But not everyone agrees that bigger means more unruly. Guy Timberlake, CEO and chief visionary officer of the American Small Business Coalition pointed out a more glass-half-full mentality. "Since IT is the prevalent product/service/solution procured by the agencies, it seems to make sense that it would be the most heavily populated field of play," he said. "The differentiators are the ability of companies to develop relationships, business intelligence, past performance and ultimately be seen as a value to the customer. The contract vehicle, like a socioeconomic designation, is secondary at best."
Fair enough. And beyond that, having a broader playing field does help eliminate another challenge: The tendency for request for proposals to be influenced by incumbents and/or the contractors that have a particular 'in' with the agency, before they even hit the street. This happens often, with agencies form-fitting an opportunity for the particular solution provider or systems integrator they want to win. A practice that is not exactly within the bounds of government's rules for "fair and open competition." But as contracts grow in size and scope, that ability for any one integrator to drive requirements and specifications to work to their advantage lessens.
Does that offset the challenges associated with mega contracts and thousands of potential bidders? I call it a wash. The trick for solution providers is to not go on a fishing exhibition -- choose opportunities that best suit in-house skill sets and experience. Nothing new, of course, but still the most successful way to truly demonstrate an advantage.
With too many convincing points to reference in this blog, Timberlake was nice enough to allow me to include his note in full below. Responses are welcome, and will be forwarded:
Let me first state that I think GSA has made mistakes which have turned off agencies and contractors, but I believe it stems more from the bottlenecks that have been their practices and processes more than the number of potential bidders that exist. Additionally, the program management fees charged by GSA were a significant contributor as well, as I've been told.
Let's talk about competition, since that seems to be the prevailing issue. When the government awards a multiple award BPA or GWAC, it limits competition for the potential requirements to those companies awarded during the initial, unfunded competition. Very much like the GSA Schedule does. This creates a "class" of contractor/vendor that is able to leverage a marketing tool and contracting mechanism that not everyone has or has access to. A hunting license for a specific number of hunters. It also creates a mechanism by which the government can conduct an acquisition in a much shorter period of time than if they conducted that procurement on the Open Market.
Granted, SeaPorte is crowded now, with 1300 contractors vying for $5.3 billion in orders, but crowded is a relative statement and perspective. How many contractors would that be if those requirements from NAVSEA, SPAWAR, MSC, etc. were still procured on the GSA Schedule or the Open Market?
How are the solutions providers different from services firms or construction companies competing for business in a significantly smaller landscape with substantially fewer dollars? Since IT is the prevalent product/service/solution procured by the agencies, it seems to make sense that it would be the most heavily populated field of play. The differentiators are the ability of companies to develop relationships, business intelligence, past performance and ultimately be seen as a value to the customer. The contract vehicle, like a socioeconomic designation, is secondary at best. You could also compare this to companies that have security clearances, and those that don't.
Why is it that solutions providers say they see fewer opportunities? Is it because of competition? Is it because they are not positioned to pursue a particular piece of business? Could it be contract bundling? Maybe the opportunities are being funneled to a specific socioeconomic program where they are not included? All of the above and more.
Should the Government stop allowing companies to enter the arena of federal contracting? What would happen to the entrepreneur that develops a solution for IED's or the company that comes up with a process that cuts federal expenditures in a particular area if competition is restricted further? The head of OFPP recently stated that 52 percent of all federal procurement dollars went to task orders in FY 2005. This means that if your company did not possess a GSA Schedule, BPA, GWAC or some type of pre-awarded delivery vehicle or you were not on one of those teams, more than half of the estimated $350 billion spent by the Government that year blew right by you.
The issue at hand appears to be competition, and I don't understand why this is an issue.
Ultimately, the decision for why an agency should do business with a particular company is based on a number of factors. Being on the right contract vehicle is just one of them.
Guy J. Timberlake,
CEO and Chief Visionary Officer
The American Small Business Coalition
| • |
| • |
| • |
| • |
| • |
| • |
| • |
|
|
