Strategic Sourcing Tools Analysis Final Report - FINAL - 111209 AF Version

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Be Americas BestWar-Winning Capabilities, on Time, on Cost
Strategic Sourcing Tools and
Implementation Feasibility Analysis

Final Report
November 2009
Strategic Sourcing Tools Analysis
Page 1
Executive Summary
Introduction and Background
Technology Marketplace
Drivers of Cost and Timeline
Next Steps/Follow-on Guidance
Options Available for the AF
Appendix

Contents
Page 2
The Air Force is interested in understanding the technology
available to support its Installation Acquisition Transformation
(IAT) initiative and Strategic Sourcing Model
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Air Force has developed an iterative Strategic Sourcing Model that is currently supported by
various manual process steps
Through the IAT initiative, the Air Force is aiming to better coordinate strategic sourcing efforts
across the 71 installations
An enterprise strategic sourcing group consisting of ~240 acquisition personnel is being
established to centralize the sourcing of common supplies and services across installations
Similarly, major commands within the Air Force are establishing centralized sourcing teams to
help meet specific MAJCOM needs
PROJECT GOAL
Gain a high level understanding of the various Strategic Sourcing technology* vendors
and tools currently available in the marketplace that can support IAT and the Air
Force Strategic Sourcing Model
* Note: Strategic Sourcing technology is often referred to as Spend Management technology in industry
Page 3
Three key takeaways were identified during the project
KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. The end-to-end Air Force Strategic Sourcing Model can not be completely
addressed by technology
2. The Strategic Sourcing technology marketplace is a growing and maturing market
from both a vendor as well as a user perspective
3. The Strategic Sourcing technology vendor market consists of 4 distinct segments
varying by capability depth and customer focus
The key takeaways are explained in further detail on the following slides
Page 4
The Air Force Strategic Sourcing Model was put into a linear format
to show the overlap of industry capabilities
Commodity
Market Intelligence
Identify historical
requirements and process
Review past and present
business arrangements
Current Strategy
Review
Identify qualified suppliers
Understand industry trends
and cost structure
Define requirements
Standardize requirements
Requirements
Definition
Consolidate results and define strategy
Obtain approval for strategy
Sourcing Strategy
Development
Customer
Warfighter
Taxpayer
Rollout/resource strategy
Issue policy and/or
Execute demand
management and/or
Follow acquisition process
Strategy Execution
Monitor internal performance and
compliance
Administer contract (if applicable)
Integrate supplier relationship mgmt
Conduct quality analysis
Performance
Management
Strategic
Sourcing
Team
SB
PMO
Stakeholders
Legal
PEOs
Contracting
Users
QA Reps
CORs
Finance
CE
Proj. Mgr
Buyers
Opportunity
Assessment
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Strategy
Development
Requirements
Definition
Strategy
Execution
Performance
Management
Key Takeaway Functionality and Capabilities
Page 5
KEY TAKEAWAY/FINDING DETAILS IMPLICATIONS TO THE AF
1

The end-to-end Air Force
Strategic Sourcing model
can not be completely
addressed by technology
Supply Market Analysis and Demand
Management/Planning technology components
are not available
The following five functional components are
available from Strategic Sourcing technology
vendors:
o Spend Analysis components - Typically help
organizations collect and analyze historical spend
data
o E-Sourcing components - Typically enable eRFx,
auctions, negotiations, and sourcing optimization
o E-Procurement components - Typically support
the entire procure-to-pay process
o Contract Management components - Typically
support the contract lifecycle from creation to
close-out
o Supplier Management components Typically
support all aspects of supplier relationships from
on-boarding to performance management and
reporting
The Air Force will not be
able to purchase tools for
Supply Market Analysis or
Demand Management and
Planning, rather, it will
have to rely on higher level
analysis and synthesis
conducted off tool
The Air Force will want to
prioritize its requirements
and needs and decide
which Strategic Sourcing
functional components it
wants to implement to
support its sourcing model
KEY TAKEAWAYS FUNCTIONALITY AND CAPABILITIES
Strategic Sourcing functional components available through
technology vendors can support most of the Air Force
Strategic Sourcing Model
Page 6
AIR FORCE STRATEGIC SOURCING MODEL
Opportunity
Assessment
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Strategy
Development
Requirements
Definition
Strategy
Execution
Performance
Management
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Management
Supplier
Management
Demand
Management/Planning
Supply Market
Analysis
Strategic Sourcing Functional Components provided by Technology
Vendors
Not Available through Technology Vendors
There are no Strategic Sourcing technology tools that cover the end-to-end AF Strategic Sourcing Model, as no
functional components are available to fully support Supply Market Analysis and Demand Management/Planning
Key Takeaway Strategic Sourcing Market Growth
Page 7
2
The Strategic Sourcing
technology
marketplace is a
growing and maturing
market from both a
vendor as well as a
user perspective
The market is expected to realize a 10%
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
through 2012
There is a growing emphasis from
vendors on adding additional basic
levels of analytics and reporting
capabilities
A number of organizations are changing
the way they are adopting and
enhancing their use of Strategic
Sourcing tools
The Air Force should
understand the market
trends to ensure their
path forward is in line
with market best
practices
KEY TAKEAWAY STRATEGIC SOURCING MARKET GROWTH
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
$5.0B
2007
$2.7B
2008
$3.0B
2009
$3.3B
2010
(EST)
$3.6B
2011
(EST)
$3.9B
2012
(EST)
$4.3B
Page 8
The Strategic Sourcing technology marketplace is a growing
and evolving market
GENERAL MARKET TRENDS
Steady overall market growth: The
overall market is expected to grow at a
10% Compound Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) through 2012
Strong viability amongst medium to
larger vendors: Medium to larger
vendors have strong financial positions
and their viability is currently not a
concern
Limited consolidation activity:
Consolidation in the market has been
limited in the past 24 months, but is
expected to heat up in the 4
th
quarter of
2009 and 1
st
half of 2010

STRATEGIC SOURCING MARKET REVENUE
(2007-2012 EST)
Source: AMR Research, 2008
Key Takeaways Vendor Landscape
Page 9
KEY TAKEAWAY/FINDING DETAILS
IMPLICATIONS TO THE
AF
3 The Strategic Sourcing
technology vendor market
consists of 4 distinct
segments varying by
capability depth and
customer focus
Segments that typically provide commercially-focused capabilities:
1. Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors (9 identified vendors)
Provide a broad range of functionality in a single integrated package
Many vendors do not have significant Federal experience; however, vendors
are placing a heavy emphasis on moving into the Federal space and are
considering providing Federally-focused capabilities within their tools
2. Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors (57 identified vendors)
Provide overall solution depth in targeted areas
CANNOT cover the entire AF strategic sourcing model
Segment that provides both commercially-focused and Federally-
focused capabilities:
3. ERP Vendors (3 identified vendors)
Have commercial and federal experience and provide broad coverage
Two vendors SAP and Oracle can provide both commercially-focused
and Federally-focused solutions
There are significant functional depth variations within their capabilities
Segment that provides Federally-focused capabilities:
4. Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendors (3 identified vendors)
Have tailored solutions that may cover some AF-specific contracting
processes well
Generally do not provide a full range of capabilities compared to
commercially-focused vendors; however, vendors are beginning to build out
their capabilities, specifically within analytics and reporting
When choosing a Strategic
Sourcing technology
vendor, the Air Force will
want to deliberately decide
between:
o Vendors who provide
commercially-focused
capabilities and/or
Federally-focused
capabilities
o Vendors who provide a full
suite of functional
components or a set of
point solutions

