Five Rules for Bidding on Contracts

© sebra - Fotolia.com

© sebra – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Debbie Ouellet of EchelonOne Consulting.

Winning a new contract can have a huge impact on the financial health of your business. If you want to improve your chances of winning when responding to requests for proposals (RFPs), here are five rules to help you along.

  1. Stop. Think. Plan.

One of the biggest mistakes that I see when companies bid on contracts is that they start out something like this. The RFP document comes in and someone books a meeting of the people involved in the response. They carve out the questions to different people, assign one person to write the response and everyone goes off to do their part.

While that’s not bad as step two, too often the first most important step is missed. The first step should always be to ask yourself, “What’s it going to take to win this contract?” Start by understanding what your strategy to win is. How will you position your solution and your company in the response? When you do that first, it will impact how you answer questions, and how you present and price your solution. You’ll also come up with a stronger RFP response and increase your chances of winning.

  1. Lose your ego.

Your client doesn’t care about how big you are, how great your widget is, or how many awards you’ve won. What they really want to know is:

  • how you’re going to make their job easier
  • how you’ll help them solve that nagging problem
  • or carve away at costs so that they can meet their budget

Sure; you’ll get around to talking about yourself, but never lead with it. Make the focus of your proposal all about your client and how your solution is going to help them.

  1. Forget the fluff.

There is always the temptation, especially when the timing of an RFP (request for proposal) coincides with a busy time in your business, to copy and paste content from marketing material as part of your response.

You’ll tell yourself that it saves time. And somewhere amongst all that wonderful marketing lingo, it does answer the question posed in the RFP. Though it may save time for you, it adds time for the reader (i.e., the decision maker).

Let’s face it; that’s not the best way to make a good impression on the person who will be deciding whether you should be awarded the contract. Chances are that they may even miss the answer because it’s buried so deep within the marketing material.

  1. Never bad-mouth the competition.

It’s fine to make general statements about how your product out-performs its competitors. However, never bad-mouth your competition, especially by name. Besides being in poor taste, trashing the competition makes you sound desperate. It will also cause the reader to pause and question your business ethics.

  1. Don’t expect them to do the math.

If you’re presenting an idea that will save money, or involves a different approach to costing, spell it out in your response. Never expect the person reading the RFP proposal to do the math and figure it out. If you don’t do the math for them, one of three things will happen:

  1. They’ll be too busy and not bother. A competitor made it clear what was involved, so they’ll go with them.
  2. They’ll misunderstand and calculate incorrectly. You’ll either not win the bid because it came in too high (according to their calculations), or you’ll spend a lot of time back-tracking because they thought they were getting a better deal than you intended.
  3. They’ll do the math (grudgingly) and get it right. Chances are, however, that since you’ve made them do the work, that they’ll go deeper and perhaps start to nit-pick details and pricing when they wouldn’t have, had you simply provided them with the information upfront.

Debbie Ouellet of EchelonOne Consulting is a Canadian RFP consultant and business writer. She helps business owners win new clients and grow their business by helping them to plan and write great RFP responses, business proposals, web content and marketing content. You can find out more about Debbie at www.echelonone.ca.

This post originally appeared at https://www.echelonone.ca/5-rules-for-bidding-on-contracts and was adapted and reprinted with permission.


Bid Protests – Timeliness Tips

Business Concept, Businessman Running Follow Clock Late Work Time Cartoon Vector Illustration

© nakedcm – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC.

Think twice before delaying a pre-award debriefing

A recent GAO case reiterates the idea that offerors must “diligently pursue” their protest options and be mindful of timeline issues that are raised when a pre-award debriefing is requested. See VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., B-412729, 2016 WL 1085374 (Comp. Gen. Mar. 14, 2016).

While offerors may request that a debriefing be delayed until after award, FAR 15.505(a)(2) specifically warns that delayed debriefings “could affect the timeliness of any protest filed subsequent to the debriefing.” The offeror in VMD should have heeded this warning.

