Stan Soloway

COMMENTARY

Senate attempt to reduce protests misses the point

When it comes to federal procurement, the frequency and expectation of protests has had a palpable, costly, and sometimes deleterious effect on the process and those competing in it. Most companies now add an extra six to 12 months to their revenue projections in order to account for possible protests.

There is good reason to believe (including surveys) that “low price/technically acceptable” (LPTA) procurement strategies are, with some frequency, driven by a desire to avoid protests, since protesting such procurements is near impossible. 

And, of course, there have been cases where incumbents, having lost a re-competition, submit a protest and, as a result, effectively get a contract extension while the protest is decided. 

All of these represent unintended and undesirable impacts of the protest process. As a result, many have believed for some time that significant remedial action is needed. This includes the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, for the second year in a row, has included provisions in the defense authorization bill that would require losing protestors to reimburse the government for the costs of a protest when none of the plaintiff’s allegations are sustained. 

The legislation would also require the withholding of all profits from incumbent contractors who lose a recompetition and file a protest. The funds would only then be released if some portion of the protest is sustained. If it is fully rejected, the money would be paid to the company that won the competition over which the protest was filed.

Some, including my friend and former federal procurement administrator Steve Kelman would go even further. He has at times argued we should consider doing away with protests altogether since no such equivalent exists in the commercial sector. Unfortunately, sympathetic as I am to the issues driving these views, we are putting the cart before the horse. 

First and foremost, we have to remember that protests exist principally to ensure that the outcome of a procurement is in the best interests of the taxpayer. Hence, when mistakes are made, it is in the government’s, and taxpayer’s, interest to take corrective action. 

Second, the federal acquisition regulation makes clear that all bidders on a federal procurement must be treated fairly. To the extent the government fails to follow its own rules or stated procurement strategy, remediation is required. There is no such requirement in the commercial world. 

Third, even if a protest is dismissed in its entirety one cannot make the leap to assuming nefarious intent on the part of the protestor. That’s like saying everyone who loses a lawsuit was being frivolous in filing it. Obviously that’s not always the case. 

For these reasons, and more, the Senate language is the wrong answer. But that does not mean a problem doesn’t exist and that some meaningful action is not possible. Quite the contrary. 

Ironically, the proposed legislation includes a crucial part of the answer. In addition to the provisions cited above, it would also mandate quality, detailed debriefings for all significant procurements. 

We learned in the 1990s that good debriefings result in far fewer protests. In fact, the data is clear that many companies use the protest process as a means of discovery; of trying to understand why they lost a given competition. In the years immediately following the added emphasis on debriefings, the number of protests dropped significantly. 

As but one good example, the IRS had a policy of sharing in a debriefing all information that might otherwise be released during a formal protest (with appropriate redactions). And they executed numerous, significant procurements without a single protest. To its credit, the Senate committee would require that the IRS’s debriefing policy become the norm.

The bill would also require release of the government’s internal, written source selection criteria, which could and should be done anyway. Taken together, these two important steps toward greater transparency could have a very substantial effect. It should also be noted that the IRS was also particularly good in its pre-award communications to bidders, which undoubtedly also facilitated effective and credible competitions. Yet, such communications remain all too inconsistent. 

Assigning motive is always a slippery slope. And much of what we think we know remains based on presumption rather than good data. Thus, it would also be helpful if there were better data on the frequency and nature of incumbent protests. How often are they actually sustained, in whole or in part? Is it possible to measure the frequency with which incumbents file protests focused on issues that, while valid, are so minor they would not result in a changed outcome?

There are things that can be done to reduce the negative effects and frequency of protests. And they start with enhanced transparency—before, during and after award.

But the current Senate proposal fails to consider protests in the context of the broader procurement regime and its innumerable government-unique requirements. Yes, it could reduce the number of protests. But it might well do so for the wrong reasons and based on the wrong assumptions.

About the Author

Stan Soloway is a former deputy undersecretary of Defense and former president and chief executive officer of the Professional Services Council. He is now the CEO of Celero Strategies.

Reader Comments

Fri, Jul 28, 2017

Very true about the need for MUCH more detailed debriefings. Being told that you lost because someone else's technical approach was "outstanding" and yours was merely "acceptable" doesn't help you AT ALL. The key to improving for next time is understanding WHY someone else's proposal was better or why yours was lacking. Unfortunately, agencies feel that any info they divulge can be used against them in a protest, which is why they give the bare minimum.

Wed, Jul 26, 2017 Arthur Medici VA

Very thoughtful, Stan. The reasoned voice of experience...

Wed, Jul 26, 2017

As mentioned above, procurement strategies (such as the disastrous LPTA) are often tailored specifically to reduce the chance of a protest. While a faster procurement timeline generally helps the agency's mission, using an inappropriate procurement strategy often works AGAINST the agency's mission.

Wed, Jul 26, 2017 Ex-govie

Another problem with the current situation is the number of levels of protest that are available, and the length of time they take to adjudicate. Perhaps one level of protest is enough? And the decision needs to be made within, say, 60 days, albeit still thoughtfully.

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

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Our databases track awards back to 2013. Read More

  • Navigating the trends and issues of 2016 Nick Wakeman

    In our latest WT Insider Report, we pull together our best advice, insights and reporting on the trends and issues that will shape the market in 2016 and beyond. Read More

contracts DB

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.