NAATS PWS Updates
(Jerry VanVacter, Tim DeGrazio & Mark Jaffe)

6/5/03

A-76 Briefing from FTW and new author!

Hi All,

This briefing was written by Angie Danner from FTW AFSS, she put it together on her own and I think she did an outstanding job. There were just a few things I added or edited just for clarification, it is good to sometimes get a fresh perspective on an issue. I'm sure you are all sick and tired of my updates and writing styles!!! Thanks Angie for not only the update but for also participating in the workshop, Southwest Region has a fine group of people working in our option. Also, thanks to Southwest Regional Director Mark Jaffe for his willingness to take over the PWS lead and his charming Texas hospitality.

Kate Breen

June 5, 2003

Brief from A-76 PWS Meeting, FTW AFSS

This meeting was part of the Functional Scoping Portion of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The intent of the meeting was to ensure that the PWS work group is completely informed as to all the functions and services provided by AFSS�s/IAFSS�S. The PWS work group was primarily concerned with unique functions/services that may be accomplished at any one AFSS/IAFSS. However, the entire dictionary (I�ll elaborate further later on this) was covered. A couple examples of unique functions/services include FTW AFSS�s use of ITWS, SJT as a hub facility for a NFCT, DRI, CXO and SJT provide transborder information to pilots.

The PWS Teams have previously visited New England Region, Bangor, Maine; the Southern Region, Miami, Florida; Central Region, St. Louis, Missouri; and Western Pacific Region, Hawthorn, California. A second PWS Team visited the Great Lakes Region, Lansing Michigan 6-3 through 6-5. Future visits include the Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington 6-10 through 6-12 and the Eastern Region, Leesburg, Virginia 6-10 through 6-12.

The PWS Team provided the group with a copy of an "AFSS Activity Dictionary". (This is the term that is being used for the spreadsheet). The dictionary listed each product/service (not necessarily positions); key activities provided by each product/service, activity definitions etc. This is a very large document and your A-76 representative should have a copy if you�d like to view it. A complete updated copy of this dictionary will not be available until late June.

The PWS Team led the group through the dictionary line-by-line gathering input from each facility. In addition to journeymen input, additional input was solicited from the FSDPS, Administrative Personnel, Quality Assurance and Training (Support Specialist).

We then went through an equipment list, matching this to the products/services provided.

With the products/services listed, we then determined what external factors increased the workload of each. A handful of external factors were listed and a "given" for each product/service, i.e. weather, national security, holidays, pilot experience, special events, etc.

Next, we examined each product/service and determined a quantitive measure for each. Such as; product/service of Search and Rescue, could include number of airports called, QALQ�s, INREQ�s and ALNOT�s issued.

Utilizing the products/services, we listed potential sources, frequency, how tracked. (There was a little more involved with this exercise but my notes here are incomplete. That�s an excuse for I can�t read my writing).

Let me outline the actual A-76 process in terms we can all understand. We all may understand some or all of the process, but I�ll go into some detail. The following is by no means a complete step-by-step explanation of the process but I�m sure the information will be helpful to many people. I was assisted in the accuracy of the following information by James Sizemore and Eric Heffernan. Thank you gentlemen.

The PWS Team is currently in the Functional Scoping Process. This involves visiting the facilities to determine what we actually do.

This functional scooping information will be submitted to AAT-1, who will determine the scope of services to be competed for and those services that will be considered a "continued government activity".

The next step is data collection. The PWS team will solicit specifics for contract from AFSS�s. Previous information obtained was primarily concerned with what we actually do. This process involves quantity and quality of our current workload.

Three PWS drafts will be released. The 1st one is for internal team review. The 2nd draft will be another internal review. The 3rd draft is included in the final acquisition of services and released to the public for bid.

In the meantime (already in progress), a separate MEO FAA core team (Donna Holmes, Dave Hoover for NAATS and Bob McMullin, Lauren Grace for the agency), will formulate a proposed offer (MEO) to be submitted along with the vendors proposals.

The proposals, including the MEO proposal, will be evaluated and contract awarded by AAR-2, Source Selection. One note on this subject: Apparently in the past the vendors competed against each other. The "selected" vendor from this group would then compete against the MEO proposal. This is no longer true. The MEO proposal competes along with all the vendor proposals.

NOTES:
At various times throughout the process, the FAA Management Representatives and NAATS Union Representatives will be omitted from the process. This is to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

The contract will not necessarily be awarded to the lowest bidder. Cost Technical Trade Off -- cost is only one element in the evaluation process.

Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) will be made available to vendors but their use is not mandatory.

There are other AFSS A-76 processes currently being conducted with reference to equipment, maintenance, as is cost, etc.

Review of proposals submitted will be done by a team of former Subject Matter Experts (SME�s), acquisition experts and qualified individuals. The point is, this review will be conducted by individuals who have considerable knowledge of FSS operations and functions.