In VMD, the protestor was eliminated from the competitive range but chose to delay a pre-award debriefing until after the award. In that debriefing it learned that it may have been treated unequally in its elimination from the competitive range. The offeror protested but the GAO declined the protest, holding that at the time it chose to delay the debriefing the protester could have learned of the alleged unequal treatment.

By choosing to receive a post-award, “it effectively chose not to protest its exclusion from the competitive range.” Because more than 10 days had passed since the time the protester elected to delay the debriefing, the GAO dismissed the protest.

From the timing perspective, protest grounds are viewed broadly

The GAO’s recent decision in REB ROWE Services, LLC; General Services Administration–Reconsideration, B-410001.6; B-410001.7 (Apr. 4, 2016), demonstrates this point with respect to timeliness rules in a supplemental protest.

In that case, REB ROWE Services, LLC, the awardee, and the General Services Administration asked the GAO to reconsider its decision in Alcazar Trades, Inc.; Sparkle Warner JV, LLC, B-410001.4; B-410001.5, April 1, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 123, in which the GAO sustained a protest by Alcazar Trades, Inc. (“ATI”), arguing that ATI’s price realism allegation was untimely raised.

In denying the request, the GAO took a broad view of the initial protest grounds, holding that “whether ATI couched its challenges to the government estimate as an argument about price realism, or about adequate staffing, the essential elements in dispute were the same.”

Further, the GAO stated “[w]hile the agency and REB ROWE accurately charge that ATI applied the label of ‘price realism’ to its challenges only when it filed its comments on the agency report, we conclude that the protester had essentially raised, before it filed its comments, all of the elements that eventually led us to sustain the protest because the agency performed a flawed review of price realism.”

Remember the automatic stay

Most of us know that the automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act is a significant factor in choosing to protest at the GAO. While in order to be timely, a protester must file within 10 days of the contract award or 5 days of the required debriefing, it is important to remember that the stay is not triggered until the GAO provides notice to the agency.

In fact, the GAO has one business day in which to provide such notice. Thus, although a protest may be timely if filed within 10 days of the award or 5 days of the debriefing, the stay will not be awarded unless the protest is filed at least one day earlier than this filing deadline.

Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC (http://www.dealeservices.com) is a government contracts attorney and business consultant with experience working as corporate counsel for a Fortune 500 government contractor and as a private practitioner for over one hundred small, midsize and large businesses. In addition to being the owner of a law firm, Mr. Miles regularly advises clients on teaming agreements, joint ventures, subcontracting, government contract disputes, bid protests, international contracting matters and corporate compliance.

This post originally appeared at http://www.dealeservices.com/uncategorized/bid-protests-timeliness-tips/ and was adapted and reprinted with permission.


RFP Templates – By Saving Time, Can You Lose a Bid?

rfp request for proposal paper document vector graphic

© ribkhan – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Debbie Ouellet of EchelonOne Consulting. Note from Bill: Here in the States, you might hear the term “boilerplate” instead of template.

I’m often asked by sales professionals if I can help them write powerful RFP (Request for Proposal) response templates that will help them win every upcoming bid. It’s true, responding to RFPs can be time-consuming and stressful. That’s especially true for many sales and operations professionals who work on RFP responses while still being expected to deliver in their full-time jobs. And, templates save time and ensure a standardized look and approach to a response.

A template response can help you save time, but lose the bid

Though going the template route sounds like a time saver, you’ll find that the end product won’t give you the kind of results you want.

You’ll end up with a lower win ratio and have to bid on even more contracts in order to meet your sales targets.

Don’t misunderstand – templates for standard questions often found in RFPs, like requests to show your quality assurance program or problem resolution process, are a good thing and should be used.

But the key pieces like your solution, executive summary and related experience need to be written specifically for the RFP and the project. Even resumes for key team members often need to be edited to highlight the experience that is relevant to the RFP requirements.

Here’s why: Most RFP decision makers see a lot of responses and can smell a template response a mile away. You stand a much greater chance of winning a contract when the decision makers feel that you really understand them and their needs. Your solution needs to address their problem, not the average customer’s problem. A template response won’t do that for you. That’s especially true when you’re asked to provide a technical solution to a complex problem.