KEY TAKEAWAYS VENDOR LANDSCAPE
Page 10
To provide the defined functionality, the Strategic Sourcing
technology vendor market consists of four distinct segments
STRATEGIC
SOURCING FULL
SUITE VENDORS
Definition: Vendors who
provide a full suite of
Strategic Sourcing
functionality (at least 4
out of the 5 functional
components) with
varying levels of
capabilities
Identified Vendors: 9
Examples: Ariba,
Emptoris, Global
eProcure
LIMITED SUITE/POINT
SOLUTION VENDORS
provide only targeted
Strategic Sourcing
components) with
varying levels of
capabilities
Examples: Zycus,
Procurra
ERP VENDORS
Definition: Enterprise
Resource Planning
(ERP) vendors who can
provide at least basic
capabilities for most or
all of the Strategic
Sourcing functional
components
Examples: SAP, Oracle,
PeopleSoft
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT-
SPECIFIC TOOL
VENDORS
focus solely on providing
functionality tailored to
Federal-specific
contracting processes
with varying levels of
capabilities
Examples:
Compusearch,
Distributed Solutions
STRATEGIC SOURCING TECHNOLOGY MARKET SEGMENTS
Typically Provide Commercially-Focused Capabilities
Provide Federally-
Focused Capabilities
Can Provide Both
Commercially-Focused and
Federally-Focused
Capabilities
Many Commercially-Focused Vendors are placing an emphasis on working with Federal clients and some are
considering developing Federally-focused capabilities within their tools
In addition to vendors and capabilities, there are a number of
other major drivers that can affect the cost and time required
for the AF to implement Strategic Sourcing technology tools
Page 11
DRIVERS OF COST/TIMELINE DESCRIPTION
Vendor(s) Selected/Functional
Components (Tools) Implemented
The type of vendor(s) selected and number and types of functional components that
will be implemented
Implementation Scale/Approach
The scale (# of users, # of organizations, etc.) and roll-out approach (phased vs. non-
phased, timing, etc.) for implementing tools in the AF environment
Amount of Data/Content Required
The amount of internal (e.g., spend data, specification level, etc.) and external (e.g., #
of suppliers, # of catalogs, # of catalog items, etc.) data and content required
Customization vs. Configuration
Required
The amount of customization (changes to code) versus configuration (changes to
business rules without changing code) needed to meet AF requirements
Deployment/Hosting Model The deployment hosting model required by the AF
License Model The license model used by the AF (lease vs. buy)
Integration with Current Systems
Required
The number of touch points and complexity of integration required to connect to
current AF systems
Security The ability for tools to adhere to AF security requirements
Training Required The amount of training required for users to utilize the tools
Page 11
COSTS/TIMELINE DRIVERS AND DESCRIPTION
As next steps, the AF should focus on understanding its high-
level needs and requirements and collecting additional
information prior to an acquisition decision
Page 12
HIGH-LEVEL NEXT STEPS
1 Communicate and brief assessment internally to AF stakeholders
2 Reach out to other DoD organizations that have implemented Strategic Sourcing
technology tools to discuss lessons learned, implementation successes and
challenges, and overall experience*
3 Develop an understanding of high-level needs and requirements
4 Develop and send out a Request For Information (RFI) to collect more detailed
information from vendors around capabilities, costs, etc. aligned with the high-level
needs and requirements
5 Develop a business case to evaluate the effectiveness of Strategic Sourcing
solutions based on an understanding of total costs and calculation of a Return on
Investment (ROI)
6 Decide whether to move forward with an acquisition of Strategic Sourcing
technology tools
Page 12
Page 13
Executive Summary
Appendix

Contents
Page 14
The Air Force is undergoing an Installation Acquisition
Transformation (IAT) initiative focused on improving the
acquisition of supplies and services

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Through the IAT initiative, the Air Force is aiming to better coordinate strategic
sourcing efforts across the 71 installations
An enterprise strategic sourcing group consisting of ~240 acquisition
personnel is being established to centralize the sourcing of common supplies
and services across installations
Similarly, major commands within the Air Force are establishing centralized
sourcing teams to help meet specific MAJCOM needs
Page 15
The Air Force has developed an iterative Strategic Sourcing
Model that is currently supported by various manual process
steps
The AF model currently has
Limited visibility into spend,
demand, requirements, and
processes
Limited information sharing and
collaboration
Limited usage of standalone
technology tools that support the
various sourcing steps (e.g., SPS
for contract writing)
Page 16
As part of the IAT initiative, the Air Force is interested in
implementing Strategic Sourcing technology tools that can
address one or more steps in the AF Strategic Sourcing Model
BENEFITS OF STRATEGIC SOURCING TECHNOLOGY*
Strategic Sourcing technology tools can help the AF improve its Strategic
Sourcing Model by:
Automating processes
Enabling greater supplier transparency
Providing greater process visibility
Driving information sharing and collaboration
* Note: Strategic Sourcing technology is often referred to as Spend Management technology in industry
Page 17
Censeo is helping SAF/AQC understand the current landscape
of technology tools that can support the Air Force Strategic
Sourcing Model

KEY OBJECTIVES
Identify key functional components and capabilities available in the Strategic Sourcing
technology marketplace
Identify Strategic Sourcing technology trends, vendor market segments, and vendor
landscape
Identify drivers of cost and timeline that the Air Force should keep in mind if/when
selecting and implementing tools
Provide guidance on next steps the Air Force should take prior to an acquisition decision
Identify various Strategic Sourcing technology options available for the Air Force
Compare key capabilities, experience, and implementation considerations of select
vendors
GOAL
Gain a high level understanding of the various Strategic Sourcing technology
vendors and tools currently available in the marketplace that can support IAT
and the Air Force Strategic Sourcing Model
PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
Page 18
Executive Summary
General Market and Technology Trends
Functionality and Capabilities
Vendor Landscape
Appendix

Contents
Key Takeaways
Page 19
technology marketplace is a
growing and maturing market
from both a vendor as well as a
user perspective
The market is expected to realize a 10% Compound
Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) through 2012
There is a growing emphasis from vendors on adding
additional basic levels of analytics and reporting
capabilities
A number of organizations are changing the way they
are adopting and enhancing their use of Strategic
Sourcing tools
The Air Force should understand
the market trends to ensure their
path forward is in line with market
best practices
2

The end-to-end Air Force
Strategic Sourcing model can not
be completely addressed by
technology
Supply Market Analysis and Demand
Management/Planning technology components are
not available
The following five functional components are available
from Strategic Sourcing technology vendors:
o Spend Analysis components - Typically help
organizations collect and analyze historical spend data
o E-Sourcing components - Typically enable eRFx,
auctions, negotiations, and sourcing optimization
o E-Procurement components - Typically support the
entire procure-to-pay process
o Contract Management components - Typically support
the contract lifecycle from creation to close-out
o Supplier Management components Typically support
all aspects of supplier relationships from on-boarding to
performance management and reporting
The Air Force will not be able to
purchase tools for Supply Market
Analysis or Demand Management
and Planning, rather, it will have
to rely on higher level analysis
and synthesis conducted off tool
The Air Force will want to
prioritize its requirements and
needs and decide which Strategic
Sourcing functional components it
wants to implement to support its
sourcing model
KEY TAKEAWAYS (PAGE 1 OF 2)
Key Takeaways (Cont)
Page 20
KEY TAKEAWAY/FINDING DETAILS
IMPLICATIONS TO THE
AF
technology vendor market
consists of 4 distinct
segments varying by
capability depth and
customer focus
Segments that typically provide commercially-focused capabilities:
1. Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors (9 identified vendors)
Provide a broad range of functionality in a single integrated package
Many vendors do not have significant Federal experience; however, vendors
are placing a heavy emphasis on moving into the Federal space and are
considering providing Federally-focused capabilities within their tools
2. Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors (57 identified vendors)
Provide overall solution depth in targeted areas
CANNOT cover the entire AF strategic sourcing model
Segment that provides both commercially-focused and Federally-
focused capabilities:
3. ERP Vendors (3 identified vendors)
Have commercial and federal experience and provide broad coverage
Two vendors SAP and Oracle can provide both commercially-focused
and Federally-focused solutions
There are significant functional depth variations within their capabilities
Segment that provides Federally-focused capabilities:
4. Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendors (3 identified vendors)
Have tailored solutions that may cover some AF-specific contracting
processes well
Generally do not provide a full range of capabilities compared to
commercially-focused vendors; however, vendors are beginning to build out
When choosing a Strategic
Sourcing technology
vendor, the Air Force will
want to deliberately decide
between:
o Vendors who provide
commercially-focused
capabilities and/or
Federally-focused
capabilities
o Vendors who provide a full
suite of functional
components or a set of
point solutions

KEY TAKEAWAYS (PAGE 2 OF 2)
Page 21
Executive Summary
o General Market and Technology Trends
o Functionality and Capabilities
o Vendor Landscape
Appendix

Contents
Page 22
There are a number of general trends related to the overall
Strategic Sourcing technology market, technology provided,
and usage by customers
TREND AREA DESCRIPTION
General Market Trends General trends related to the Strategic Sourcing
technology industry including revenue growth, viability,
and consolidation activity
General Technology Trends General trends related to the tools that are being
provided by Strategic Sourcing technology vendors
including new functionality/capabilities, types of solutions
offered, etc.
General
Adoption/Usage/Management
Trends
General trends related to the way organizations are using
and managing Strategic Sourcing technology
The following slides show the current trends in the Strategic Sourcing technology
marketplace
STRATEGIC SOURCING MARKETPLACE TRENDS
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
$5.0B
2007
$2.7B
2008
$3.0B
2009
$3.3B
2010
(EST)
$3.6B
2011
(EST)
$3.9B
2012
(EST)
$4.3B
Page 23
The Strategic Sourcing technology marketplace is a growing
and evolving market
GENERAL MARKET TRENDS
Steady overall market growth: The
overall market is expected to grow at a
10% Compound Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) through 2012
Strong viability amongst medium to
larger vendors: Medium to larger
vendors have strong financial positions
and their viability is currently not a
concern
Limited consolidation activity:
Consolidation in the market has been
limited in the past 24 months, but is
expected to heat up in the 4
th
quarter of
2009 and 1
st
half of 2010

STRATEGIC SOURCING MARKET REVENUE
(2007-2012 EST)
Source: AMR Research, 2008
Page 24
There are a number of general trends in the marketplace
related to the tools that technology vendors are offering
GENERAL TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
Increased emphasis on User Interfaces (UIs): Vendors are placing an added emphasis
on developing UIs. Good UIs are becoming more than just a "nice to have vendors are
increasingly selling their tools based on the quality of their interfaces
Shift to Software as a Service (SaaS)/On-Demand/Cloud solutions: Vendors are
shifting towards providing more SaaS/On-Demand solutions for many Strategic Sourcing
technology areas; also becoming known as cloud solutions
Focus on analytics, Business Intelligence (BI), and dashboards: Vendors are placing
a greater emphasis on adding additional levels of basic analytics, BI, and
reporting/dashboard capabilities as part of their technology tools beyond just spend
analysis.
Emphasis on providing value-added solutions/services: Solutions that combine and
integrate proprietary and/or third-party supply market and supplier content are becoming
more common no longer are vendors competing on just technology, but are also focused
on their ability to deliver integrated solutions including content and market intelligence in
certain areas

