Managing GIG Operations
Written by Peter Buxbaum
MIT 2011 Volume:15 Issue: 3 (April)
As the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) works to complete the $4.6 billion Global Information Grid Services Management-Operations (GSM-O) contract, industry observers are debating whether the new program should focus on transformation, efficiency, or a little bit of both. GSM-O is the successor to the DISN Global Solutions (DGS) and the earlier DISN Services Support-Global (DSS-G) contracts, both of which were awarded to Science Applications International Corporation. SAIC has been the incumbent prime contractor on DGS and DSS-G for the past 17 years. The GSM program represents DISA’s strategy to continue support of the Defense Information System Network (DISN).
The transformation versus efficiency question involves, in part, how one perceives GSM-O. Is it merely a re-compete of DGS? Or does it take some new approaches? Does GSM-O heavily favor the incumbent, or will it entertain creative suggestions from new players? Does the request for proposals emphasize costcutting approaches over technological innovation?
For an observer like Ted Manakas, who once ran the capture of the DGS program at SAIC and now works at AT&T, GSM-O promises to be a transformational program. DeEtte Gray, vice president of enterprise IT solutions at Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions, a prospective bidder for the GSM-O contract, says the program is appropriately balanced between innovation and efficiency.
SAIC and Lockheed Martin are believed to be the only two companies that will be bidding for the GSM-O contract. Bids were due at the end of March, and an award is expected this summer. Both SAIC and DISA declined to be interviewed for this article.
Manakas pointed to the DISA Campaign Plan released last year, as a program that promised transformational capabilities on behalf of the warfighter. That document includes statements such as, “We will establish the building blocks and tenets necessary to innovatively develop and deliver the systems, capabilities, and services required for warfighters to operate in the dynamic environment supported by our lines of operation,” as well as that DISA will “enable information dominance by focusing on innovation and technical excellence.”
To be sure, the document does not ignore the issue of efficiency, for example including a commitment to “operationalize and optimize funding and cost recovery strategies for DISA-provided capabilities and services to ensure they properly incentivize enterprise behavior and achieve expected efficiencies.”
Whither the GIG?
With a total projected value of $4.6 billion, and with each task order worth up to $300 million on the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, seven-year contract, GSM-O provides fertile ground for discerning where DISA is taking the Global Information Grid (GIG). As the request for proposal (RFP) puts it, “The GSM Operations contract will provide the support services necessary to carry out the day-to-day operations of Global Information Grid networks and related services and to sustain the existing network and subsequent technology enhancements.”
“GSM-O will enable DISA to move from managing stovepipe computers and networks to an organization delivering a total enterprise infrastructure through which the warfighter can get any information he wants, anytime, anywhere, in near real-time to make the right decisions” said Manakas.
At the same time, according to Manakas, “The RFP emphasizes the risks associated with contractor transition and the potential for network failure. While both are legitimate concerns, transition risk can be reduced significantly when you have transition professionals on the job who have been there and done that with proven processes, tools, understanding of the domain and lessons learned. The potential for network disruption doesn’t lean in favor of incumbency. Network events can and do happen. It’s how you manage them that makes the difference, and bringing a world-class capability that delivers five nines of reliability certainly should make DISA and DoD leaders breathe easier.”
“The RFP is consistent with the 2010 campaign plan,” said Gray. “DISA is looking for both efficiencies and innovation and they have mentioned both consistently throughout the process.”
An examination of DISA statements and documents on GSM-O yields a mixed bag that mentions innovation but appears to emphasize efficiencies. At a briefing to industry in June 2010, Drew Jaehnig, chief of DISA’s IT Service Management Office, noted that GSM’s “focus is on process improvement, transparency and standardization,” with “faster delivery of service with higher quality at lower costs” and “standardized service offerings.”
DISA will also be looking to leverage process improvements through contract awards, Jaehnig added. “Contractors will be asked to make improvements” and “establish new processes,” he said.
At the same briefing, James Travis, DISA program manager for GSM, stated that “GSM enterprise level objectives” include “replacing DGS service capabilities with equal or better capabilities, aligning GSM requirements and capabilities based on risk analysis and mitigation, support DoD and DISA objectives and plans for future technical integration of networking capabilities, and obtain better efficiency in use of funds for services.”
GSM-O objectives, according to Travis, include, “mitigating the risks of transition period through planning and execution and focusing on a shift to performance-based practices.”
Performance-based services, for Travis, are characterized as being “outcomes oriented rather than inputs oriented” and “focusing on what-to-do and not how-to-do.” A performance-based approach “may use a fixed price contract structure when historical data supports that type of pricing,” Travis noted, “otherwise some type of cost-plus pricing.”
But time and materials contracting will be out under GSM-O. “That is inputs oriented,” said Travis. The performance based approach also “uses measurable standards to determine when performance is satisfactory.”
Performance Contracting
The switch to performance-based contracting, and especially a fixed-price approach, “is a major change in the way DISA operates,” according to Lockheed Martin’s Gray. “When they move to performance-based contracting, the government is asking to buy a service rather than a skill mix. The contractor is bound to deliver a specified level of service at a given price versus providing a certain number of people that possess a certain skillset type of mix.”
Gray welcomed DISA’s new contracting approach, as Lockheed Martin has enjoyed success working under several performancebased government contracts with specified service level agreements. “We are excited about bringing our experience with other customers in performance-based environments to this contract,” she said. “We do this very well and have been successful. Our experience has been that performance-based contracting is a great opportunity for DoD to improve service to the warfighter.”
Lockheed Martin has managed the Pentagon’s networks for the last nine years as part of a performance-based relationship. “Through that relationship we have developed tools and practices for network management,” said Gray. “These tools react when there is even a slight deterioration in network performance so that we don’t always need human intervention. We are able to fix network issues before we get to the point where service goes down.”
Performance-based contracts presumably support innovation because they allow the contractor to implement its own approaches to managing systems and solving problems, provided those meet the contract’s performance criteria, without having to follow a government-generated plan. But Gray sees this method of contracting as a major efficiency tool as well.
“When we bring best practices to the network, we are able to manage it more efficiently and cost-effectively,” said Gray. “The most expensive part of time and materials contract is people. Any time you can introduce efficiencies or technology to augment the staff and improve upon manual processes, you can better operate your IT infrastructure and save a great deal of money.”
Another aspect of the GSM-O contract that sheds some doubt on its orientation toward innovation was addressed by Travis, at his briefing, when he said that the “GSM-O contractor shall support installed DISN infrastructure as-is, where-is” and “not use its own infrastructure.”
To analysts, that appears to mean that any cloud computing solutions, together with the innovations and efficiencies they could provide, will not be acceptable under GSM-O. Of course, there are security reasons why some military networks cannot be run on commercial infrastructures. But Travis went on to say that the contractor must also “use the government’s operational support and configuration management systems” and “not use its own OSS and tools.” ♦
