An article in the November/December 2010 issue of Defense Acquisition University’s Defense AT&L magazine discussed why companies file protests against contract awards and illustrated the realities of the federal contracting environment. Budgets are tightening, competition for those shrinking dollars is ferocious, and protests have seemingly become standard operating procedure. Further exacerbating the issue are poorly trained acquisition workers and poor government communications. So what are we to do in this environment?
The issue hinges on the seemingly endless cycle of protests with no consequences or accountability on the part of government or industry. More protests mean an even higher rate of program disruption, with the result that users and warfighters will continue not getting the products and services they need to perform their missions. Industry often looks at protests in terms of return on investment and might find it worthwhile to fight a contract award that a competitor wins. Given the risk-averse nature of government, that approach can open additional revenue sources or further opportunities for a company to compete.
Nonetheless, the government does make mistakes and should be accountable because the point of a protest is to prevent the government from causing harm to the protesting firm.
There needs to be a measure of accountability on both sides. A protest should not be taken lightly. It is typically a disruptive and costly matter. Although a company expects to win and files its protest accordingly, the number of protests that are upheld remains less than 25 percent. Some firms file just to see what will happen. What if a firm loses repeatedly? We need a measure of financial accountability to recoup the costs borne by the government from repeat offenders. By holding companies accountable for fishing expeditions, agencies could ensure that the protest process is used for its intended purpose: ensuring fair competition.
The government also has gotten into the habit of not wanting to upset firms that have a history of protesting awards. Indeed, some procurement officials automatically award contracts to such companies to avoid the cost of resolving disputes if the company were to protest and the government were to lose. Procurement officials must be held accountable for that behavior. And firms should be reimbursed for protests that are upheld to help put the pressure on the government to award contracts fairly.
Protesting is a right that industry must continue to have. But it must be weighed against the real costs when accountability is finally added into the equation. Furthermore, the government must stop allowing itself to be bullied into awarding contracts to firms with a history of protests. And more importantly, the government must be held accountable for following procedures and executing sound acquisition strategies to ensure that protests don’t happen in the first place.
We can accomplish all that if reform actions match the rhetoric coming out of the 112th Congress. However, without some much-needed accountability, we can expect to see a continued rise in protests, to the detriment of all involved.
– About the Author: Jaime Gracia is president and CEO of Seville Government Consulting, a federal acquisition and program management consulting firm. This article was originally published in Federal Computer Week on Jan. 25, 2011.
Small companies in economically depressed regions have lost their priority status when it comes to set-aside contracts.
Acquisition officials are no longer required to check for companies in Historically Underutilized Business Zones before awarding a contract. Instead, they can choose to set aside a contract for any type of small business, such as those in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program.
As a result, HUBZone companies might get fewer contracts as set-asides go to more popular programs.
Congress took away the HUBZone program’s priority status last year by changing the legal wording. The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 changed the word “shall” to “may” in the language that governs HUBZone contracting. The so-called Rule of Two previously required contracting officers to award a contract to a HUBZone firm if there were at least two such companies that could offer reasonable bids on the project. By changing the requirement to an option, the government has put the HUBZone program on an equal footing with the other major set-aside programs.
There had been an ongoing debate among the Obama administration, Government Accountability Office and U.S. Court of Federal Claims about whether the “shall” actually meant “shall.” Whichever interpretation officials took, the wording muddied the waters, and Congress just cleared them up.
However, the HUBZone program might now fall behind the other types of disadvantaged small businesses, such as those owned by service-disabled veterans and women, experts say.
“I believe current environmental factors at play still favor service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses,” said Guy Timberlake, CEO and chief visionary officer at the American Small Business Coalition. “But the impending launch of the women’s procurement program on Feb. 4 seems to have significant momentum and could be a game changer in the small-business community.”
On top of all that, the HUBZone program has had a lot of bad press. Business owners have to certify that the place where the company does most of its work is in a HUBZone before they can get the designation. In 2008, GAO investigators found at least 10 businesses in the Washington, D.C., area that were not meeting that requirement. And in 2009, GAO reported more fraudulent companies in the HUBZone program.
Clearly, agency officials weren’t checking on businesses. As part of its investigation, GAO auditors successfully certified bogus companies for the HUBZone program by using the addresses of the Alamo in Texas and a public storage facility in Florida.