Source: SpendMatters
Page 25
Furthermore, a number of organizations are changing the way
they are adopting, using, and managing Strategic Sourcing
technology tools
GENERAL ADOPTION/USAGE/MANAGEMENT TRENDS
Increase in procurement data capture: Organizations are collecting more and more
types and quantities of procurement-related information (e.g., supplier diversity data)
through technology tools. Yet, few organizations are capable of fully rolling-up and
distributing this information to key decision makers and other users
Usage of full functionality is low: While demand and adoption are technically rising for
Strategic Sourcing technology, the average organization uses < 50% of the capabilities in
the solutions they chose
Investment in monitoring supply risk: Organizations are beginning to invest more and
more in technology and content to monitor supply risk in their supply bases
Purchasing of point solutions on the rise: Organizations are often purchasing different
types of Strategic Sourcing technology from a diverse vendor set (e.g., buying Contract
Management functionality from one vendor and E-Sourcing from another)
Increasing influence of IT: CIOs and IT organizations are starting to become more
influential in buying decisions (based on needs, security, integration, architecture, etc.)
despite the general dominance of external (SaaS/on-demand) deployment models
Source: SpendMatters
Page 26
Executive Summary
o Vendor Landscape
Appendix

Contents
Strategic Sourcing functional components available through
technology vendors can support most of the Air Force
Strategic Sourcing Model
Page 27
Opportunity
Assessment
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Strategy
Development
Requirements
Definition
Strategy
Execution
Performance
Management
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Management
Supplier
Management
Demand
Management/Planning
Supply Market
Analysis
Strategic Sourcing Functional Components provided by Technology
Vendors
There are no Strategic Sourcing technology tools that cover the end-to-end AF Strategic Sourcing Model, as no
functional components are available to fully support Supply Market Analysis and Demand Management/Planning
Page 28
Supply Market Analysis and Demand Management/Planning
require a higher level of analysis and synthesis that must be
conducted off tool
WHAT MAKES SUPPLY MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEMAND
MANAGEMENT/PLANNING DIFFERENT?
While many sourcing and procurement activities
are repetitive and can be enabled through
technology, Demand Management and Planning
and Supply Market Analysis require a higher level
of analysis and synthesis and are mostly
conducted off tool
Opportunity
Assessment
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Strategy
Development
Requirements
Definition
Strategy Execution
Performance
Management
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Management
Supplier
Management
Demand Management/Planning
Supply Market
Analysis
Functional Components provided by Technology Vendors
DEFINITION OF SUPPLY MARKET ANALYSIS AND
DEMAND MANAGEMENT/PLANNING
Supply Market Analysis - Developing an understanding of
the supply market including market trends, segmentation,
cost drivers, etc. in order to identify commodity-specific
sourcing implications and opportunities
Demand Management/Planning - Managing demand for
supplies and services including planning/forecasting of
forward looking demand/requirements
Collect Raw
Market Data
and Information
Extract Key
Sourcing
Insights
Synthesize/
Analyze
Insights and
Findings
Identify
Sourcing
Implications
and
Opportunities
Page 29
Supply Market Analysis is conducted through off tool
analysis based on market data and information available
Supply Market Analysis goes beyond collection of market data and informationsignificant
synthesis and analysis of key insights is required to identify sourcing implications and
opportunities
SUPPLY MARKET ANALYSIS PROCESS
Identify market data and
information sources*
Collect data/information
across multiple sources
Identify relevant data and
information related to
sourcing of a specific
commodity/service across
all sources:
o Market growth
o Market trends
o Market segmentation
o Value chains
o Cost drivers
o Etc.
Synthesize and analyze
key sourcing-related
findings and insights
identified in the market
data and information
sources
Identify the key
implications or so-whats
from the findings and
insights
Identify potential sourcing
opportunities based on
analysis
* A segmentation of market data and information sources and examples of each are provided in the Appendix
Off Tool Analysis
Page 30
Similarly, while some functional components can provide input
data necessary for Demand Management and Planning, higher
level off tool analysis is required
DEMAND MANAGEMENT/PLANNING
Demand Management and Planning is typically process-driven and requires a higher level
of analysis and synthesis to understand:
o Forward looking demand and requirements primarily through collaboration with internal stakeholders
o The trade-offs between cost and performance for different specifications of certain
commodities/services through detailed cost modeling
Some input data required for Demand Management and Planning is available through
technology components such as Spend Analysis (to understand historical spend patterns)
and E-Procurement (real-time transactional data)
With the exception of ERP providers, the Strategic Sourcing technology vendors who are in
scope of this analysis typically do not provide Material Requirements Planning (MRP) tools
that enable manufacturing organizations to manage and plan for materials purchasing and
usage
The AF will need to rely on manual processes such as stakeholder collaboration and Office
productivity tools such as Microsoft Excel for the higher level analysis/synthesis required for
Demand Management and Planning
Spend Analysis components typically help organizations collect
and analyze historical spend data
Page 31
CAPABILITIES
Data extraction and aggregation
Data cleansing and classification
Data enrichment and content (e.g., parentage, diversity,
risk, CSR)
Data analysis/Online Analytical Processing (OLAP)
Data reporting and dashboards
Strategy development and savings opportunity
identification
SPEND ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES
Opportunity Assessment
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Strategy Development
Requirements
Definition Strategy Execution Performance Management
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Management
Supplier
Management
Supply
Market
Analysis
KEY BENEFITS
Provides visibility into spend across an organization through analytics, reporting, and dashboards
Classifies disparate spend data into meaningful categories of spend
Helps identify savings opportunities within an organization
E-Sourcing components typically enable eRFx, auctions,
negotiations, and sourcing optimization
Page 32
CAPABILITIES
Supplier registration and management
Category and user workbench/portal
Knowledge management and templates/libraries
Document management and exchange (with suppliers)
RFx automation
Negotiation and event management (auctions, sealed-bid,
optimization)
Post-event analysis (cost breakdowns, total cost
calculations, post-bid optimization)
Contract award and integration
E-SOURCING CAPABILITIES
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Requirements
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Management
Supplier
Management
Supply
Market
Analysis
KEY BENEFITS
Provides category-level management including visibility into all activities
Streamlines the bidding, negotiation and award phases of a procurement
Potentially reduces overall procurement costs by supporting various event formats such as auctions, etc.
Helps organizations identify ideal award scenarios based on uniquely defined criteria
E-Procurement components typically support the entire
procure to pay process
Page 33
CAPABILITIES
Supplier on-boarding and enablement
Catalog and content management
Search (catalog and non-catalog)
Requisitioning, PO and order management (including
workflow)
Document exchange and management
Invoice automation and supply chain finance
Services procurement
Analytics/reporting
E-PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Requirements
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Management
Supplier
Management
Supply
Market
Analysis
KEY BENEFITS
Through reducing maverick spending, often yields among the most rapid, tangible savings and cost avoidance
of any Strategic Sourcing functional component
Potentially reduces costs by reducing off-contract purchases, lowering purchase volume in general, improving
operating efficiency and increasing purchase order (PO) throughput per FTE
Enhances purchasing and payment controls and drive organization-wide and supplier compliance
Contract Management components typically support the
contract lifecycle from creation to close-out
Page 34
CAPABILITIES
Contract authoring
Full contract life-cycle desktop integration (Office, legal
platforms)
Workflow/management (e.g., clause libraries, scoring,
exception management)
Contract repository and search
Compliance management
Performance management (including reporting and
analytics)
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Requirements
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Management
Supplier
Management
Supply
Market
Analysis
KEY BENEFITS
Provides visibility into the contract lifecycle beginning from contract development to close-out
Potentially reduces process-related costs by creating efficiencies
Supports compliance by storing templates, standard language, and contract clauses within libraries
Supplier Management components typically support all aspects
of supplier relationships from on-boarding to performance
management and reporting
Page 35
CAPABILITIES
Supplier portal and registration (self-service)
Workflow, forms and data collection
Systems/ERP integration (push/pull)
Supplier performance management
Supply risk management
CSR/sustainability
Dashboard/analytics/reporting
SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES
Current
Strategy
Review
Market
Research
Sourcing
Requirements
Spend Analysis
E-Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract Management
Supplier
Manage
ment
Supplier
Manage
ment
Supply
Market
Analysis
KEY BENEFITS
Provides a repository for information related to all suppliers used by an organization
Reduces organizational risk and enhances overall supplier compliance
Can be used to drive and administer specific programs (e.g., supplier diversity)
Supports the tracking and management of supplier performance
Page 36
Executive Summary
o Vendor Landscape
Appendix