Other ways to save time when responding to RFPs

If you want to save time in the RFP process, you may want to consider your “bid, no bid” process to make sure that the contracts you’re going after are a good fit to begin with. Only respond to bids where you have a good story to tell, can meet all mandatory requirements and the potential payout is worth the effort needed to respond. Then you can spend quality time creating great solutions and presenting them convincingly.

Debbie Ouellet of EchelonOne Consulting is a Canadian RFP consultant and business writer. She helps business owners win new clients and grow their business by helping them to plan and write great RFP responses, business proposals, web content and marketing content. You can find out more about Debbie at www.echelonone.ca/.

This article originally appeared at https://www.echelonone.ca/rfp-templates-by-saving-time-can-you-lose-a-bid and was reprinted with permission.


Recovering Your Bid Protest Costs

Serious business man working on documents looking concentrated with briefcase and phone on the table

© UBER IMAGES – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jerry Miles of Deale Services LLC.

After all of your hard work winning a bid protest, a recent Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) opinion suggests that the work is not yet over. More than that, it suggests that you should have started your work early on in the bid protest process.

In Cascadian American Enterprises—Costs, B-412208.6, July 5, 2016, the GAO addressed this issue head on, to disastrous effect on the contractor. CAE was a small business which won a protest against the Army Corps of Engineers in a small business set-aside procurement.

To support its request to the GAO to recommend the amount it should be reimbursed by the agency, CAE attached a one-page invoice, with three line items, in the amount of $53,160. This included “234 hours for ‘Protest Sept. 30, 2015-Feb. 5, 2016,’ at a rate of $150 per hour for a total of $35,100, and 120 hours for ‘Response to Agency Report,’ at a rate of $150 per hour for a total of $18,000. Id. The third line item was for “Miscellaneous material costs [for $60].”

Several times, the agency responded that the request for reimbursement was not adequately documented to allow the agency to determine its reasonableness and made request for more information and an explanation of the hours expended on the protest. CAE responded to each request with slightly more detail.

The GAO reiterated previous rulings that “a protester seeking to recover its protest costs must submit evidence sufficient to support its claim that those costs were incurred and are properly attributable to filing and pursuing the protest.”

Noting that the burden of proof is on the protester, the GAO states that “[at] a minimum, claims for reimbursement must identify and support the amounts claimed for each individual expense (including cost data to support the calculation of claimed hourly rates), the purpose for which that expense was incurred, and how the expense relates to the protest before our Office.”

In denying the claim for reimbursement, the GAO noted that, even though CAE was a sole proprietorship, “CAE has nonetheless failed to provide any documentation or detail sufficient to support the claimed 321 hours spent on the protest.” GAO further noted that “CAE’s owner asserts that he ‘did not take any notes about the time spent on which day doing what’ and therefore provides mostly generalized statements.” In addition, the GAO stated that the claim failed to provide cost data to “establish that the claimed hourly rates reflect actual rates of compensation.”

Takeaways from this decision

Beginning with the moment you start to consider protesting a procurement, take contemporaneous notes regarding all protest-related tasks you perform so that you can provide substantiation of the hours you claim to have worked on the protest. This should not only be done by you and, of course, by your attorneys, but also all others working on the matter.

Include specific cost data in your claim. That is, include support for the cost of each expense and demonstrate support for your hourly rates expended on the protest. Notate how each expense relates to the claim for reimbursement.

This post originally appeared on the Deale blog at http://www.dealeservices.com/uncategorized/bid-protest-recovering-protest-costs/ and was reprinted with permission.


Sole Source Contracts for Women-Owned Small Businesses

Business woman celebrating on Money. Business Success Concept

© siraanamwong – Fotolia.com

As GSA Interact reported on their blog, several new FAR rules will impact small business.

According to the Federal Register, “DoD, GSA, and NASA have adopted as final, with a minor edit, an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) that provide for authority to award sole source contracts to economically disadvantaged women-owned small business concerns and to women-owned small business concerns eligible under the Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program.”

