High Level Approach Prior to 21 Nov

Continuing on my theme of using this forum to keep the team aligned, today I’m pasting in a single page I wrote for Deputy PEO to describe approach we’d charted.

For those who’ve been reading since Day 1, you won’t find much new here.

Still, I think it’s useful to share here so everyone gets the same message all they way up and down the line.

*******************************************************

High Level CG-LIMS Strategy Prior to 21 Nov 2008

CG-LIMS was chartered as a Project by Chief of Staff on 11/16/2007.

CG-LIMS was identified as an enterprise system by CG-6 on 11/7/2007.  CG-6 specified that OSC would be the System Development Agent (SDA) and System Support Agent (SSA).

The staffs in CG-4, 6, 9, and OSC developed a strategy to complete a six month transition of hardware, software, and development knowledge from ICGS to OSC.

Contractual approach was to modify the ICGS CLIN used for LIMS development (CLIN 12CA) and a modify OSC SETS II contract to add sub-CLIN CF for CG-LIMS.

Strategy approved by CG-9 via decision memo dated 12/4/2007.  “Contract for CG-LIMS development at OSC a sub-CLINs under OSC’s SETS II contract, ensuring governance as described above.”

The MS 1 brief had an aggressive timeline, calling for ORD to be completed 1QFY09 and Implementation beginning Oct 2009.

Drafted Acquisition  Plan specific to CG-LIMS.  Section C3, Acquisition Considerations, pointed to use of competitively awarded SETS contracts in place at ARSC and OSC initially.  It also said the COTS software market research and analysis would be done by SDA.

Our expectation was that as the SETS contracts at OSC and ARSC we re-competed, the CG-LIMS work would be one of the many systems covered by that contract.

Based on OSC KO recommendation, on 9/9/08, Ms. Williams of CG-9124 decided existing SETS II AP was sufficient to cover the CG-LIMS sub-CLIN, so work on separate AP ceased.  CG-LIMS was included with the rest of OSC’s submission to receive DHS CIO approval for IT expenditures over 2.5M.

PORD was singed by Sponsor’s Rep in September.  Those requirements became input to SDA to conduct analysis and recommend COTS tool(s) to meet requirements.

ARSC’s ALMIS SETS contract modified on 9/22/08 to add FTE knowledgeable in portions of ALMIS that would be replaced and integrated with Increment 1 work.

PORD level of detail was sufficient to choose a COTS tool, and would then support rapid maturation of requirements into an ORD and planning to support MS 2 decision.

OSC developed a detailed IMS that called for analysis to select tools in November, and to gain approval and procure development licenses in December following the same process used for other systems developed on SETS II vehicle.

Our strategy:
– was responsive to CIO’s decision to use OSC as SDA
– was responsive to CAO’s decision to leverage SETS II contract vehicle
– was executable to support aggressive Sponsor’s timeframe
– represented an investment in OSC as a Center of Excellence
– relied on OSC’s processes or provided opportunities to improve them together
– leveraged OSC and ARSC institutional knowledge of legacy systems that would be replaced by or integrated with CG-LIMS.

Talking Points

I know it’s been a couple days since my last daily update.  I haven’t given up on this forum, but my days have been two-blocked lately as we try to put together a new strategy.  I’m going to pick the thread back up and make sure I’ve captured the history up to Nov 21.  I still have 11 topics to go just to catch us up on the history, and I have a growing list of other topics I want to share related to CG-LIMS.

Today, though, is going to be a bit of a cop out.  From the first post I said one of the pursposes was to keep the team informed and aligned.  Today’s post will share a page of talking points I wrote for the PEO on Nov 22nd.  I’ve deleted a few things that don’t belong in this forum, but otherwise, it’s a simple cut and paste from the one page MS Word doc I sent that Saturday Nov 22..

*******************************************************

CG-LIMS Talking Points for PEO

SETS contractor competitively selected FGM as sub and consulted with CG-442 and I in process. Government has had appropriate involvement in defining requirements, developing selection criteria, and monitoring progress.

Stakeholders from CG-4, CG-8, CG-6, CG-1, OSC, ALC, and PTC Yorktown were part of the evaluation process, particularly past two weeks.

Stopping work now has already cost project irrecoverable time.  Good people we’ve invested in since March on contractor side will be looking for stable work

Prior to work being stopped Friday, effort was consistent with documented and briefed plan.  We had been doing what we said we’d do.

Critical decisions / briefings / documents:

Decision to use OSC as SDA and use SETS II contract vehicle.  CIO designated OSC as SDA and SSA via memo 11 Nov 07, effectively making them the system integrator.  CG-9 signed decision memo 4 Dec 2007 approving development of CG-LIMS at OSC as a sub-CLIN on existing competitively awarded SETS II contract.

CG-9124 Approved use of SETS II Acquisition Plan as CG-LIMS Acq Plan.  I prepared standalone AP, but OSC KO thought existing SETS II AP sufficient.  We discussed, consulted with CG-9124, and received decision 9/9/2008 to use SETS II AP.

Aggressive Schedule.  MS 1 brief called for first increment to begin implementation Q1 FY 10.  Only way to achieve this is by continuing to leverage existing SETS II vehicle.

Quarterly Program Review.  Conducted 8/28/2008 at OSC.  CG-6, CG-6d, CG-93, CG-442, others attended.  CG-4 invited.  Briefed current plan and specifically use of OSC processes to select software in November, procure in December using SETS II vehicle.

PORD signed by CG-4 7 Oct. Defines requirements for first increment of CG-LIMS to replace ACMS subsystem of ALMIS with IOC of 2QFY10.

PMP shared with stakeholders, signed by me 10/30, in routing.  Calls for COTS Software Selection 1QFY09, MS 2 decision 2QFY09.

OSC’s IMS called for COTS selection in November, procurement in December.  Schedule has been shared with stakeholders including Sponsor’s Rep.

OSC Process includes appropriate approvals.  Software is procured only after approval by ATRB.  All three products now being considered are already in DHS TRM and will be implemented using OSC’s existing Service Oriented Architecture.

<remainder deleted>

Additional unsolicited input provided in Page 2

Considerations for Sponsor before changing acquisition strategy

I’m ultimately going to execute to meet the Sponsor’s requirements and timeline, but before changing direction, I’d ask him to consider the following:

FGM’s evaluation / recommendation will not be done, so hard work of over 20 CG employees & support contractors will have been wasted.

Stop work will very quickly lead to employee termination, eliminating the investment I have made in them over past 11 months.  These were the people who were on the receiving end of the knowledge transfer from ICGS.

Months of requirements work before government RFP.  The requirements in PORD are sufficient for OSC to begin work that will lead to an ORD prior to MS 2 decision.  They are *not* sufficient as basis for a government RFP.

Going through government source selection rather than using existing vehicle is going to add at least a year to the schedule, which will lead to:

• increased cost of maintaining legacy systems
• <remainder deleted>