Contents
Page 37
To provide the defined functionality, the Strategic Sourcing
technology vendor market consists of four distinct segments
STRATEGIC
SOURCING FULL
SUITE VENDORS
Strategic Sourcing
components) with
varying levels of
capabilities
Examples: Ariba,
Emptoris, Global
eProcure
LIMITED SUITE/POINT
SOLUTION VENDORS
Strategic Sourcing
components) with
varying levels of
capabilities
Examples: Zycus,
Procurra
ERP VENDORS
Resource Planning
capabilities for most or
all of the Strategic
Sourcing functional
components
PeopleSoft
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT-
SPECIFIC TOOL
VENDORS
Federal-specific
capabilities
Examples:
Compusearch,
STRATEGIC SOURCING TECHNOLOGY MARKET SEGMENTS
Typically Provide Commercially-Focused Capabilities
Provide Federally-
Focused Capabilities
Can Provide Both
Commercially-Focused and
Federally-Focused
Capabilities
Many Commercially-Focused Vendors are placing an emphasis on working with Federal clients and some are
considering developing Federally-focused capabilities within their tools
Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors provide most or all
functional components; however, their primary focus is on the
commercial sector
CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS
Most Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors tend to be larger in size
and have a significant amount of mostly commercial experience
Suites typically consist of a set of integrated functional
components/modules with a common data set shared throughout;
however, all vendors surveyed can provide these
components/modules individually
Some Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors such as Ariba,
Emptoris, and Global eProcure have Federal experience (often
limited in scope)
However, the Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors are placing a
heavy emphasis on moving into the Federal space and are
considering providing Federally-focused capabilities within their
tools
STRATEGIC SOURCING SUITE VENDORS
Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors can potentially provide a broad range of functionality to the
AF in a single integrated package and many have market leading capabilities
Page 38
STRATEGIC
SOURCING FULL
SUITE VENDORS
Strategic Sourcing
components) with
varying levels of
capabilities
Examples: Ariba,
Emptoris, Global
eProcure
Limited Suite/Point Solutions Vendors can provide only
specific functional components
Most Limited Suite/Point Solutions Vendors tend to be smaller in
size, potentially impacting their ability to maintain an installation
timeline and provide overall maintenance upkeep
While vendors mostly have commercial experience, some vendors
such as Zycus have Federal experience
Many vendors offer the strongest possible capabilities in their
targeted solution areas
LIMITED SUITE/POINT SOLUTIONS VENDORS
Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors can provide overall solution depth in targeted areas;
however, they cannot support the end-to-end AF strategic sourcing model; the AF would require
integration of multiple tools to cover its model
Page 39
LIMITED SUITE/POINT
SOLUTION VENDORS
Strategic Sourcing
components) with
varying levels of
capabilities
Examples: Zycus,
Procurra
ERP Vendors can provide a full set of Strategic Sourcing
components including some that are Federally tailored;
however, the depth of their capabilities varies
Vendors can provide a suite of components that cover all or most
aspects of Strategic Sourcing and can be integrated with other ERP
modules
ERP Vendors are large vendors with fairly significant market traction
in the commercial and government marketplaces with their full ERP
package
Functional components are typically integrated with a common data
set shared throughout; however, vendors can provide these
components/modules individually
Overall implementation costs are often significantly higher than
Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors
SAP and Oracle can provide Federal versions of their commercially
focused suites
ERP VENDORS
ERP Vendors bring both Commercial and Federal experience and have broad coverage; however,
there are significant functional depth variations within their capabilities
Page 40
ERP VENDORS
Resource Planning
capabilities for most or all
of the Strategic Sourcing
functional components
PeopleSoft
Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendors can address the
unique Federal contracting process; however, currently are
limited in the full range of capabilities
Vendors provide tools that address the uniqueness of Federal
contracting including processes, regulations (FAR, DFARS, etc.),
and document structure (RFP documents, etc.)
Vendors only support public sector organizations (Federal, State,
and Local) and related organizations (Aerospace and Defense)
Currently, Federally-focused solutions generally do not provide the
full level of capabilities that can be provided by commercially-
focused vendors; however, vendors are beginning to build out
Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendors often team with
commercial tool vendors to close the gap on
functionality/capabilities
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SPECIFIC TOOL VENDORS
Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendors have tailored solutions for the Federal acquisition
processes; however, they do not generally provide the full range of functional component
capabilities available through commercially-focused vendors
Page 41
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT-
SPECIFIC TOOL
VENDORS
Federal-specific
capabilities
Examples:
Compusearch,
Vendor Name Spend Analysis E-Procurement E-Sourcing
Contract
Management
Supplier
Management
AECSoft X X X X
Ariba X X X X X
Emptoris X X X X
Global eProcure X X X X X
Oracle (ERP) X X X X X
SAP (ERP) X X X X X
Basware X X X X X
BravoSolution X X X X
Iasta X X X X
Ketera X X X X X
PeopleSoft (ERP)* X X X X X
PerfectCommerce X X X X X
N
O

I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
D

F
E
D
E
R
A
L

E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E

I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
E
D

F
E
D
E
R
A
L

E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E

Page 42
STRATEGIC SOURCING SUITE/ERP VENDOR LANDSCAPE
BREADTH OF OFFERING
Of the 12 Strategic Sourcing Full Suite and ERP vendors, only
6 have identified Federal experience
* PeopleSoft is owned by Oracle
A high level comparative analysis of these vendors has been included in the Appendix
Page 43
Federal Government-Specific Vendors have primarily focused
on Contract Management; however, they are building out
broader capabilities
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SPECIFIC TOOL VENDORS LANDSCAPE
BREADTH OF OFFERING

A high level comparative analysis of these vendors has been included in the Appendix; in addition, a
list of the 57 identified Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors has been included in the Appendix
Vendor Name
Spend
Analysis
E-
Procurement
E-Sourcing
Contract
Management
Supplier
Management
CACI
X
Compusearch
X
Distributed
Solutions
X
Page 44
Executive Summary
Appendix

Contents
In addition to vendors and capabilities, there are a number of
other major drivers that can affect the cost and time required
for the AF to implement Strategic Sourcing technology tools
Page 45
DRIVERS OF COST/TIMELINE DESCRIPTION
Vendor(s) Selected/Functional
Components (Tools) Implemented
The type of vendor(s) selected and number and types of functional components that
will be implemented
Implementation Scale/Approach
The scale (# of users, # of organizations, etc.) and roll-out approach (phased vs. non-
phased, timing, etc.) for implementing tools in the AF environment
Amount of Data/Content Required
The amount of internal (e.g., spend data, specification level, etc.) and external (e.g., #
of suppliers, # of catalogs, # of catalog items, etc.) data and content required
Customization vs. Configuration
Required
The amount of customization (changes to code) versus configuration (changes to
business rules without changing code) needed to meet AF requirements
Deployment/Hosting Model The deployment hosting model required by the AF
License Model The license model used by the AF (lease vs. buy)
Required
The number of touch points and complexity of integration required to connect to
current AF systems
Security The ability for tools to adhere to AF security requirements
Training Required The amount of training required for users to utilize the tools
Page 45
COSTS/TIMELINE DRIVERS AND DESCRIPTION
Within each driver, there are a number of specific
considerations for the AF that can drive cost and timeline
Page 46
DRIVER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE AF
Vendor(s)Selected and
Functional Components
Implemented
Type of vendor(s) selected: Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendor, ERP
Vendor, Federal Government-specific Tool Vendor, and/or Limited
Suite/Point Solution Vendors
Number and types of functional components (spend analysis, etc.) that
will be implemented (Note: some functional components such as E-
Sourcing are more standalone and do not require integration)
Implementation
Scale/Approach
Number of end users who will be using the tool
Number of organizations (offices, MAJCOMs, etc.) with unique
processes/requirements that will be using the tool
Phased rollout vs. Full rollout based on:
o Functionality
o # of end users
oDepth of internal information/processes
Amount of Data/Content
Required
Amount of internal information and content required to meet AF
requirements and needs (e.g., spend data, etc.)
Amount of external information and content required to meet AF
requirements and needs (e.g., # of suppliers, # of catalogs, # of catalog
items, etc.)
Page 46
CONSIDERATIONS THAT AFFECT COST/TIMELINE DRIVERS (PAGE 1 OF 3)
Page 47
Customization vs.
Configuration Required

Amount of customization (changes to code) that is required to meet AF-
specific requirements and processes
Amount of configuration (changes to business rules, basic look and feel, etc.
without changing code) that is required to meet AF-specific requirements and
processes
Amount of configuration that can be done by AF end users after sufficient
training versus configuration that must be done by the vendor implementation
team
Deployment/Hosting
Model
Deployment/hosting model used:
o Multi-tenant Software as a Service (SaaS) or Cloud
o Single tenant on demand (hosted by vendor or 3
rd
party partner)
o License with 3
rd
party hosting
o Hosted behind the AF firewall
License Model Options available for
oLease licenses with maintenance updates only
oLease licenses with both maintenance and upgrades included
oLease licenses with additional value-added content included
oBuy licenses (perpetual) with options to purchase maintenance and upgrades
Page 47
considerations for the AF that can drive cost and timeline (cont)
Page 48
Required
Previous vendor experience with integration to Federal, DoD, and/or
AF-specific systems
Number of touch points required with existing AF systems such as
SPS, AFWay, ConWrite, data repositories, etc.
Availability of pre-built interfaces from vendors with SPS, Federal
systems, ERP systems, etc. that can be leveraged during an
implementation
Availability of integration methods/technologies such as XML, web
services, etc. from vendors that can be used for integration and data
transfer
Security Ability of the vendors to meet AF security requirements
oDo the vendors have to go through AF-specific security certification
processes?
oDo the vendors have existing security certifications that meet AF
requirements?
Training Required Amount of training required by AF staff to use a) basic capabilities
resident in the tools once implementation has taken place and b)
advanced and power user capabilities
considerations for the AF that can drive cost and timeline (cont)
Page 48
Page 49
Executive Summary
Appendix