The Federal Register also notes that the rule puts the WOSB Program “on a level playing field with other SBA Government contracting programs with sole source authority and provided an additional, needed tool for agencies to meet the statutorily mandated goal of 5 percent of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for WOSBs.” 

Of all the SBA contracting programs, the 8(a) set-aside rules were always the best for sole sourcing. Fundamentally, if a KO (contracting officer) was willing (at the program office’s behest) to accept/write a Justification and Approval (J&A), the sole source went through. As well, many times this same authority was extended to 8(a) companies on multiple-award vehicles, so that the covered programs could use the vehicle to do sole sourcing as well.

This new regulation and FAR/DFAR change creates a similar dynamic for EDWOSBs – which is huge, because there are many EDWOSB companies ready for this, and because the 8(a) sole sourcing has come under pressure, particularly after some of the issues that arose in large sole sourcing for Alaskan Native Companies (ANCs) and some less than ethical/legal behavior by companies trying to take advantage of the program. In fact, the 8(a) program seems to have largely been replaced with “small disadvantaged” status, much to the chagrin of many of my friends who have 8(a) status.

This is definitely a major change, considering the 328 EDWOSBs and 974 WOSBs who could have received sole source awards between April 1, 2011 (the implementation date of the WOSB Program) and September 1, 2015.


SBA Proposed Rule Will Allow Size Standard Appeals

© Sergey Nivens - Fotolia.com

© Sergey Nivens – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Candace Shields of SmallGovCon.

The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals will have authority to hear petitions for reconsideration of SBA size standards under a proposed rule recently issued by the SBA.

Once the proposal becomes a final rule, anyone “adversely affected” by a new, revised or modified size standard would have 30 days to ask OHA to review the SBA’s size standard determination.

By way of background, when a federal agency issues a solicitation, it ordinarily is required to designate one–and only one–NAICS code based on the primary purpose of the contract. Each NAICS code carries a corresponding size standard, which is the upper perimeter a business must fall below to be considered as small under any solicitation designated with that NAICS code.

The size standard is measure by either average annual receipts or number of employees, and varies by industry. So, for example, under current law, NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction) carries a $36.5 million receipts-based size standard. The SBA’s size standards are codified in 13 C.F.R. 121.201 and published in an easier-to-read format in the SBA’s Size Standards Table.

Importantly, size standards are not static. The SBA regularly reviews and adjusts size standards based on the “economic characteristics of the industry,” as well as “the impact of inflation on monetary-based size standards.” In 2014, for example, the SBA upwardly adjusted many receipts-based size standards based on inflation.

The size standards selected by the SBA can have major competitive repercussions. If the SBA chooses a lower size standard for a particular industry, many businesses won’t qualify as “small.” If the SBA selects a higher size standard, some smaller businesses will have trouble effectively competing with larger (but still “small”) competitors.

Despite the importance of size standards in the competitive landscape, there is not an SBA administrative mechanism for a business to challenge or appeal a size standard selected by the SBA (although judicial review is possible). Now, that is about to change. In the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress vested OHA with jurisdiction to hear petitions challenging the SBA’s size standard selection.

In response to the authority vested in OHA by the 2016 NDAA, the SBA’s proposed rule that sets out the procedural rules for OHA’s reconsideration of size standards petitions. While adhering closely to the procedural rules for SBA size challenges, the new rules for petitions for reconsideration of size standards lay out specific procedural regulations for filing a petition of reconsideration of size standards. The proposed rule addresses the issues of standing, public notification, intervention, filing documentation, finality, and effect on solicitations. The proposed rule also includes size standard petitions as part of SBA’s process for establishing size standards.

