Jump to content

How can industry contracts strengthen the Government/contractor relationship post-award?


Mike Twardoski

Recommended Posts

This isn't just about you, Joel. Please, no more tales from the Corps. Let's talk policy.

When contractors are required to submit certified cost or pricing data, they cannot omit any facts. Even when they do not have to submit certified cost or pricing data, they withhold or conceal facts at their peril.

Revealing evaluators' first reactions to a proposal might be very helpful to a competitor. It might help them understand initial reactions to and, further,  misunderstandings of their proposal. In any case, why hide initial opinions about a proposal from a potential teammate who wants to do business with you, especially if they can get the info through litigation?

On 1/13/2023 at 5:49 AM, joel hoffman said:

Establishing mutual trust and cooperation through effective oral (telephonic) and/or face to face communications are essential elements. Identifying and nurturing mutual goals and objectives are also important. And understanding the other person’s positions during difficulties is critical. 

You've proved my point.

Teamwork my tookus. The government talks out of both sides of its mouth.

 As for your lawyer agreeing with you... 😂 I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about "mutual trust and cooperation." Do lawyers give us those?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t have any objection to sharing the official, evaluation comments, arrived at by a careful, deliberative group process, with a proposer for the purpose of conducting discussions. Those discussions were more meaningful.

Individual/initial comments could simply confuse the proposer and would often require an explanation, wasting everyone’s time. Most of the individual SSEB members weren't involved in discussions.

I often used the same method during debriefings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Individual/initial comments could simply confuse the proposer and would often require an explanation, wasting everyone’s time.

If you're talking to a contractor who has submitted a competitive proposal, let the contractor decide what would be a waste of its time. It's not a waste of the government's time if it prevents a protest or lets the contractor know something that helps it improve its proposal, or keeps the government from screwing up its evaluation, like the Air Force did in the KCX source selection, to name just one.

Should a contractor be able to decide what cost or pricing data would be a waste of the contracting officer's time? 𑁋 "Oh, you don't need that. That will only confuse you."

Don't you want to be transparent and above-board? Mutually trusting and cooperative?

Besides, no organization wastes time like the government, mainly with b.s. evaluation factors and proposal preparation instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder a vision of the guiding principles gone awry?   

Experience has shown me that there is a huge difference between the Governments power and that as I have as just Carl buying something.  My experience in sharing my evaluation, and say that of my wife's, my neighbor's, my sister's evaluation of a potential contractor with that contractor, is handled a whole lot different.  I understand why it can't be exactly the same but is not public trust to encourage everyone's ability to play in the world of Federal contracting a matter of transparency?   

The "vision" of FAR 1.102 and its underpinning is forgotten.  Yep I already stated same in a different way, and of sorts  was called to task for doing so.  Then I wonder almost all in Forum reach for the FAR to solve something like allowable, allocable, etc. so why not reach to the FAR with regard to  vision, team, integrity, fairness and openness and aim it right a CO who has forgotten?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@C CulhamCarl, don't be discouraged.

There has long been distrust between the government and its contractors, and it's reflected in the laws, regulations, and behaviors of government and contractor personnel. There are some good working relationships at the level of individuals and individual contracts, but "close working relationships" sometimes go very wrong, as, for example, in the Fat Leonard case. Also, Bob regularly posts announcements on the home page from the Department of Justice reporting prosecutions and convictions of both government and contractor personnel for collaborative wrong doing.

The guiding principles were developed by a political appointee who, as far as I know, had no experience as a working contracts person before his appointment. He was eager to show systemic improvement for the president who appointed him, and did things that worked and things that didn't. The guiding principles are very idealistic. We should be realistic about what we can expect from the human beings working in the system.

Do the government and its contractors work as an acquisition team? Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no.

"I have had considerable experience in letting public contracts, and I have never yet found a contractor who, if not watched, would not leave the government holding the bag." Harry S. Truman, Senator from Missouri, 1941.

Trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2023 at 12:10 PM, Vern Edwards said:

 

Besides, no organization wastes time like the government, mainly with b.s. evaluation factors and proposal preparation instructions.

The b.s. evaluation factors and lengthy proposal preparation instructions do more to hinder transparency of evaluations than any other factor, in my view. (And possibly that's the whole point.) When we pick evaluation factors like, "Technical approach to the statement of work," especially for professional services, we get a proposal that regurgitates the statement of work. It's nearly impossible to identify meaningful differences between offerors. Even factors like "Management and Staffing Plan" are challenging--how many members of the evaluation team even know what a good management and staffing plan looks like? 

That said, disappointed offerors don't have a relationship, post-award, with the agency. If you've won the contract, proactive communication is a good practice for relationship building. Identify issues early as well. Keep the CO informed. Don't ask for a bunch of administrative modifications. (In a previous job, a major government contractor asked me, repeatedly, for administrative modifications that I told them were unnecessary.) Ask for feedback on your performance outside of the CPARS cycle. To the extent you can, be visible. In the pre-covid days, a contractor I worked with would stop by my office once or twice a month to check in. Don't overdo this though--I also had a situation where the contractor stopped by every day, and I was eventually like, "I've got things to do here." There is really no substitute for an actual, IRL relationship with someone. If you have deliverable deadlines, meet them, or better yet, beat them. Plan for the government to take more time reviewing your deliverable than they say they need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2023 at 2:44 PM, KeithB18 said:

The b.s. evaluation factors and lengthy proposal preparation instructions do more to hinder transparency of evaluations than any other factor, in my view. (And possibly that's the whole point.)

I think it's done because people are taught to produce documents by cut-and-paste. They never learn concepts and principles of evaluation.

On 1/20/2023 at 2:44 PM, KeithB18 said:

Don't ask for a bunch of administrative modifications. (In a previous job, a major government contractor asked me, repeatedly, for administrative modifications that I told them were unnecessary.)

They were unnecessary for you. But maybe they were necessary for the contractor. Isn't the relationship a two-way street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2023 at 4:44 PM, KeithB18 said:

That said, disappointed offerors don't have a relationship, post-award, with the agency. If you've won the contract, proactive communication is a good practice for relationship building. Identify issues early as well. Keep the CO informed. Don't ask for a bunch of administrative modifications. (In a previous job, a major government contractor asked me, repeatedly, for administrative modifications that I told them were unnecessary.) Ask for feedback on your performance outside of the CPARS cycle. To the extent you can, be visible. In the pre-covid days, a contractor I worked with would stop by my office once or twice a month to check in. Don't overdo this though--I also had a situation where the contractor stopped by every day, and I was eventually like, "I've got things to do here." There is really no substitute for an actual, IRL relationship with someone. If you have deliverable deadlines, meet them, or better yet, beat them. Plan for the government to take more time reviewing your deliverable than they say they need. 

I truly appreciate these insights, @KeithB18. My fear - and maybe it's unfounded - is that my proactiveness comes across as bothersome. While every contracting office is different, I do feel like sometimes my communications fall into the ether, even when they're actionable. I try not to overdo it because I don't want to be THAT GUY who emails, calls, and texts everyday. Because I get it. But, you know, maybe once a week? A weekly call? A weekly high level email of what I'm tracking? 

Maybe it's time to recalibrate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2023 at 5:57 PM, Vern Edwards said:

 

They were unnecessary for you. But maybe they were necessary for the contractor. Isn't the relationship a two-way street?

Fair point. This vendor couldn't articulate the why, but I probably could have pushed a little harder for that understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll take the risk and offer one more tale from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding establishing post award relationships with contractors. The USACE established a policy in the early 1990’s to offer (in solicitations) a voluntary “partnering “ process with all of our contractors. I won’t elaborate here. Here is a link to the Partnering Process. I think the policy is still in effect.

Each party generally covers their own costs of participation in Partnering. Depending upon the size and complexity of the program, Partnering may also Include all internal and external stakeholders.

Smaller contracts include simpler partnering processes. 

https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/cpc/91-ADR-P-4_Partnering.pdf


See also this Beginners Only Topic:

http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/16286-building-strengthening-relationships-in-delay-heavy-environment/#comment-75551

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

I’ll take the risk

From 1989 through 1999 fulfilling two positions over the time as  CO for the US Small Business Administration 8(a) Program and as Supervisory Contract Specialist and CO for USACE Portland District, for A-E, Construction, Service and Supply contracts I found partnering to be a great ideal and process.  It is an effort well worth the time, effort and expense and many of its foundations I use up to today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...