Contents
As next steps, the AF should focus on understanding its high-
level needs and requirements and collecting additional
information prior to an acquisition decision
Page 50
HIGH-LEVEL NEXT STEPS
1 Communicate and brief assessment internally to AF stakeholders
2 Reach out to other DoD organizations that have implemented Strategic Sourcing
technology tools to discuss lessons learned, implementation successes and
challenges, and overall experience*
3 Develop an understanding of high-level needs and requirements
4 Develop and send out a Request For Information (RFI) to collect more detailed
information from vendors around capabilities, costs, etc. aligned with the high-level
needs and requirements
5 Develop a business case to evaluate the effectiveness of Strategic Sourcing
solutions based on an understanding of total costs and calculation of a Return on
Investment (ROI)
6 Decide whether to move forward with an acquisition of Strategic Sourcing
technology tools
Page 50
* Reference slides 77-79 in the Appendix for examples of implementations within the DoD and Points of Contact
information
The AF should immediately understand its high level needs
and requirements to drive the rest of the Strategic Sourcing
technology assessment
Page 51
UNDERSTAND HIGH-LEVEL NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS
The AF should move forward with understanding its needs and requirements at a
high level, including:
o Functionality/capabilities: Prioritized list of functionality and high level capabilities
based on needs and funding availability
o Processes: High level AF acquisition and sourcing processes
o Scale: The organizations and # of users that may potentially use the sourcing tools
o Security: Security requirements and certifications that may be required for the
sourcing tools to fit into the AF environment
o Deployment/Hosting Model: Potential deployment/hosting models that the AF
would consider
Page 51
A Request For Information (RFI) will help the AF develop a
more detailed understanding of the market required to move
towards an acquisition decision
Page 52
This assessment only provides the AF with the foundational knowledge
necessary to further engage with vendorsa deeper understanding of
their tools, specific capabilities, and costs is required prior to a future
acquisition
A detailed RFI can be sent out by the AF to the vendor community prior
to a formal acquisition of sourcing tools to understand the sourcing
tools and capabilities in greater detail based on high level AF
requirements
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) OBJECTIVES
Page 52
The RFI should address a number of key topics and questions
Page 53
TOPIC SUB-TOPICS/QUESTIONS
Understand vendor capabilities in
detail and relative to AF needs
and requirements
What functional components can the vendor provide based on AF
needs/requirements?
What capabilities and detailed sub-capabilities within each functional component
can the vendor provide based on AF needs/requirements?
What are the trends in the vendor marketplace? What capabilities is the vendor
building out in the future that will help it meet AF needs/requirements?
How does each vendor tool address specific AF business process scenarios?
Understand DoD/Federal
experience in detail
What DoD/Federal agencies has the vendor implemented its Strategic Sourcing
tools in? Which specific organizations/offices?
Which functional components and capabilities have been implemented by the
vendor within each DoD/Federal agency?
What was the scale of each implementation (# of organizations/offices, # of users,
# of integration points, etc.)?
Which DoD/Federal systems were the tools integrated with during each
implementation?
What were the implementation challenges that were faced and overcome and
lessons learned that could be applied to an AF implementation?
SAMPLE RFI TOPICS (PAGE 1 OF 2)
Page 53
The RFI should address a number of key topics and questions
(cont)
Page 54
TOPIC SUB-TOPICS/QUESTIONS
Understand potential
implementation timeline in detail
Based on high level AF needs/requirements, what is the anticipated timeline for
implementing tools within the AF environment?
Understand integration
capabilities with AF systems in
detail
Does the vendor have a detailed understanding of AF-specific systems?
What level of customization vs. configuration may be required based on high-level
AF needs/requirements?
What integration tools/techniques/methods can the vendor leverage to limit the
time and costs associated with integration to AF systems?
What deployment/hosting models can the vendor support?
Understand costs in detail
What licensing/pricing models does the vendor support?
What are the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs for each functional
component that can be provided based on high level AF needs/requirements?
SAMPLE RFI TOPICS (PAGE 2 OF 2)
Page 54
Following an RFI, the AF business case will evaluate an
investment in Strategic Sourcing tools
Page 55
Page 55
SAMPLE BUSINESS CASE TOPICS
Highlight and prioritize AF needs, including which functionality is required and when,
based on a high level understanding of requirements and processes and RFI responses
(detailed understanding of the market, vendors, and capabilities)
Examine and quantify trade-offs based on the different types of solutions (e.g., implement
full suite all at once vs. implement individual functional components as needed, etc.) and
various deployment/hosting models
Understand potential savings/cost avoidance that can be achieved
Outline potential total costs based on RFI responses and drivers of cost/timeline including
software (e.g., tools, database, etc.), implementation, hosting, etc.
Make a justification of needs by calculating an Return On Investment (ROI)
Based on the business case, the AF should be able to decide on moving forward with
an acquisition of Strategic Sourcing tools
Page 56
Executive Summary
Appendix

Contents
The AF has a number of options to consider for the Strategic
Sourcing tools it wants to implement and how they are
deployed
Page 57
Page 57
OPTION AREA DESCRIPTION
Vendor/Tool Options
Vendor and tool options available for the Air Force to
address almost all steps of its Strategic Sourcing Model
Deployment Model Options
Deployment model options available for the Air Force to
deploy Strategic Sourcing tools to its users
License Model Options
License model options available for the Air Force to
acquire licenses of Strategic Sourcing tools for its users
There are a number of other decisions for the Air Force to make regarding Strategic
Sourcing tools based on its specific needs/requirementsthe following slides provide
options available for the Air Force in several key areas
OPTIONS FOR THE AIR FORCE TO CONSIDER
The AF has to decide the level of coverage it wants before
selecting specific Strategic Sourcing vendors and tools
Page 58
Page 58
Pros: Cover almost all aspects of the AF sourcing model and meet most of
the AF needs; can acquire a full integrated suite upfront; greater
negotiating leverage with vendors
Cons: Some functionality may not be used right away or at all
Scenario 1: Cover Almost
All Steps of the AF
Sourcing Model
Pros: Allows the AF to prioritize its needs and invest in those tools that are
most critical upfront, allowing for a phased integration of Strategic
Sourcing tools
Cons: Additional needs identified at a future point must be met by either
investing in the remaining components from a full suite vendor or
integrating with tools from other vendors; will continue to require mostly
manual processes/existing tools to cover the remaining steps of the AF
sourcing model
Scenario 2: Cover One or
Some Steps of the AF
Sourcing Model Based on
Prioritization
The following slides lay out the vendor/tool options for Scenario 1
SCENARIOS FOR VENDOR/TOOL OPTIONS
While no single vendor can meet all of the AF needs, the AF
has many options to consider when choosing Strategic
Sourcing vendors to cover most of its sourcing model
Page 59
VENDOR/TOOL
OPTION
DESCRIPTION PROS CONS
Full Suite from
Strategic
Sourcing Full
Suite Vendor
Choose all functional
components from a
Strategic Sourcing Full
Suite Vendor
Provides all functional components
in a single integrated suite
Many vendors have market leading
capabilities
May provide a fully integrated data
model that can directly share and
integrate data across functional
components (dependent on specific
vendors)
Currently, functional components
are primarily based on commercial
procurement processes
Overall vendor federal experience
is limited (implementation
experience with the full suite is
almost non-existent)
Full Suite from
ERP Vendor
components from an
ERP Vendor
ERP Vendors such as Oracle and
SAP provide Federally-focused
solutions and have experience
implementing them within DoD
(Oracle has implemented within the
AF)
Provides all functional components
in a single integrated suite
May provide a fully integrated data
model that can shared across
functional components (dependent
on specific vendor)
There are significant comparative
functional depth variations within
their capabilities and the individual
modules
Overall implementation costs are
often significantly higher than
Strategic Sourcing Full Suite
Vendors
SCENARIO 1 VENDOR/TOOL OPTIONS (PAGE 1 OF 2)
Page 59
While no single vendor can meet all of the AF needs, the AF
has many options to consider when choosing Strategic
Sourcing vendors to cover most of its sourcing model (cont)
Page 60
VENDOR/TOOL
OPTION
Suite from Federal
Government-
specific Tool
Vendor Integrated
With Additional
Capabilities
components from a Federal
Government-specific Tool
Vendor and supplement with
additional capabilities available
from commercially-focused
vendors as necessary
Vendors can provide Federally-
tailored solutions and have
experience implementing them
within DoD
Capability limitations in the
Federal Government-Specific
Tools can be supplemented by
tools from commercially-focused
vendors (e.g., Auctions, Spend
Analysis, etc.)
Requires integration between
Federal Government-specific
Tools and other
commercially-focused tools
May lack a common data
model across components
Lack of key enabling
functionality in specific areas
Integrated Suite of
Individual
Functional
Components from
Multiple Vendors

