changes in the Working
Capital Fund rate charged the agency.

Special projects which would be initiated by the agency on an
indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity basis were better subject to
analysis since historical pricing was available to establish fully
loaded equipment rates to be used as a starting point for future task
order pricing.

Cost comparison between the private sector and MEO was not performed as
no private sector offers were received.

# PROCUREMENT PROCESS 

The procurement process was complicated by the unique nature of such a
large, full, A-76 study and the fact that no in-house experience
existed. The time and energy that went into studying and understanding
the process was felt, by some, to be too extensive to be effectively
performed by an existing organization as an additional assigned duty.

[**Lesson Learned:**]{.underline} The use of knowledgeable procurement
specialists would be a valuable asset, especially in the early planning
stages, to provide timely planning input and guidance to better assure
good up front decision making and the timely delivery of products like
the PWS.

The implementation of Revisions to the A-76 Circular complicated the
process by changing such things as rights of employees and GAO's
involvement in the handling of protests. This created uncertainty and
confusion in interpreting the regulations or deciding which elements of
a regulation to follow.

Some activities such as proposal evaluation and negotiation which are
regular activities carried out by the procurement function proceeded in
a timely and efficient manner.