The fraud problems were overshadowed by the shall vs. may debate. But with that resolved, such activities will likely get more scrutiny.
“Buyers may recall that not all businesses who call themselves HUBZones are — at least according to GAO,” said Larry Allen, president of Allen Federal Business Partners and former president of the Coalition for Government Procurement. Now that agencies are aware of the problem, federal officials are more likely to make sure HUBZone firms are what they say they are.
The checkups are laudable, but they could have a detrimental effect on legitimate HUBZone companies. “If [government] buyers think that it takes too much time, they may use another acquisition method,” Allen said.
Thriving on its own
Meanwhile, advocates say the program is strong enough to succeed on its own merits.
Ron Newlan, chairman of the HUBZone Council advocacy group, said the program is mature enough to survive without the legal preference. “Contracting officers know about the program and have used it for years,” he said. “I’m sure they’re going to continue to do so.”
Furthermore, the federal government’s spending has increased dramatically since 2001, making the pie large enough for everyone to get their fair share, he added.
HUBZone companies received an average of 2.8 percent of federal prime-contracting dollars in fiscal 2009, which is short of the 3 percent annual goal. Still, it was a slight increase from the 2.3 percent awarded in 2008, according to the Small Business Administration’s annual reports.
Although the federal acquisition workforce might be familiar with the program, many new members of Congress don’t know anything about it. The HUBZone Council’s leaders are developing relationships with the new lawmakers to protect the program from budget cuts. One of its strategies is highlighting HUBZone success stories.
“We have story after story about how people would not have jobs or medical insurance if not for the HUBZone program,” Newlan said.
– by Matthew Weigelt – Jan. 25, 2011 – Federal Computer Week.
1. How do you define innovation? Something different that has impact.
2. What are different types of innovation? Innovation is more than whiz-bang technology; consider different strategic intents (e.g., create a new category, extend current business) or innovation mechanisms (e.g., new product, distribution channel, marketing approach).
3. How do I spot opportunities for innovation? Go to the source: the customer you hope to target.
4. Which customers should I target? Look beyond your best customers to those who face a constraint that inhibits their ability to solve the problems they face in their life.
5. What should I look for? As Drucker said, “The customer rarely buys what the business thinks it sells him”; look for a job-to-be-done, an important problem that is not adequately solved by current solutions.
6. How should I look? Start with deep ethnographic research; avoid focus groups!
7. How do I come up with an idea? Remember the Picasso line “good artists copy, great artists steal;” seek to borrow ideas from other industries or geographies.
8. What is disruptive innovation? An innovation that transforms a market or creates a new one through simplicity, convenience, affordability, or accessibility.
9. What is the best way to disrupt a market? Embrace the power of trade-offs. Seek to be just “good enough” along historical performance dimensions but introduce new benefits related to simplicity or affordability.
10. What does “good enough” mean? Performance above a minimum threshold to adequately solve a customer’s job to be done; sacrificing performance along traditional dimensions can open up new avenues to innovate.
11. What is a business model (and how do I innovate one)? How a company creates, captures, and delivers value; codifying the current business model is the critical first step of business model innovation.
12. How can I “love the low end”? Build a business model designed around the low-end customer’s job-to-be-done.
13. How do I know if my idea is good? Let patterns guide and actions decide; remember Scott Cook’s advice that “for every failure we had we had spreadsheets that looked awesome.”
14. How can I learn more about my idea? Design and execute “high return on investment” experiments to address critical unknowns.
15. How can I get other people behind my idea? Bring the idea to life through visuals and customer testimonials.
16. How long does it take new businesses to scale? Almost always longer than initial projections; be patient for growth and impatient for profits.
17. Why is innovation so important? The “new normal” of constant change requires mastering perpetual transformation.
18. Why is innovation so hard? Most organizations are designed to execute, not to innovate.
19. Who are your influences? Academics like Clayton Christensen and Vijay Govindarajan, leading-edge innovative companies like Procter & Gamble and Cisco Systems, and thoughtful writers like Michael Mauboussin and Bill James.
20. How do I encourage innovation in my organization? Stop punishing anything that smells like failure, recognizing that failure is often a critical part of the innovation process.
21. What is “the sucking sound of the core?” The pull of the core business and business model that subtly influences new ideas so they resemble what the organization has done before.