Choose select functional
components from Strategic
Sourcing Full Suite Vendors,
ERP Vendors, Federal
Government-specific Vendors,
and/or Limited Suite/Point
Solution Vendor and integrate
Allows the AF to choose best-in-
class functional components from
multiple vendors

Requires integration between
Lacks a common data model
across components
Not one throat to choke in
the event of technology
problems
SCENARIO 1 VENDOR/TOOL OPTIONS (PAGE 2 OF 2)
Page 60
Furthermore, there are a number of advantages and
disadvantages for each tool deployment model option that the
AF must consider
Page 61
DEPLOYMENT
MODEL
Multi-tenant Software
as a Service (SaaS) or
Cloud
Model of deployment where the
vendor leases a complete
capability on a per-seat basis
(not per server or another
measure) for the tool to the AF
for use as a service on demand
with other customers
No investment in
technology infrastructure
required from the AF
Tool is maintained and
upgraded as needed by
the vendor valued-added
content also often included
Tools are accessible
anywhere within the AF
Most prescribe to SAS-70
security audit standards
May not meet AF-specific
security requirements
Multi-customer technology
stack - shared platform for
tools and data across
organizations

Single tenant on
demand (hosted by
vendor or 3
rd
party
partner)
AF purchases or leases licenses
and the vendor (or partner)
hosts a specific instance on
behalf of the AF
No investment in
required from the AF
The AF does not share the
tool with other customers
Potential costs incurred for
software maintenance and
upgrades
Data resides on vendor
infrastructure
DEPLOYMENT/HOSTING MODEL OPTIONS (PAGE 1 OF 2)
Page 61
Furthermore, there are a number of advantages and
disadvantages for each tool deployment model that the AF
must consider (cont)
Page 62
DEPLOYMENT
MODEL
License with 3
rd
party
hosting
AF purchases or leases
licenses and a 3
rd
party vendor
hosts an instance on behalf of
the AF
No investment in
The AF does not share
the tool with other
customers
security auditing
standards
upgrades
Data resides on 3
rd
party
hosting vendor infrastructure
Value-added content is not
provided by tool vendor
Hosted behind the AF
firewall
AF purchases (common) or
leases (uncommon, under this
approach) licenses and hosts
the tool in its own environment
Meets AF security
requirements
AF has control over the
tool and technology
infrastructure
Greater customization
capability over other
models
AF is responsible for
maintenance and upkeep of
(servers, etc.)
upgrades
Value-added content is not
provided by tool vendor
DEPLOYMENT/HOSTING MODEL OPTIONS (PAGE 2 OF 2)
Page 62
In addition, there are a number of License Model options
available for the AF to consider
LICENSE MODEL OPTIONS
Page 63
LICENSE MODEL OPTION DESCRIPTION
TYPICAL DEPLOYMENT
MODEL*
Buy Licenses (Perpetual)
with options to purchase
maintenance and upgrades
AF purchases the right to use a set of tool
licenses for an indefinite period of time
and has the option to purchase maintenance
and upgrades for a period of time
Hosted behind the AF firewall
Lease Licenses with
maintenance updates only
licenses for a limited period of time and
only receives routine software maintenance
updates
Hosted behind the AF firewall or
License with 3
rd
party hosting

Lease Licenses with both
maintenance and upgrades
included
licenses for a limited period of time and
has the right to upgrade to newer versions
that are released during the lease period
Multi-tenant Software as a Service
(SaaS) or Cloud
Lease Licenses with value
added content
licenses for a limited period of time, has
the right to upgrade to newer versions that
are released during the lease period, and
has value added content (e.g., detailed
supplier information such as diversity etc.)
Multi-tenant Software as a Service
(SaaS) or Cloud
NOTE: The Deployment Model(s) shown is the model typically associated with each License Model; however, each License Model is
not limited to the Deployment Model(s) indicated; not every vendor provides each of the license models listed above
Page 64
Executive Summary
Methodology
Appendix
o Methodology
o Market Data and Information Providers
o Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors
o Vendor Comparative Analysis
o DoD Implementation Examples

Contents
Identify
Vendor
Landscape
Conduct
Comparative
Analysis
Identify Key
Takeaways
and Next
Steps
Page 65
The team used a 4 step process to conduct the Strategic
Sourcing technology research and analysis
STRATEGIC SOURCING TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Research and identify basic
market trends
Research and identify
market segments
Identify functional
components and key
capabilities available in the
marketplace
Setup and conduct vendor
presentations and demos
Identify landscape of
Strategic Sourcing
technology vendors
Identify those
vendors with Federal
government
experience

Identify select vendors
for detailed
comparative analysis
Identify criteria for
detailed comparative
analysis of select
vendors
Identify vendor
strengths and
weaknesses
Compare vendors
Summarize key takeaways
for the AF
Identify next steps and
provide follow up guidance
on an RFI and business
case

Conduct Market Research
Page 66
The team leveraged a number of information sources for its
research and analysis
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
Industry Analysts
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) with a deep
understanding of the Strategic Sourcing technology
market
Vendor Websites and Brochures
Websites, product brochures, and marketing materials
available from vendors
Vendor Presentations/Demos
In person or web conference-based presentations/demos
for a subset of vendors
Market Research Reports
Research reports from Gartner, AMR, Forrester, IDC, and
other research sites
INFORMATION SOURCES
Page 67
Executive Summary
Methodology
Appendix
o Methodology

Contents
Page 68
Market data and information providers can be segmented into
5 primary areas of focus; however, many vendors provide
research across multiple segments
Supply Market Research can also be found through trade publications, blogs and
industry associations
Industry-
Focused Market
Research
US Market Research
pertaining to a specific
industry including major
players, key statistics, and
industry trends
Forrester
Gartner
Yankee Group
AMR
Cross-Industry
Market
Research
Market Research, facts
and trends on a broader
scale possibly with a
global perspective
focusing on multiple
related industries
IBISWorld
PIU
Frost & Sullivan
Company
Profile and Risk
Assessments
Research on specific
companies usually
includes a profile of the
company, financial
statements, outlooks, and
risk assessments
Duns & Bradstreet
Thomson
Hoovers
I-Bank
General Industry research
with particular emphasis
on industry and company
economics and financials

Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan
Scotia Bank

MARKET DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDER SEGMENTS
S
e
g
m
e
n
t

D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r

E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

Page 69
Executive Summary
Methodology
Appendix
o Methodology

Contents
Contract
Management
Supplier
Management
Aravo X
Bellwether X
CombineNet X X
CVM Solutions X X
D&B X X
Endeca X
ePlus X
Experian/Equifax X
Infor X X
JD Edwards X
Siemens
SAS/DataFlux X
VenDigital X X X
Versata/Nextance X
Zycus X X X
Page 70
LIMITED SUITE/POINT SOLUTION VENDOR LANDSCAPE
WITH VERIFIED FEDERAL EXPERIENCE

15 Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors with some Federal
experience have been identified that are capable of providing
at least one of the five functional components
V
E
R
I
F
I
E
D

F
E
D
E
R
A
L

E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E

Contract
Management
Supplier
Management
Hiperos
X
iMany
X
MFG.com
X
Moai
X
Mashik
X
Newtron
X
Rosslyn Analytics
X
Selectica
X
Spend Radar
X
SupplierForce
X
SupplierSoft
X
Symfact
X
Trade Extensions
X X X
Vendormate
X
Verian
X
N
O

V
E
R
I
F
I
E
D

F
E
D
E
R
A
L

E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E

Page 71
LIMITED SUITE/POINT SOLUTION VENDOR LANDSCAPE
WITH NO VERIFIED FEDERAL EXPERIENCE (PAGE 1 OF 3)
In addition, many other Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors
without Federal experience exist and are capable of providing
at least one of the five functional components
Contract
Management
Supplier
Management
Birchstreet
X
BIQ *
X X
Browz
X
CoExprise X X X
Coupa Software X X
eBreviate X X X
EC Sourcing Group X X
Elcom X X X
Enporion X X
Epiqtech X X X
FullStep X X
HedgeHog X X X
IonWave X X X
JVKelly X X X
MetricStream X X
Page 72
at least one of the five functional components (cont.)
LIMITED SUITE/POINT SOLUTION VENDOR LANDSCAPE -
N
O

V
E
R
I
F
I
E
D

F
E
D
E
R
A
L

E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E

Contract
Management
Supplier
Management
Portum X X X
Procurra Sourcing X X
PurchasingNet X X X
Scanmarket X X
SciQuest X X X
Software Solutions
(SSI)
X
Symphony Spend
Management
Solutions
X X X
Synertrade X X X
Quadrem X X
Upside Software X
Source One
(WhyAbe)
X X X
Xcitec *
X
Page 73
at least one of the five functional components (cont.)
There are 100s of other Limited Suite/Point Solutions also available in the marketplace
N
O

