IT INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT COUNCIL Policy Subcommittee

1. IT INDUSTRY GOVERNMENT COUNCILPolicy Subcommittee Ron Segal, Industry Chair Cheryl Thornton, GSA Chair August 17, 2009

2. Policy SubcommitteeAgenda • Discussion Issues • Last Option Year issues - Relief needed now • LOS without OEM Authorization now permitted (Refresh 23) • GSA CO’s and Vendors need guidance • Some Agencies trying to circumvent SW Maintenance as a Product rules • Recommendations • SCA exemption clauses (52.222-51 and 52.222-53) – need clarification • IT Labor Category Requirements - need clarification • NAICS Codes Designations - Do by contract, not SIN • SW Maintenance SIN designations – Please Reconsider • Coverage for Emerging Technologies and Service Delivery approaches • Sample rewrite of SIN 132-51description to include Cloud computing et al • Comments • GSA Communications - Greatly improved, but Industry would like even better • CO Desktop Guide Status = ? Perception that it is urgently needed • Unpriced Schedule/SINs

3. Last Option Year issues • Many vendors are well into their last 5 year option period. • They are currently precluded from responding to BPA’s and other GSA based RFPs whose period of performance exceeds their schedule expiration date. • They need something from GSA to permit them to respond/compete. (E.g., language stating that, for vendors in good standing, it is GSA’s intent to negotiate a successor schedule of at least X years that will maintain continuity and allow the automatic transfer of all GSA-based BPAs and other contracts.) • This is an urgent problem- RFPs are on the street today that many GSA Vendors can’t respond to. • Issue under study by Acquisition Management. • Speeding up award of next contract won’t help, problem occurs well before expiration date • Possible suggested fix - Ruling that awards made while current schedule in place can be carried to completion (may not be legal) • Potential related problem: GSA based BPA’s may also have to be transitioned and/or terminated (including ESI, SmartBuy, etc.)

4. LOS without OEM Authorization(as of Refresh 23) • Refresh 23 explicitly permits Letters of Supply from other than OEMs, but gives little guideance on implementation • How do COs negotiate without CSPs from the OEM if the Reseller and/or supplier has no substantial commercial business? • What if the CO doesn’t have access to the OEM’s discount policies to its direct dealers. • What if the OEM has a dealer certification program and refuses to support these uncertified dealers? • Major dilemma: One proposed approach would be to mandate that supplier needs permission from OEM to issue LOS and, if necessary, OEM would forward CSP to GSA. Problem with this approach is that the rule was implemented because of the perception that some OEMs were limiting competition by restricting LOS’s. • Needs further discussion. A strong candidate for explicit guidance to both Vendors and GSA COs (e.g., desktop guide).

5. Some Agencies Trying to Circumvent SW Maintenance as a Product RulesE.G.,e-Buy 8/13/09 – DOJ RFP

6. Some Agencies Trying to Circumvent SW Maintenance as a Product Rules(Continued) • Can vendor add ODCs to cover administrative and financing costs since this is a deviation from Schedule rules? • Feasibility of vendor submitting two bids? • GSA Action items = ?

7. SCA Exemption Clauses(as of Refresh 23) • Schedule now explicitly specifies exemptions • (52.221-51 and 52.221-53) • Solicitations that are not exempt now fall under the Services Contract Act. • This was intended, legitimate, and necessary. • Clarifying language is needed. • Perhaps also a matrix by SIN showing applicability of SCA (e.g., doesn’t apply to 132-51).

8. IT Labor Category Requirements • Language in current IT solicitation and refresh ambiguous. • Many CO's believe that education and/or years of experience must be written into labor category descriptions. • Many vendors do not have these in their commercial labor categories or other government contracts. • See Draft position paper by Kitty Klaus dated 08-07-09 • Consensus: Specific qualifications like degrees should be not be required, but all category descriptions should be explicit enough to guarantee that the individual has sufficient qualifications to do the assigned job. • Recommendation: Provide guidance to COs.