Here are some key proposed provisions worth noting:

  • Proposed Section 134.902(a) grants standing to any person “adversely affected” by a new, revised, or modified size standard. That section would also provide that the adversely affected person would have 30 calendar days from the date of the SBA’s final rule to file its petition with OHA. This section of the rule confirms that OHA’s review will be limited to cases in which the SBA actually adopts or modifies a size standard; petitioners will not have authority to challenge preexisting size standards.
  • Proposed Section 134.902(b) would provide that a business entity is not “adversely affected” unless it conducts business in the industry associated with the size standard being challenged and either qualified as a small business concern before the size standard was revised or modified or would be qualified as a small business concern under the size standard as revised or modified.
  • Proposed Section 134.904(a) outlines the technical requirements of filing a Petition. This includes things like including a copy of the final rule and a narrative about why SBA’s size standard is alleged to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with applicable law.
  • Proposed Section 134.906 would permit interested persons with a direct stake in the outcome of the case to intervene and obtain a copy of the Petition.
  • Proposed Section 134.909 sets forth the standard of review as “whether the process employed by SBA to arrive at the size standard ‘was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” As if that language wasn’t enough, the section clarifies that the petitioner bears the burden of proof.
  • Proposed Section 134.914 would require OHA to issue a decision within 45 days “as practicable.”
  • Proposed Section 134.917 would require SBA to rescind the challenged size standard if OHA grants a Petition. The size standard in effect prior to the final rule would be restored until a new final rule is issued.
  • Proposed Section 134.917 would state that “because Size Standard Petition proceedings are not required to be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge, attorneys’ fees are not available under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
  • Proposed Section 134.918 clarifies that filing a petition with OHA is optional; an adversely affected party may, if it prefers, go directly to federal court.

Given the importance of size standards in government contracting–and given the resources it often takes to pursue legal action in federal court–an internal SBA administrative process for hearing size standard challenges will be an important benefit for contractors. It is important to note that SBA’s proposed rule is merely proposed; OHA won’t hear size standard challenges until a final rule is in place.

Public comments on the rule are due December 6, 2016. To comment, follow the instructions on the first page of the proposed rule.

This post originally appeared at http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/sba-proposed-rule-will-allow-sba-oha-size-standard-appeals/ – sthash.MmEI71yW.dpuf and was reprinted with permission.


Consolidation and Bundling

© apinan - Fotolia.com

© apinan – Fotolia.com

When federal agencies bundle or consolidate requirements, it can exclude small businesses from qualifying for the work. A new FAR rule effective October 31, 2016  (one of many that will impact small businesses) will address this.

According to the Federal Register, consolidation or consolidated requirement means “a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, a task order, or a delivery order to satisfy:

i. Two or more requirements of the Federal agency for supplies or services that have been provided to or performed for the Federal agency under two or more separate contracts, each of which was lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which offers are solicited; or
ii. Requirements of the Federal agency for construction projects to be performed at two or more discrete sites.

Bundling, they explain, is “a subset of consolidation that combines two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, into a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, or a task or delivery order that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern (even if it is suitable for award to a small business with a Small Business Teaming Arrangement) due to:

i. The diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified;
ii. The aggregate dollar value of the anticipated award;
iii. The geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites; or
iv. Any combination of the factors described in paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition.

The summary notes that, “There are currently approximately 307,846 small business registrants that can potentially benefit from the implementation of this rule. This rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements.”

OK, that’s a lot of technical and legal mumbo-jumbo. The essence here is a few different things. First, in their definition of small business teaming arrangements, this provision recognizes the Mentor-Protégé JV, Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTAs), and normal JV provisions for use in a contract bundling provision. This is important because often JVs and CTAs are considered “higher risk” in large contract actions, and this provision both defines the various potential arrangements and encourages them.

And secondly, this provides more detail and restrictions to the contract bundling and consolidation routine that so many agencies go through, and which serve as an anti-small business process because of the size of the resulting requirement. This provision explicitly recognizes the small business team types as being valid and therefore limits some of the anti-small business prejudice that becomes prevalent.

As small businesses, we’d like as little consolidation and bundling as we can get. Since this rule better defines how the government can do this, and limits who can do it and how, there will be less of it, and that’s a good thing.


Supporting Women Veterans

© Octavia D. Harris

This is a guest post by Octavia D. Harris of the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans.