V
E
R
I
F
I
E
D

F
E
D
E
R
A
L

E
X
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E

LIMITED SUITE/POINT SOLUTION VENDOR LANDSCAPE -
Page 74
Executive Summary
Methodology
Appendix
o Methodology

Contents
The team conducted separate vendor comparative analyses
for Strategic Sourcing Full Suite/ERP Vendors and Federal
Government-Specific Tool Vendors
VENDORS FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSES
Strategic Sourcing Full Suite/ERP Vendors All identified vendors selected (vendors
capable of providing at least 4 of the 5 functional components):
o Ariba
o Emptoris
o BravoSolution
oSAP (ERP)
oOracle (ERP)
oGlobal eProcure

Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendors 2 out of the 3 primary vendors selected*:
o Compusearch
o Distributed Solutions

o PeopleSoft (ERP)
o Basware
o PerfectCommerce
o AECSoft
o Iasta
o Ketera
Page 75
Note: A detailed vendor comparative analysis was not conducted for Limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors;
however, broad strengths/weaknesses have been identified for each functional component
* CACI was excluded from the comparative analysis due to lack of participation from the vendor during the
vendor presentations and limited information available on vendor website
The Strategic Sourcing Full Suite/ERP Vendors were
compared relative to each other based on their Capabilities,
General Experience/Viability, Government Experience, and
Implementation Feasibility
Page 76
Overall strengths and weaknesses of capabilities provided within each functional component
Capabilities
Current market traction
Viability/financial position
Scalability (to take on AF work)
General Experience and
Viability
Federal/DoD experience
Federal Government
Experience
General ability to meet implementation timelines based on configuration vs. customization levels (and
additional considerations in each functional area) typically required and integration methods used
Implementation
Feasibility
CRITERIA USED FOR STRATEGIC SOURCING FULL SUITE AND ERP VENDOR
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Based on a rating of Strategic Sourcing Full Suite/ERP
Vendors across the four criteria, several have been identified
as Tier 1 vendors
Page 77
VENDOR CAPABILITIES
GENERAL EXPERIENCE AND
VIABILITY
GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCE
IMPLEMENTATION
FEASIBILITY
Ariba A A A A
Emptoris A A B B
SAP B B A C
Oracle
B B A C
BravoSolution B A C B
Basware
C A C B
AECSoft
C C A B
Global eProcure
C C B B
Ketera
B C C B
Iasta
C B C C
PerfectCommerce
C C C B
PeopleSoft
C C C C
STRATEGIC SOURCING FULL SUITE/ERP VENDOR COMPARISON SUMMARY
A further breakdown of the rating including strengths and weaknesses are presented on the
following slides
Tier 1
Vendors
Tier 2
Vendors
Tier 3
Vendors
Amongst Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors, Ariba and
Emptoris are functionally the most superior from a capabilities
perspective
Page 78
STRATEGIC SOURCING FULL SUITE/ERP VENDOR - CAPABILITIES
RATING KEY - CAPABILITIES
A Has Significant
Capabilities*
B Has Moderate
Capabilities*
C Has Limited
Capabilities*
D- Has Very Limited to
No Capabilities*
* Across Functional
Components
VENDOR RATING STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Ariba A
Broad suite coverage and solid capability in nearly all areas
Legacy customers upset over lessening support and maintenance
price increases; strong emphasis on migration to SaaS vs. installed
Emptoris A
Broad suite coverage (except P2P) and strong to leading
capabilities in all areas in which they compete
New CEO, company in transition; private equity owners may opt to
focus on non-organic growth at expense of product
SAP B
New SRM product a significant improvement and solid
capabilities in 50-75% of key product areas
Overall costs associated with deployments and limited product
capabilities in certain areas
Oracle B
Strong usability and solid functional capabilities in majority of
functional areas
Overall expense associated with deployment and limited product
capabilities in certain areas
Bravo
Solution
B
Very strong capabilities in key product areas as well as
enabling event-driven services for complex categories
Not as well known in the market as other companies
Ketera B
Strong UI; Very low cost solutions with broad footprint
coverage
Questionable business strategy (i.e., marketplace model)
Perfect
Commerce
C
Strong eProcurement and sourcing capabilities in a hosted
environment
Product and solution depth in areas where suite is not strong;
Historic service and support issues
Global
eProcure
C
An inexpensive solution with a broad footprint
Solution depth and breadth; Attempts to push services to drive up
the overall "ticket" for each customer
Basware C
Best-in-class invoice automation capability and solid
capabilities in other product areas
Not as well known as other providers and fewer success stories
given European focus
PeopleSoft C
Decent usability and moderate product coverage; Solid
services procurement capability
Limited product depth and overall cost of ownership and
deployments
AECSoft C
Broad product suite outside of P2P; Low cost Product depth and overall capabilities
Iasta C
Strong core sourcing capability and overall user experience;
Organizations like doing business with Iasta
Depth in non-core product areas
Amongst the Strategic Sourcing Full Suite Vendors, Ariba,
Emptoris, and BravoSolution are considered best in class for
General Experience and Viability
Page 79
STRATEGIC SOURCING FULLSUITE/ERP VENDOR - GENERAL EXPERIENCE AND VIABILITY

