By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

OFPP mythbusts government-industry communications

The November Office of Management and Budget report on improving IT acquisition success and the TechAmerica industry panel on the same subject (which I co-chaired) both recommended that government be more open in communicating with potential vendors while major procurements are in development. In particular, they recommended, the government should be having more one-on-one communications with interested vendors prior to issuance of a request for proposals to get advice on what should be in the RFP, which is the only venue where vendors may share interesting information.

When I served on the TechAmerica panel, I was surprised about the degree of intensity among industry people regarding this issue. I think a good bit of this is psychological -- government's refusal to talk with vendors is seen as an expression of disrespect or dislike, a view that vendors are crooks and that the government gets contaminated by too much interaction with them. But this is about more than hurt feelings. To prepare a good procurement, the government needs to understand the marketplace and the subject area well -- what kinds of solutions are out there, what are issues others have run into trying to do similar things, etc. Vendors are a fantastic source of information about questions such as these -- assuming one doesn't rely on just one vendor for the information -- and it is crazy not to use this source. Indeed, an important reason to contract in the first place is that the vendor has insights about what the customer wants to buy that the customer doesn't have itself. OMB recognizes these truths.

Now, in the wake of the November OMB report, Dan Gordon, the administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, has issued a memo to senior agency procurement people, with the evocative title, "Myth-Busting: Addressing Misperceptions to Improve Communication with Industry During the Acquisition Process." The memo lists the "Top 10 Misconceptions and Facts," but the most important myth is the first one listed, the idea that it is not acceptable to have one-on-one meetings with industry while an acquisition is being planned.

As the memo notes, Part 15.201 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation  -- based on a 1997 change to the regs that was my last act as OFPP administrator -- specifically authorizes such meetings. The memo states that the Office of Federal Procurement Policy will work with the Defense Acquisition University and the Federal Acquisition Institute to get these messages out in training, along with conducting sessions at the major conferences this year.

The effort to encourage government-vendor communication should be going further than the memo suggests, in my view. One big problem that often arises after contract award is unclear language in the original solicitation that leads to the two sides having different interpretations of what the government was asking for. To alleviate this problem early, the government should issue the draft RFP and ask industry to bring to the government's attention words, phrases, or ideas in the draft where in internal company discussions there was disagreement about what the government meant.

Second, the government should re-institute a technique used a few times a decade ago to give potential bidders a period of "due diligence," where they could kick the tires of the agency operation involved in the work for the contract to be bid, ask questions, and learn more to put them in a better position to bid intelligently and present new ideas. (This technique is particularly important for non-incumbents.) Finally, the government should incentivize presentation of valuable information in the pre-RFP stage by providing credit during proposal evaluation for company comments prior to the RFP that helped the government improve its solicitation.

Industry needs to change as well, as the TechAmerica report itself argued. There is nothing wrong with company business development people talking with agency folks, and indeed in sitting in on one-on-one meetings. But, frankly, the most useful information for the government will often come from industry technical and subject matter expert people, more than from the business development ones. These are the people who can better help the agency understand what's available in the marketplace. Industry needs to be sending these people to the one-on-one meetings, not just business development people.

Frankly, we had better government-industry communications in the late 1990's and the beginning of the millennium than we have had the last few years -- due to the 1997 changes in the FAR and a less adversarial government-industry relationship compared to what was to develop later in the wake of the politicization of contracting issues after the war in Iraq -- and it unfortunately didn't prevent bad RFP's and poor acquisition strategies for major IT projects. If we're going to run up this hill again -- which we most definitely should -- industry needs to do a better job providing government with valuable information as acquisitions are being planned, and the government needs to do a better job listening.

Posted on Feb 07, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Reader Comments

Tue, Feb 15, 2011 Steve Kelman

Trail Boss, thanks for those really interesting comments! Could you possibly get more specific about how these actions improved the quality of the bids? I think specifics would be really helpful in getting the word out to our community. Thank you in advance! Steve

Mon, Feb 14, 2011 Trail Boss

We utilized "due diligence" in another agency I worked in, where the potential bidders were invited to visit every type of office my agency had in not only the DC area but in the southwest. Another technique we utilized was having a not for attibution session, where the potential bidders responded electronically to our questions, but without the government knowing which contractor offered which suggestion, An outside facilitator was utilized with a facilitation facility so that the potential bidders knew we were serious about getting feedback. Both techniques improved the quality of bids we received.

Tue, Feb 8, 2011 Gorgonzola

You seem to attribute politicization of contracting issues to the "war in Iraq." That's perhaps a unique view. Contracts have always been political. That the government grossly mismanaged reconstruction and logistics contracts does not make for "politicization." Rather, it makes the government look incompetent and incapable of understanding industry and the basic math of doing business outside the greenzone. That is where the govt employees huddled, if they were in-country at all. So politicization is not due to the war itself, but to the government management performance (with usual lack of accountability), opening the door to fraud, waste and abuse to the minority of contractors looking for such opportunities. Neither side is paying much of a price for this. If you watched the Commission hearing last week, the same thing is happening in Afgh. BAU.

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


  • POWER TRAINING: How to engage your customers

    Don't miss our June 7 Washington Technology Power Training session on Mastering Stakeholder Engagement, where you'll learned the critical skills you need to more fully connect with your customers and win more business. Read More


    In our latest Project 38 Podcast, editor Nick Wakeman and senior staff writer Ross Wilkers discuss the major news events so far in 2019 and what major trends are on the horizon. Read More

contracts DB

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.