Smart contractors know open communications with their customers are the keys to success. And from the looks of this communication, the Office of Management and Budget is looking to adopt that best practice to the government contracting field.
The Feb. 2 document launches OMB’s “Myth Busters” educational campaign to inform agency acquisition officers about the policies and current flexibilities in the Federal Acquisition Regulation that allow them to tap industry expertise throughout the lifecycle of a procurement, including requirements development and other pre-award milestones. But I’ll let OMB do the communicating here:
“Access to current market information is critical for agency program managers as they define requirements and for contracting officers as they develop acquisition strategies, seek opportunities for small businesses, and negotiate contract terms. 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. Early, frequent, and constructive engagement with industry is especially important for complex, high-risk procurements.”
OMB ordered federal agencies to develop a high-level vendor communication plan to reduce “unnecessary barriers, publicize communication opportunities and prioritize engagement opportunities for high-risk, complex programs or those that fail to attract new vendors during recompetitions.” Unless otherwise prohibited by law, regulation or ethics standards, all forms of communication should be on the table, OMB said.
In addition, the memo debunks 10 misconceptions about government-industry communications:
- Government officials CAN meet one-on-one with potential offerors as long as no vendor gets special treatment.
- Meeting with contractors is NOT like meeting with lobbyists under most circumstances and thus doesn’t require disclosure. And, in the circumstances where disclosure is required, the burden is so minimal it should not be a barrier to communication.
- Restricting communications will NOT prevent protests and actually increases the likelihood protests will occur.
- Scheduling concerns are NOT a good excuse for avoiding communications, especially since communications keep things running on time and on budget.
- Fears communication will lead to unsolicited proposals that will eat up time is NOT a reason to avoid pre-award communications to get important information about a potential solution to a requirement.
- Debriefings ARE good practice regardless of the type of vehicle used to make the purchase.
- Industry days ARE “valuable opportunities for the government and potential vendors.”
- Government SHOULD think beyond technical requirements and ask industry for feedback on terms and conditions, pricing structure, performance metrics, evaluation criteria and contract administration matters to improve the award and implementation process.
- Giving industry only a few days to respond to a request for proposal is NOT smart contracting.
- Getting broad participation beyond the established vendor pool IS smart contracting.
So with those myths now busted, I ask: What are open, frequent, timely, flexible and appropriate communications between government and industry? Answer: Smart (and successful) contracting!