9. NAICS Codes Designations(as of Refresh 23) • Explicit NAICS codes were added for each SIN in Refresh 23. {Note: None of the codes given include the NAICS code designed explicitly for IT VARs(541519 Computer Related Services, Information Technology Value Added Resellers) which should apply to most SINs}. • This can cause great difficulty in multi-SIN procurements. • No other GWAC does this by SIN or other category; all others do it by contract (e.g., Alliant and Alliant SB). • Recommendation: Drop the individual NAICS code listings by SIN and assign a single NAICS Code to each contract that represents the vendor’s predominant Schedules’ business.

10. SW Maintenance SIN Designations(See Jason Brouillette’s Position Paper) • Definitions of SW Maintenance as a product and SW Maintenance as a service are excellent and should not be changed. • SIN 132-34 is now designated as Professional Services - most line items currently on schedule now meet the product definition and will have to be moved into 132-32 or 132-33 (a few OEMs and others have historically listed them this way.)  • Typical issues: • Many VARs and OEMs will need administrative mods for approximately 50-70% of their SW CLINs • Do Resellers need revised LOSs to move SW Maint from 132-34 to -32 or -33? • Maintenance for Perpetual Licenses (132-33) is sold annually, should it be listed under 132-32? • Reporting and tracking by SIN will change dramatically (both venders to GSA and GSA itself) • Will they also have to mod all BPA’s including SmartBuy, DOD ESI, and many S&L contracts? • Needs discussion. One suggested approach: Permit those vendors (the majority) that so choose to continue to define 132-34 as a product - as long as they do so consistently for all items. Those vendors could move any “software maintenance as a service” items to 132-51.

11. Coverage for Emerging Technologies(and new approaches to service delivery) • Update language of all IT Service SINs (e.g., 132-51, 132-52, 132-53) to cover new technologies as they emerge such as cloud computing, business transformation, and disaster recovery • Explicitly encourage solution based and performance based requirements and delivery offerings tailored to customer needs. • These Services may include elements in other SINs of the vendor’s IT Schedule. • See example for 132-51 – Professional Services

12. Sample Rewrite of SIN 132-51 • Current wording: • 132 51Information Technology Professional Services - SUBJECT TO COOPERATIVE PURCHASING Includes resources and facilities management, database planning and design, systems analysis and design, network services, programming, millennium conversion services, conversion and implementation support, network services project management, data/records management, subscriptions/ publications (electronic media), and other services. • Suggested wording: • 132 51Information Technology Professional Services - SUBJECT TO COOPERATIVE PURCHASING Includes, but not limited to: network, resources and facilities management; database planning and design, systems analysis and design, Cloud Computing, Business Recovery Services, Business Transformation Services, programming, conversion and implementation support, project management, data/records management, and other professional and solution or performance based services.

13. GSA Communications with Vendors • Subcommittee members acknowledged great positive strides from GSA, but still room for improvement: • Examples: Refresh 24 effective as of 6/24, but not yet posted on vendor support center and many vendors have still not been notified of its release. GSA had earlier promised to run draft Refreshes past ITIGC before publication, now have several issues on today’s list that should/could have been flagged and resolved before publication of Refresh 23. • One suggestion: Automatic notification to all vendors each Refresh or similar release of general concern. No action required.

14. CO Desktop Guide Status = ? • Was in progress last two Council meetings. • GSA promised to pass draft copies to ITIGC for review. GSA COs need guidance/ standardization on such issues as: • Properly Defining Labor Category descriptions • Recognizing that mods need to continue while renewals are in negotiation • Negotiating awards when the LOS does not come from the OEM

15. Unpriced Schedule/SINS(also non-schedule components) • Not discussed in subcommittee, but there are industry and government proponents of an “unpriced” schedule. • Subset – More flexibility than current ODCs in proposing solutions (e.g., data repositories or cloud computing) that included components not on schedule.