RATING KEY GENERAL EXPERIENCE
A Has Significant Experience and
No Viability Issues
B Has Moderate Experience
and Limited Viability Issues
C Has Limited Experience
and Some Viability Issues
D - Has Very Limited to No
Experience and Major Viability
Issues
Ariba A Best in class customer and overall experience No major weaknesses
Emptoris A Best in class customer and overall experience No major weaknesses
BravoSolution A Best in class customer and overall experience No major weaknesses
Basware A
Very strong customer references and overall customer
experience
Not as well versed in functional integration and business
requirements for technology areas not covered by suite (e.g., e-
sourcing)
Iasta B
Very strong customer references and overall customer
experience
Not as well versed in functional integration and business
requirements for technology areas not covered by suite (e.g., P2P)
SAP B
Significant depth and experience implementing P2P and
sourcing
Experience not uniform across the board; Variable customer
experiences based on implementation success
Oracle B
Broad base of experience in most areas of the sourcing and
P2P market
Experience not uniform across the board; variable customer
Global
eProcure
C
Customer orientation -- experience largely built around
serving customers as a solutions/services provider
Concerns over depth in key areas and overall software experience
PeopleSoft C
Loyal customers often willing to sacrifice functional depth for
staying on the PSFT platform in certain sourcing/P2P areas
Experience not uniform across the board; variable customer
Perfect
Commerce
C
Customer satisfaction metrics vastly improved in recent
years
Variable historic references and customer experience
AECSoft C
Customers often use AECSoft as a highly target provider
solving a single problem -- strong customer experience in
this scenario
Not known for overall depth and ability to serve customers outside
of targeted areas; Limited non-automated support structure
Ketera C Service levels improved in recent years
Variable customer service and support levels in past; Moving
away from enterprise software model
Amongst Strategic Sourcing Full Suite and ERP Vendors,
Oracle has direct experience implementing Strategic Sourcing
tools within the Air Force
Page 80
VENDOR RATING COMMENTS
Oracle
A Experience within AF (AFWay, ECSS/Log, DEAMS/FM)
SAP A Experience within DLA (Procurement for Public Sector suite)
Ariba A Experience within the Navy (E-Sourcing) and State
AECSoft
A Experience within DoD (Army/AF Exchange) and USPS
Global eProcure
B Experience within DOJ, HUD, HHS, USPS, and Unicor
Emptoris B
Experience within USPS (E-Sourcing including eRFx, auctions, optimization,
and negotiations)
PeopleSoft
C Local/state experience only
Iasta
C Local/state experience only
BravoSolution C UK government experience only
Basware
C European/Australian government experience only
Ketera
C UK government experience only
PerfectCommerce
C No public sector experience identified
STRATEGIC SOURCING FULL SUITE/ERP VENDOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCE
RATING KEY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE
A Has DoD Experience
B Has Federal, but no
DoD Experience
C No Federal/DoD
Experience
Within the Strategic Sourcing Full Suite/ERP Vendors, Ariba
tends to be the strongest when implementing the various
Page 81
Ariba A SaaS and installed models have proven track records Limited and sunset support for older installed releases
Global
eProcure
B
Manage all aspects of implementation internally assuring
process control
Limited broad-scale deployment experience compared
with competition
Basware B
Strong customer references for deployment success
(even in customized versions)
Limited integrator relationships in some areas
Ketera B Very simple deployment for new solutions Deployments often limited in scope for new solutions
Emptoris B Implementation success metrics almost uniformly high Poor customer support for contract management in 2008
Bravo
Solution
B
Strong implementation success (including customized
deployments)
Strong support but heavily configured (and/or
customized) solutions require long implementation cycles
Perfect
Commerce
B Customer experience around implementations improving Legacy implementation problems
AECSoft B Satisfactory deployment/implementation success
Deployments often limited in scope (limited base of
reference for all but the smallest implementation deals)
SAP C*
Some strong configuration capabilities without requiring
customization/custom development
Highly variable implementation success; requires third-
party integrators
Oracle C
Can leverage Oracle data model to pull in other modular
information sources (e.g., ERP, planning, etc.)
party integrators
PeopleSoft C Solid E-Sourcing Implementation Capability
party integrators
Iasta C Leading implementation and support metrics
Sometimes requires 3
rd
party solutions to implement a
full suite of products
STRATEGIC SOURCING FULLSUITE/ERP VENDOR - IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
RATING KEY IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
A Significant majority of timelines
met within expectations
B Most Timelines met
within expectations
C Has Significant Challenges
Meeting Implementation Timelines
* Higher for SAP E-Sourcing, Spend Analysis, and private sector Contract Management (SaaS)
The Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendors were
compared relative to each other based on their Capabilities,
Federal Government Experience, and Implementation
Feasibility
Page 82
CRITERIA USED FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SPECIFIC TOOL VENDOR
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Overall strengths and weaknesses of capabilities provided within each functional component
Capabilities
Federal/DoD experience
Federal Government
Experience
Customization vs. configuration typically required
Implementation methods used (including pre-built interfaces)
Implementation
Feasibility
Based on a relative comparison of Federal Government-
Specific Tool Vendors across the three criteria, Compusearch
has the advantage over Distributed Solutions
Page 83
VENDOR CAPABILITIES
GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCE
IMPLEMENTATION
FEASIBILITY
Compusearch B A A
Distributed Solutions C B B
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SPECIFIC TOOL VENDOR COMPARISON SUMMARY
A further breakdown of the ratings are presented on the following slides
Within the Federal Government-Specific Tool Vendor space,
Compusearch can provide greater capability breadth and
depth compared to Distributed Solutions
Page 84
Compusearch
B
Some analytics/reporting capability
No demand management/ planning
No spend classification engine
Workflow in place for E-Procurement and Contract Management
Does not support vendor catalogs
Supports all FAR contract types
No auction capabilities built-in
Provides basic award optimization capabilities
Supports limited vendor profile capture and performance information capture
C
Limited analytics/reporting capability in place currently
No spend classification engine
No demand management/ planning
Roles-based workflow in place for E-Procurement and Contract Management
Does not support vendor catalogs
Supports all FAR contract types
No auction capabilities built-in
Provides limited award optimization capabilities
User configurable KnowledgeBase in place to capture and share acquisition
information
Supports limited vendor performance information
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SPECIFIC TOOL VENDOR - CAPABILITIES
RATING KEY - CAPABILITIES
A Has Full
Capabilities*
B Has Significant
Capabilities*
C Has Limited
Capabilities*
D- Has Very Limited to
No Capabilities*
* Across
Functional
Components
Compusearch has significant Federal experience, including
experience within several DoD organizations
Page 85
Compusearch
A
Experience with implementing part or all of its PRISM suite
within 10 Federal departments
DoD experience with:
o Army Non-appropriated Fund Contracting (MWR)
o Department of Defense: Business Transformation Agency (BTA)
o Joint Chiefs of Staff
o National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
o Office of Naval Research
B
Experience within Labor, FEMA, and VA
No identified DoD Experience
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SPECIFIC TOOL VENDORS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCE
RATING KEY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE
A Has Significant Federal
Experience including DoD
B Limited Federal /DoD
Experience
Compusearch has experience integrating its tools with a
number of legacy and COTS applications and comes with
many pre-built interfaces
Page 86
Compusearch
A
Implementations have primarily been based on configuration of business rules and workflow
versus customization (changes to code) to fit customer needs
Experience integrating with home-grown legacy applications and ERP and other COTS
applications
Interfaces have been built for Oracle procurement tools, Oracle financial tools, SAP ERP,
Oracle/PeopleSoft HR, Momentum Financials, and other systems
Pre-built interfaces with Federal systems such as CCR, ORCA, EDA, WAWF, FedBizOpps,
FPDS-NG, and several others
B
Experience integrating with legacy acquisition, Business Intelligence (BI), financial, and
logistics applications
Pre-built interfaces with Federal systems such as CCR, FedBizOpps, FPDS-NG, ORCA,
ePLS, and PPIRS
Ability for users to configure business rules and workflow
Configuration versus customization required has typically varied depending on customer
requirements
Out of the box functionality can be implemented as quickly as 20 business days
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SPECIFIC TOOL VENDORS
IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
RATING KEY IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
A Mostly configuration is typically required
and/or many pre-built system interfaces exist
B Some customization is typically
required and/or some pre-built
system interfaces exist
C Mostly customization is typically required
and/or limited pre-built system interfaces
Overall, limited Suite/Point Solution Vendors have a number of
strengths and weaknesses for each functional component
compared to other vendors
Page 87
FUNCTIONAL
COMPONENT
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Spend Analysis
Classification levels/success often higher
Can work with multiple taxonomies,
analytics, strategy development, etc.
Often require multiple solutions (e.g.,
classification + BI) vs. stand alone offerings
E-Procurement Price
Large-scale references (often middle market)
Supplier enablement
Content management
E-Sourcing
Price
Usability
Third-party content/benchmarks/supplier
directories (in certain cases)
Feature depth
Linkages to other modules (e.g., contract
management)
Contract
Management
Workflow
Configurability
Legal/sell-side tie-in (single deployment)
Compliance management
N/A
Supplier
Management
Configurability
Workflow
Large scale deployment experience
Third-party content integration
Push/pull to all systems
Still an immature market with limited
references (even for top point solution
providers)
LIMITED SUITE/POINT SOLUTION VENDORS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Page 88
Executive Summary
Methodology
Appendix
o Methodology

Contents
Compusearch has successfully implemented its Federally-
focused tools within the Army FMWRC
Page 89
COMPUSEARCH STANDARD NON-APPROPRIATED CONTRACTING SYSTEM (SNACS)
DoD Customer: United States Army Family & MWR Command (FMWRC)
Period(s) of performance: 01/01/1999 10/31/2005, 11/01/2005 10/31/2008
Project Description: Provide the PRISM solution for U.S. Army Family & MWR Command to for use in all
procurement offices throughout the U.S. Army Non-Appropriated Funds Division (CONUS/OCONUS)
allowing the contract officers/specialists to create requisitions, solicitations, contracts, and modifications as
well as track all bids, perform bid evaluation, closeout of awards, and archiving of closed documents
Number of applications, users, and locations supported: Approximately 4,300 people, spread over
four locations (U.S. CONUS, Germany, Korea, Hawaii).
System Integration services provided: Installation and configuration services for both CONUS and
OCONUS sites within the FMWRC organization, including supporting the FMWRC database
administrators in order to ensure the efficient operation of the PRISM application
Government POC:
Mr. Andrew Urben
Contracting Officers Representative
Phone number: (703) 681-5290
Fax number: (703) 681-5363
E-mail address: Andrew.Urben@us.army.mil
SAP is implementing its Procurement for Public Sector (PPS)
suite at the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Page 90
SAP-BASED DLA E-PROCUREMENT SYSTEM
DoD Customer: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Project Description: Implementing tools including SAP Procurement for Public Sector (PPS), SAP Document
Builder, and SAP Records and Case Management. These tools will be integrated with existing SAP products
including SAP ERP, SAP Business Warehouse and SAP Enterprise Portal
Benefits/ Impact:
Tighter Integration with the DLA Electronic Business System (EBS)
Reduced operational costs from eliminating maintenance of disparate legacy contracting software
Greater ability to more effectively streamline and manage procurement operations by using one system
Improved efficiency and accuracy with interfacing to external systems, such as DoD Electronic Document Access (EDA) and the
DCMA Mechanization of Contract Administration Services (MOCAS) System
Implementation Success Plan:
Conduct a two increment Plan/Analyze Phase to identify and document existing business requirements and perform a
comparison of those requirements to the proposed software solution
Conduct a Test Phase that includes multiple system test passes, a full regression test, an operational test (a clean run of system
test cases and scripts), a user test and a performance test
Include Go/no Go criteria to confirm that the system is ready to be moved to production
Ensure on-going Post-Production Support and Risk Management to monitoring of business and technical performance of E-
Procurement software, the core EBS system, and all interfaces to detect and handle any problems as soon as possible
Government POCs:
Process Lead - (703) 325-1643
Solution Delivery Lead - (215) 737-8513
In addition, Oracle and Ariba both have experience
implementing their Strategic Sourcing technology solutions
within DoD
Page 91
VENDOR DOD CUSTOMER
CONTRACT
NUMBER(S)
DESCRIPTION OF
WORK CONDUCTED
GOVERNMENT POC
Oracle Air Force - AFWAY
FA877006F8002
(GS35F0108)
Implemented a Web-
based system for
procuring commercial IT
assets and services and
automates the
purchasing process
(AFWAY)
Will Bishop
Ariba
Navy -
Naval Inventory
Control Point
(NAVICP)
N0010401DQ082
N0010407CQ423
Implemented E-Sourcing
(reverse auction) tool
within NAVICP
Debra Kessler:
DEBRA.KESSLER@NAV
Y.MIL
EXAMPLES OF STRATEGIC SOURCING TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATIONS WITHIN DOD

Strategic Sourcing Tools Analysis Final Report - FINAL - 111209 AF Version

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Strategic Sourcing Tools Analysis Final Report - FINAL - 111209 AF Version

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen