1. www.apmp.org Robert Lohfeld, Lohfeld Consulting Group APMP Procurement Improvement Committee Summary briefing prepared for APMP Chesapeake Chapter June 22, 2016 5 Procurement improvements we can make today The Association of Proposal Management Professionals

2. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 2 APMP Procurement Improvement Committee (PIC) mission The APMP PIC mission is to work collaboratively with the U.S. Government and industry to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal procurement. We focus on improvement rather than reform to make continual progress.

3. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 3 The survey APMP conducted a government/industry procurement survey to kick start our initiative Government respondents

4. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 4 The survey We designed our survey to identify perception gaps and issues that can be worked now effectively Industry respondents

5. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 5 Key area 1: Government/industry pre-RFP communications  Facts  FAR Part 15 encourages communications about as much as it can  Myth-busters campaigns from OMB and OFPP support communications as critical to ultimate procurement success  Industry relies on communications to help achieve a successful procurement, understand needs/wants, acquisition strategy, timelines  Issues  PCOs discourage it (industry perspective)  Relationships more adversarial than collaborative (fact)  Little effective communication breeds suspicion vs. effectiveness (always)

6. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 6 Key area 1: Government/industry pre-RFP communications APMP allied survey results  Industry  Two thirds of industry view communications as problematic  Government  More than 90% believe they communicate for requirements development, technology/solutions, feasible acquisition strategies, and potential sources  Major perception gap  “Sometimes we can get meetings, but they are tight-lipped, and sometimes the government avoids industry completely.”  “Industry continually oversells their products and underestimates risks. Procurement rules prevent real criticism of industry optimism and prevents a professional evaluation of the contractor’s probability of success.”

7. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 7 Key area 1: Government/industry pre-RFP communications Immediate improvements  Follow the FAR  Government  Actively encourage, schedule, and use meaningful exchanges of information to engage industry to keep them informed, involved, and actively participating in success  Adhere to the two Myth-busting Memos from OMB/OFPP  Issue a flow-down memo on Golden Communications and Early Industry Involvement  Industry  Prepare effectively for information exchanges  Focus on creating successful procurements for customer vs. positioning  Listen to customers and stop presenting; tailor advice and solutions to mission needs  Establish a context for dialogue

8. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 8 Key area 2: Enhancing collaborative relationship between government and industry  Facts  Relationship currently highly adversarial vs. collaborative  Suspicion and mistrust rule the day  Failure to collaborate leads to failed procurements  Issues  Not working to achieve successful procurements together  Not discovering and using common ground to achieve improvements in procurements  Talking past each other rather than with each other to achieve better results for all  Not working to establish trust, confidence, and an environment for effective collaboration

9. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 9 Key area 2: Enhancing collaborative relationship between government and industry APMP allied survey results (not directly addressed)  Industry  Believes government does not want to collaborate to improve  Sees government as adversarial, uncommunicative, and insensitive to industry issues  Resents officious attitudes, conduct, and certitude  Government  Industry protests everything  Industry always trying to work angle for competitive edge  Collaborating with industry leads to more protests  Major perception gap  “The USG is always under time pressure to complete quickly, so we usually don’t have time for much industry input.”

10. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 10 Key area 2: Enhancing collaborative relationship between government and industry Immediate improvements  Communicate often, effectively, and with the purpose of achieving a successful procurement  Government  Stop shutting down communications so far in advance of RFPs – follow FAR Part 15  Use one-on-ones to get good ideas and thoughts. Ask for suggestions on the tough problems you face specifically.  Ask how to structure L and M for effective proposal evaluation against clear evaluation criteria  Industry  Communicate to improve not to gain position. Make our customers successful.  Provide specific, concrete suggestions that will work  Prepare before meetings so we have really good ideas to share in the context of customer mission needs and procurement drivers

11. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 11 Key area 3: Selecting the right evaluation methods (LPTA, best value, etc.)  Facts  Various memos generated (such as OMB’s Myth-busting memos) by senior acquisition officials clearly show that the FAR is not always consulted and followed  LPTA being used in ways for which it is not intended  Best value defaulting to de facto LPTA  Issues  Defaulting to LPTA for services reducing quality of performance for customers  Government forced to renegotiate rates of successful LPTA bidders and appears to be willing to do that  Best value tradeoffs appear to be weak and not focused on true advantages to government

12. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 12 Key area 3: Selecting the right evaluation methods (LPTA, best value, etc.) APMP allied survey results (not directly addressed)  Used Washington Technology’s Insider Report on LPTA  Industry  Believes right evaluation method NOT being selected frequently  Believes LPTA is the worst way to buy for systems and services  Government  Practice indicates LPTA preferred to eliminate protests  Expansion of LPTA indicates many acquisition personnel prefer it because it’s faster, not protestable, and requires a low baseline of acceptability  Major perception gap  “We are now bidding only what the government is asking for, and the government is less happy with what they are receiving.” -WT Insider Report

13. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 13 Key area 3: Selecting the right evaluation methods (LPTA, best value, etc.) What impact have LPTA contracts had on your customers? 9% 2% 3% 1% 19% 33% “The government is surprised it is receiving junior staff where experience is needed. This often leads to costly failures and rework.” No impact/Neutral Somewhat positive Mostly positive Positive Negative Somewhat negative Mostly negative Source: Washington Technology Insider Report

14. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 14 Key area 3: Selecting the right evaluation methods (LPTA, best value, etc.) Immediate improvements  Be more vigilant on selecting right evaluation method  Government  Drive for a successful procurement – not the cheapest price  Follow FAR and recommended guidelines for LPTA use  When using LPTA have real technical acceptability criteria vs. lowest common denominator  Be willing to pay a premium for better performance, service, and quality  Let PEOs, programs, and acquisition center customers decide what’s best for them  Industry  Provide better rationale for the right method to be used  Justify improved results to be obtained through Best Value selection  Present the risk of LPTA bids to the mission, to life, and to procurement success

15. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 15 Key area 4: Leveraging draft RFPs to achieve successful procurements  Facts  DRFPs complete with Sections L and M improve probability of procurement success  DRFPs not helpful without L and M  DRFPs provide a context for discussion on how to make the procurement successful  Industry gets started vigorously with DRFPs  Issues  DRFPs not used consistently  Past performance requirements in DRFPs usually require significant modification  Insufficient time to respond to DRFPs with good ideas

16. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 16 Key area 4: Leveraging draft RFPs to achieve successful procurements APMP allied survey results  Industry  80% of respondents believe DRFPs not complete and could be more helpful  Government  Significant % believe DRFPs helpful to government and industry  Major perception gap  “DRFP responses are the beginning of industry posturing for a competitive edge. Performance estimates from industry are usually underestimated in common, non-competitive areas, and over estimated in key design areas in which they believe they have an advantage.”  “Include all necessary documents so that potential bidders can make bid/no bid decisions early to avoid wasting resources.”

17. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 17 Key area 4: Leveraging draft RFPs to achieve successful procurements Immediate improvements  Use complete DRFPs to gain better ideas on content, approach, and structure to achieve better responses to final RFP  Government  Issue complete DRFPs especially with L and M and eliminate onerous past performance requirements  Have one-on-ones with probable primes to get clarifications on requirements, approach, structure, and risk  Industry  Provide high-quality responses to DRFPs  Rewrite parts that can be improved as examples  Strive for the successful procurement – not enhancing competitive position  Focus on suggestions to eliminate material having no value to procurement  Attend one-on-ones prepared with great ideas

18. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 18 Key area 5: Correlating sections L and M APMP allied survey results (not addressed directly)  Industry  One of industry’s biggest complaints  Greatest source of confusion, frustration, and compliance issues  Sections L and M often out of alignment with procurement complexity as well  Government  Appears to not know or does not believe this is a major issue  Major perception gap  Industry see Section Ls that appear to be no more than a cut and paste from prior solicitation  Government appears to focus almost exclusively on Sections C and M with little regard to L and its effect on industry proposals

19. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 19 Key area 5: Correlating sections L and M Immediate improvements  Align L and M as much as possible for consistency, better proposal quality, and reduced procurement risk  Government  Focus on alignment to ensure scoring is consistent with structure and content  Seek ideas on alignment from industry to incorporate into RFPs  Industry  Provide examples of how alignment can work with rationale of how it will improve proposal quality and consistency, and reduce procurement risk  Provide detailed suggestions during DRFP comment window  Provide concepts to align L and M with key customer issues, mission needs, and performance concerns or risks

20. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 20 Common views/common purpose Our views may be less different than we think APMP Survey

21. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 21 Topics not discussed in the PIC Survey  Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP)  OMB’s Category Management initiative  Increasing use of GWACs and MACs  Bringing non-traditional (Silicon Valley) companies into the government market  DoD procurement reform  Self-evaluation methodology  Outlook for mid-tier companies

22. www.apmp.org © 2014, All rights reserved www.apmp.org | page 22 Thank you! Bob Lohfeld CEO and Founder Lohfeld Consulting Group RLohfeld@LohfeldConsulting.com 410.336.6264 https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertlohfeld Twitter: @Lohfeld www.lohfeldconsulting.com/blog/ APMP ® Procurement Improvement Committee P.O. Box 77272 Washington, DC 20013-7272 (202) 450-2549 www.apmp.org