OMB: Feds, Contractors Should Meet, Talk, Discuss The Obama administration is pushing agencies to talk to contractors when developing RFPs. “Our industry partners are often the best source of this information, so productive interactions between federal agencies and our industry partners should be encouraged to ensure that the government clearly understands the marketplace and can award a contract or order for an effective solution at a reasonable price,” Dan Gordon, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, wrote in a Feb. 1 memo. “Early, frequent, and constructive engagement with industry is especially important for complex, high-risk procurements, including (but not limited to) those for large information technology (IT) projects.” “For much too long, we’ve placed too much emphasis on the ‘don’ts,’” Gordon said in a media conference call. “This memo is an effort to highlight the ‘do’s’ and to tell our people what they can do and not only tell them what they mustn’t do.” As part of his “myth busters” campaign, Gordon issued a list of 10 common misconceptions about how government buyers can communicate with vendors. (See below.) Number 1 on that list is, “We can’t meet one-on-one with a potential offeror.” Gordon said the Federal Acquisition Regulation encourages such meetings “to exchange general information and conduct market research related to an acquisition.” “Listening to industry early on can help ensure that we’re not buying out-of-date technology and that our solicitation isn’t setting unrealistic expectations,” he said. “Sometimes we’re trying to get too much by way of performance or have unrealistic schedule or cost estimates.” He said outreach to industry can bring in new potential contractors, especially small businesses, and prevent program managers and contracting officers from getting too attached to an incumbent. “The government loses when we limit ourselves to the companies we already work with,” the memo says. “Instead, we need to look for opportunities to increase competition and ensure that all vendors, including small businesses, get fair consideration.” Gordon acknowledged that many federal buyers believe meetings with contractors will spark protests from a company that doesn’t get a meeting. “Trying to make a procurement ‘protest-proof’ is rarely a good use of agency resources, and it may lead to decisions that aren’t in the interest of the government,” he wrote. “Moreover, restricting communication for fear of protests may actually increase the likelihood of a protest—for example, by a vendor that hopes to get more information through ‘discovery’ during the protest.” "Myth Busters" This list of “myths” about communications between federal acquisition officials and contractors was distributed to agencies in a Feb. 1 memo by Dan Gordon, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. 1. Misconception – “We can’t meet one-on-one with a potential offeror.” Fact – Government officials can generally meet one-on-one with potential offerors as long as no vendor receives preferential treatment. 2. Misconception – “Since communication with contractors is like communication with registered lobbyists, and since contact with lobbyists must be disclosed, additional communication with contractors will involve a substantial additional disclosure burden, so we should avoid these meetings.” Fact – Disclosure is required only in certain circumstances, such as for meetings with registered lobbyists. Many contractors do not fall into this category, and even when disclosure is required, it is normally a minimal burden that should not prevent a useful meeting from taking place. 3. Misconception – “A protest is something to be avoided at all costs—even if it means the government limits conversations with industry.” Fact – Restricting communication won’t prevent a protest, and limiting communication might actually increase the chance of a protest – in addition to depriving the government of potentially useful information. 4. Misconception – “Conducting discussions/negotiations after receipt of proposals will add too much time to the schedule.” Fact – Whether discussions should be conducted is a key decision for contracting officers to make. Avoiding discussions solely because of schedule concerns may be counter-productive, and may cause delays and other problems during contract performance. 5. Misconception – “If the government meets with vendors, that may cause them to submit an unsolicited proposal and that will delay the procurement process.” Fact – Submission of an unsolicited proposal should not affect the schedule. Generally, the unsolicited proposal process is separate from the process for a known agency requirement that can be acquired using competitive methods. 6. Misconception – “When the government awards a task or delivery order using the Federal Supply Schedules, debriefing the offerors isn’t required so it shouldn’t be done.” Fact – Providing feedback is important, both for offerors and the government, so agencies should generally provide feedback whenever possible. 7. Misconception – “Industry days and similar events attended by multiple vendors are of low value to industry and the government because industry won’t provide useful information in front of competitors, and the government doesn’t release new information.” Fact – Well-organized industry days, as well as pre-solicitation and pre-proposal conferences, are valuable opportunities for the government and for potential vendors – both prime contractors and subcontractors, many of whom are small businesses. 8. Misconception – “The program manager already talked to industry to develop the technical requirements, so the contracting officer doesn’t need to do anything else before issuing the RFP.” Fact – The technical requirements are only part of the acquisition; getting feedback on terms and conditions, pricing structure, performance metrics, evaluation criteria, and contract administration matters will improve the award and implementation process. 9. Misconception – “Giving industry only a few days to respond to an RFP is OK since the government has been talking to industry about this procurement for over a year.” Fact – Providing only short response times may result in the government receiving fewer proposals and the ones received may not be as well-developed—which can lead to a flawed contract. This approach signals that the government isn’t really interested in competition. 10. Misconception – “Getting broad participation by many different vendors is too difficult; we’re better off dealing with the established companies we know.” Fact – The government loses when we limit ourselves to the companies we already work with. Instead, we need to look for opportunities to increase competition and ensure that all vendors, including small businesses, get fair consideration.