Proposals will be evaluated, prior to the awarding of the contract as to the validity of their approaches.

Any employee compensation package, buy-out, transfers etc. will not even be addressed as the process unfolds.

Let me address the "flow of information" from the union. The actual A-76 process is public information. However, once the MEO group meets, these proceedings are not public information. These individuals have signed non-disclosure statements. You can ask a millions times, What�s the structure of the MEO�s proposal? How many journeymen are they asking for? What locations are they considering? What pay are they proposing? There are a million questions we all want to know. But this information cannot legally be released until all proposals have been submitted. I don�t like it, you don�t like it, makes us wonder what�s going on that�s got to be kept a secret. Sorry folks, that�s the nature of the beast.
 

03/31/03

A76 - PWS Briefing

The Performance Work Statement (PWS) Team Kick-off Meeting was held last week in Alexandria, VA. The purpose was to provide the team with information regarding the upcoming process and to start working on a common model of Flight Service functionalities.

Union representatives on the team are Jerry VanVacter, Central Regional Coordinator, FOD AFSS; Tim DeGrazio, FSOSC Liaison, MIA AIFSS; and Dave Hoover, Southern Regional Director, GNV AFSS.

FAA management representatives were Steve Hopkins, FAA Team Lead; Humberto Garcia (UG), Southwest Regional 510, FTW; Ed Castagna, ATM PNM AFSS; Bill Moriarty, Supervisor, BGR AFSS.

Unfortunately, every team member was required to sign a Non-Disclosure Statement. However, given the scope of activities anticipated to be performed by the PWS Team, the free flow of specific information from the team, in my opinion, has little impact on our effectiveness. However, the free flow of information coming from the field Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) is critical to a successful statement of work.

Well, what will the PWS provide to the A76 process? Basically, it details three elements:

1.  What services are we asking the Most Efficient Organization (MEO) or Vendor to provide? A very specific Requirements Document. That is not to say that everything that we currently do will be included in the PWS. Some additional functionalities can be declared as �Inherently Governmental� while others may not become a requirement of future services. Those decisions are somewhere else along the A76 timeline. It is important for the PWS Team to capture ALL activities from the standpoint of �What� it is that we do.

2. How many times do we perform a function? Workload or the intended level of effort.

3. How well or to what level must the activity be performed -- Performance Level?

What we will not be providing to the MEO or Vendors is the �How to� specific work processes or equipment necessary to accomplish the effort (i.e. M1FC, OASIS, WSI, do this then this, stuff).

It is important to understand that the PWS Team will be engaged in fact finding, validating data, and documenting detailed information necessary for a comprehensive solicitation of bids from the MEO and interested vendors. There is no negotiating or bargaining on behalf of the Union in this process. It is not management against the Union. There are no contract articles to protect.

Our effectiveness in developing a complete and comprehensive Performance Work Statement is largely dependant on your contributions in the field facilities and not the members of the PWS Team. Each facility will need to be deliberate in selecting their most effective representative.

The Union will have one bargaining unit employee from each facility representing operations. Supervisors, staff and management have not been afforded the same opportunity. Ms Marilyn Jackson-Brame, Jack Nimmo and Joann Kansier, top management unsupport, didn�t feel we needed to spend the money to include Subject Matter Experts from every phase of Flight Service. It was because of the efforts and support of our PWS �ground level� management team members, Ed, Bill and UG that an operational bargaining unit member from each facility will attend every regional workshop event. We are lucky and grateful to have them working with us as team members.

This is not a process in which emotional reactions are effective. To the Contrary, everyone on our team, to the field facility SMEs, to every management and FPL providing input must be methodically focused to ensure that we capture the very essence of Flight Service.

As you may have guessed, the actual schedule of PWS events is not available, however, it is anticipated that it could take as much as 2 years to complete. When the clock begins is, also, somewhat of a mystery.

Regional workshops have tentatively been targeted to occur at Bangor, Miami, St. Louis, Hawthorne, Fort Worth, Lansing, Seattle and Leesburg. Much coordination and logistical issues are necessary before the final determination will be made.

Nonetheless, it is essential that every facility begin compiling and organizing those activities that they believe are unusual; particularly complex or different than those done elsewhere in Flight Service. The A76 process may impact agreements and working relationships with other agencies, governments and non-governmental groups. It is important to ensure a comprehensive overview of your facility. The PWS Team will capture as many common activities during the process, in order to keep from duplicating efforts.

The PWS Team will provide official guidance within a few weeks regarding the Regional Workshops. That�s some real limp information, I know and I apologize, but we can�t provide any details until the legal folks review all correspondence from the PWS team members for content.

Thank you in advance for the extraordinary effort upon which you and your facility are about to engage. Tim, Jerry and I look forward to assisting you in anyway that we can.

If you ain�t Union, you�re Vendor material!

Jerry, Tim and Dave