Stan Soloway


Feds' focus on margins puts industrial base at risk

RecentlyI wrote in this space about the challenges facing companies in the current fiscal environment. This month, I want to focus on the key themes outlined in our recent report to the Secretary of Defense on the likely impacts on our industry from DOD’s budget reductions. Those themes were also front and center at the Professional Services Council’s recent Marketview 2012 conference and deserve continued attention and discussion.

Through two days of presentations and discussions with senior government officials and outside experts, the conference attendees gained additional, but often distressing, insight into the next several years of federal fiscal chaos.

While the road ahead will be rocky and uncertain, if it is navigated properly by both government and industry, a stronger government-focused industrial base could emerge. But it wasn’t until the last panel of the conference, which focused on the changing policies and strategies the military departments are using to procure services that the challenges associated with achieving that goal became most evident.

Said one government panelist: “If you’re thinking about margins, you’re thinking about the wrong thing. The fiscal environment is such that you should only be thinking about booking revenue, not margins.”

A moment later he said, “We have decided that the vast majority of what we buy is appropriately bought on a low price, technically acceptable basis" and "We are going to require that any component that seeks to use a ‘best value’ approach justify their reasons for doing so.”

And finally, “If you bid too low, know this: We’re going to hold you to your contract and demand that you deliver what you promised.”

In a brief statement, that speaker captured the key question for both industry and government today: Where does quality, value, and innovation fit in an environment where resources are under extreme pressure?

I have reason to believe that while the speaker meant what he said, he was also being intentionally provocative. But his comments, even if slightly exaggerated, are deeply concerning.

First, let’s talk about margins. Every government contractor is well aware that margins are going to be tight. They are fully aware that, regardless of sector, everyone has to be a part of the solution to the fiscal crisis.

But there is a vast difference between recognizing that tighter margins are a reality and facing the potential where there will be exceedingly low or even no margins. Without meaningful profit, no company can afford to innovate, invest in technology or people, or otherwise continually enhance performance. That is a simple fact.

And in that race to the bottom environment, where so-called “bottom feeding” is not only tolerated but potentially even encouraged, both government and high performing, innovative companies lose.

Similarly, one can make the case that, in many circumstances, assuming the technical requirements are properly set, more pricing discipline may be in order. But we see today a preponderance of procurements based on the lowest price and minimal technical qualifications, even when smart contracting would dictate otherwise.

More than ever, the government can and should only buy what it needs. But denying companies bidding on other than commoditized services any real credit for their innovations, past performance, performance enhancements that drive long term efficiencies, or other discriminators will only exacerbate the bottom feeding described above and, again, set both the government and its industry partners up for short- and long-term failure and higher ultimate costs. It’s the epitome of being pennywise and a pound foolish.

Overcoming the increasingly evident shortsightedness of the acquisition process requires two immediate actions.

First, senior leaders in the agencies must repeatedly and clearly articulate a new message to the field that they, as the customer, “own” their requirements; that low price is not always the simple or correct answer it appears to be; that their acquisitions must be structured to drive innovation, optimize efficiencies and outcomes; and that intentionally or arbitrarily driving company margins below reasonable levels is an unwise and no-win strategy.

The auction mentality may be fine for rock salt or office supplies but it is dangerous for technical or complex services acquisitions.

Second, we need to have a new and immediate dialog about how to define “appropriate margins” and “technically acceptable.” For many in government, the former is irrelevant and the latter means “we buy what we think we need.”

To the private sector, the former is crucial and the latter too often means “you’re only interested in average or worse, not innovation or excellence.” As a result, there is no incentive to industry to invest in anything beyond being mediocre.

Bridging those definitional gaps will not be easy. But if we fail to do so, at least two outcomes are likely: first, we will collectively fail to deliver on behalf of the taxpayer; second, the industry that emerges as the survivors of the downturn may not be the industry it could be or the one the government customer really wants and needs.

Neither outcome would be good news for anyone.

Reader Comments

Wed, Apr 18, 2012 Eileen Kent

Dear Stan - This is a GREAT article. Every contractor selling to the government should know their services' best values, communicate them early and often....and close the deal with a defendable proposal which will result in the project meeting and exceeding the federal customer's requirements every single time. No mistakes. No excuses. Your article is well rounded and looks at many angles...the customer's need to get the job done in a timely, legal and cost effective manner..and the vendor's need to meet the customer's expectations, in a timely, legal and cost effective manner :) Great!

Wed, Apr 18, 2012 Jaime Gracia Washington, DC

Also lost on the conversation is the double-whammy of performance, from both an execution and ratings standpoint. I have yet to see the type of accountability one of the panelists mentioned, as the price needed to win a competition is often driven lower than a realistic cost (or should-cost for that matter). It is sanctioned “buying in,” so modifications and increased funding allow for the completion of the requirements and what the customer needs. Performance suffers, and the firm “underperforming” at the unrealistic price needed to compete also stands to suffer with a past performance rating. Further exacerbating the problem is some officials are arguing for firms to not be given the chance to challenge these poor ratings. Poor results for the taxpayer are assured in this environment.

Tue, Apr 17, 2012 Rick Vogel simi valley, ca

Do a Google for "NITCP GSA" and then one for "GSA OASIS". What's already in GSA's pipeline will scare you.

Tue, Apr 17, 2012

The government has to concentrate on definitively defining its statement of work (SOW) as much as possible, selecting the proper contract type, and then competing the requirement. With basic, but well defined pass or fair technical capability of prospective offerors part of every solicitation, the bottom feeders, for the most part, can be eliminated; and, repetitive services bought effectively while the market place defines the margins.

Tue, Apr 17, 2012 Northern VA

I worked for a company that won a bid because it was the lowest price, only to lose the award because we were unable to deliver the contractors with the years of experience and qualifications the government agency required for that price. I believe the government is out of touch when it comes to acquire qualified candidates to successfully complete these contracts. I also believe that because many contracting companies have taken advantage of the system, as well as being greedy, the government is now being extremely cautious when it comes to costs.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above.

WT Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.