Navy Veteran inspired by visit to San Diego VA sites

It was an absolute honor and pleasure to attend the recent Advisory Committee on Women Veterans site visit to San Diego, California.  As a newly established San Antonio, Texas resident, it was also a great homecoming.  In 2012, after 30 years of Naval Service my last duty station was in San Diego, and that is also where I transitioned from the DoD to the VA healthcare system.  There are many new programs that weren’t in place when I enrolled; particularly in support of women Veterans.

My transition experience was fine, but this site visit gave me an inside view into how far VA has come in its women Veteran programs and advances including gynecological services, primary and specialty care, therapies and protocols for military sexual trauma, homelessness, vocational rehabilitation, claims processing, and recreational therapy.  Additionally, visiting Rosecrans and Miramar National Cemeteries demonstrated there is immense effort and care to ensure the utmost respect and dignity is given to those who served and their loved ones. VA, along with private organizations, works together diligently to ensure beautification throughout the grounds.  Both cemeteries were maintained well beyond my expectation.

It was evident there is “top down” engagement in supporting over 500,000 Veterans in the (southern) Pacific catchment area, specifically the 48,500 Women Veterans across four large counties.

Touring rehabilitated facilities and hearing from the various program managers and VA leaders was informative and impressive, but the highlight for me was the National Veterans Summer Sports Clinic. Various public and private organizations collaborated with the San Diego VA’s Recreational Therapy Program to bring together 130 Veterans who participated in various team building and sporting events, including surfing, kayaking, bicycling, paddle boarding, and my personal favorite, rock climbing.  I even had the opportunity to experience what the other Veterans did by taking a ride on one of the adaptive bicycles and even participated in the thrill-seeking rock climb – it was fantastic!

This level of hands-on support and recreational training led to an enormous demonstration of increased self-esteem in the Veterans and gave them a renewed sense of “normalcy” as many were adapting to uses of special kayaks and surfboards, bicycles, wheelchairs, and even being around others if they were previously crippled by the invisible wounds of post-traumatic stress disorder, severe anxiety, or depression.  I’d never seen so many happy faces than I witnessed that day, not only from the Veterans participating but also the volunteers, which included many active duty men and women who saw first-hand what they can expect once they too become Veterans in the VA Healthcare system.

The biggest takeaway from this impressive week was the concerted effort and dedication from VA leadership, staff, and the public/private collaborations, which I believe embodies the Secretary McDonald’s vision, goals, and mission for all VA Healthcare systems.


Octavia D. Harris is a retired U.S. Navy command master chief and a member of the VA Advisory Committee on Women Veterans.  She currently resides in San Antonio, Texas, and serves on the local Community Advisory Board for Veterans.


This post originally appeared on the VAntage Point blog of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs at http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/31595/site-visit-provides-insight-inspiration-retired-u-s-navy-command-master-chief/, and was reprinted with permission.

Note from Bill: TAPE President and CEO Louisa Long Jaffe is a proud member of the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans. We were inspired by this story and thought you would be, too.


Your Federal Contracting Pipeline – No, It’s Not the Keystone

© James - Fotolia.com

© James – Fotolia.com

Any company that is just trying to stay in business and “keep on, keeping on,” will not be profitable in the long run. When you really think about it, you know contracts will end and you will have to move on – what is your plan to replace those contracts?

The process for this is to have a pipeline of potential income. Think of your pipeline like a funnel. At the outer edge up at the top it’s very wide, because at first glance there are always many possibilities. That’s why the first and most important step is qualification, that is to ask:

  1. Does this customer have money?
  2. Does this customer have a problem that we can solve?
  3. Does the customer know that our company can solve their problem?

If you can answer those questions with yes, then you try and capture the work, which is to say shape it so that you are more qualified than other potential competitors (your OSDBU office may be able to help). Thereby (through this capture) you learn the things you need to do to bid successfully.

You always want your pipeline to be full at every level, so there is a mix of some opportunities you’re qualifying, some stuff you’re capturing, and some proposals you’ve already written and sent, that may or may not come to pass in various time frames. Flexibility is essential, as new things come along that may bump aside a well-qualified, or even well-captured opportunity.

So your pipeline will be filled not with oil or gas, but with a continuum of opportunities. Some might not become proposals for a year or even more from now, some things you might start writing in the next three or six months, some things you’re writing now, and then things you’re waiting for awards on.

The most important question is how to fill the top of the funnel. Of course we’ve talked many times about how relationships with the people you already know are the heart of your capture process. Even if a customer doesn’t have more work, they have friends in other agencies and contacts in other places they work for.

But your own contacts can only get you so far; sometimes you also need outside help. Along with proposal consultants, you can also hire people just to do the research and uncover new potential customers for you. There are always opportunities that you’re not going to hear about that these people will uncover.

Now if you’re only pursuing opportunities from these data sources, you’re probably not mining your own customers enough. You really need to determine if such a service would be worthwhile for you to have, and if the benefits outweigh the costs.

Having a full pipeline means when one contract ends, you don’t have to worry where the next job is coming from. The capture process for that one, and many others, is well under way.


Bid Protests: How to Take Advantage of a Debriefing

business people group brainstorming on meeting and businessman presenting ideas and projects oon laptop and tablet computer

© .shock – Fotolia.com

This is a guest post by Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC.

Debriefings can be a valuable tool, whether you are the awardee or the disappointed offeror. Think of it as a time to gather information that will assist you in drafting future proposals, understanding the agency “thought process,” and determining whether grounds exist for protesting the decision. When doing so, there are a few things to keep in mind:

Know what information you are entitled to receive

The agency is not required to provide as much information in a pre-award protest as in a post award protest. In a pre-award situation, the agency must provide:

(1) an evaluation of significant elements in the offeror’s proposal;
(2) a summary of the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition; and
(3) reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed in the process of eliminating the offeror from the competition. FAR 15.505.

Post-award, FAR 15.506 requires the agency to provide:

(1) an evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror’s proposal, if applicable;
(2) the overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices) and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror;
(3) the overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection;
(4) a summary of the rationale for award;
(5) for acquisitions of commercial items, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and
(6) reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed.

Always request a debriefing and do so immediately

It is always in a contractor’s best interest to request a debriefing. The request need not be formal – a simple email will do. The reasons include those stated above but even the awardee should consider such a request. The awardee can use the debriefing as a chance to identify issues that might be protested by disappointed offerors or as a means to support the agency should a protest be filed.

Be sure to accept the first day offered by the agency for a debriefing because this is the day that begins the running of the clock – protest must be filed within 10 days of award or five days of the first date offered for the debriefing, whichever is later in order to obtain a stay of award or performance.

Be prepared

Debriefings can be written, oral, or in any other method acceptable to the contracting officer. Particularly in the context of an oral debriefing, preparation is key to getting the most from a debriefing.

First, know your proposal and the source selection material. Second, consider researching the awardee. Third, be ready to ask questions about RFP source selection procedures and other applicable authorities and evaluation factors to elicit more information about the agency’s decision. Fourth, have more than one person available to take notes. Everyone hears things differently. You want to record all of the reasons for the agency’s decision, especially the most challenging ones.

Be polite; do not state counter-arguments. Your main objective is to listen and record what the stated rationale is. It is not time to make your argument or try to change agency’s mind. The time for that is when you file your protest.


Jerry Miles of Deale Services, LLC (http://www.dealeservices.com) is a government contracts attorney and business consultant with experience working as corporate counsel for a Fortune 500 government contractor and as a private practitioner for over one hundred small, midsize and large businesses. In addition to being the owner of a law firm, Mr. Miles regularly advises clients on teaming agreements, joint ventures, subcontracting, government contract disputes, bid protests, international contracting matters and corporate compliance.

This post was originally published at http://www.dealeservices.com/uncategorized/bid-protests-how-to-take-advantage-of-a-debriefing/ and was adapted and reprinted with permission.


css.php