22. What is an innovation “safe space”? An organizational mechanism that protects innovators from the sucking sound of the core.
23. How should I form and manage innovation teams? Keep deadlines tight and decision makers focused.
24. What is in a good innovation strategy? Overall goals, a target portfolio for innovation efforts, a mechanism to allocate resources to achieve that portfolio, and clearly defined goals and boundaries for innovation.
25. What is the best way to manage an innovation portfolio? Make sure you correctly capture current activities and measure and manage different kinds of innovations in different ways.
26. What does ‘prudent pruning’ mean? Recognizing that destruction is often a critical component of creation.
27. What role should senior executives play in innovation? A big one.
28. How can I personally become a better innovator? Practice – innovation is a skill that can be mastered.
29. How can I find more resources for innovation? Shut down “zombie projects” that are a drain on corporate resources.
30. How can I more quickly turn good ideas into good businesses? Remember what Edison said – genius is “1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”; get ready to sweat.
31. Has anyone built the ability to innovate at scale? An increasing number of companies, such as Google, Apple, Procter & Gamble, Amazon.com, Cisco Systems, Godrej & Boyce, and General Electric.
– Reprinted from Scott D. Anthony’s Havard Business Review blog, December 27, 2010.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Serco Inc., Amsec LLC and VT Milcom will provide IT systems to the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, and other prospective U.S. government and foreign military customers, under a new Navy contract worth an estimated $1.4 billion over five years.The four contractors, which have received initial task orders, can compete for additional awards under the terms and conditions of the firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, according to a Jan. 21 Defense Department announcement.
Under the multiple award, the four companies will be responsible for the installation and operational certification of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems aboard Navy platforms on the East and West coasts as well as at locations worldwide, the DOD said.
- Lockheed Martin’s contract is worth $831 million.
- Serco, of Reston, Va., won an award valued at $852 million.
- Amsec, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Corp., has won a $794 million contract.
- And VT Milcom, a subsidiary under VT Services Inc., the U.S. business unit of VT Group plc of Britain, has been awarded an $843 million contract.
The work, which is expected to be completed by January 2014, could continue until January 2016 if all options are exercised, the announcement said.
Lockheed Martin, of Bethesda, Md., ranks No. 1 on Washington Technology’s 2010 Top 100 list of the largest federal government contractors. Northrop Grumman, of Los Angeles, ranks No. 2.
– About the Author: David Hubler is the associate editor of Washington Technology. Published Jan. 24, 2011.
Agencies have broad discretion in establishing evaluation criteria for their procurements, subject to some limitations set by federal acquisition regulations. Those criteria are often shaped by arguments that competing contractors make during the procurement’s capture phase. Here are some ideas to consider in shaping the evaluation criteria in your next must-win procurement.
Factors and subfactors
Every procurement must be evaluated based on evaluation factors and subfactors established before the release of the request for proposals. The government tailors those factors and subfactors to represent areas of importance for source selection and provide a basis for meaningful comparison among competing proposals. Agencies have broad discretion in establishing evaluation factors and subfactors and determining the relative importance of those factors. As a capture manager, you want to discuss those factors and their relative importance and offer guidance to the agency, if requested.
Technical, management and other evaluation factors
Noncost evaluation factors must be established to assess the quality of proposed solutions, services or products. Those factors can include technical approach, management capability, personnel qualifications, prior experience or small-business participation, among others. Some agencies prescribe a standard set of evaluation factors for their procurements and then add factors specific to a procurement as needed. As a capture manager, you want to know what factors are required and what optional factors the agency might consider. After an agency selects factors, it tailors subfactors for each one to outline important considerations in the procurement and provide a basis for comparing bidders. Agencies have broad discretion to set subfactors for each procurement.
Past-performance evaluation factor
Past performance is a mandatory evaluation factor, and agencies must include it in every procurement that exceeds the value of the simplified acquisition threshold, unless the contracting officer specifically excludes it. The agency describes its approach to evaluating past performance and usually requires bidders to provide past-performance contract summaries for relevant contracts of similar size, scope and complexity. Past-performance selection criteria can be defined broadly or narrowly. For example, past-performance contract references might be restricted to contracts performed or completed in the past three years. Narrow definitions can eliminate some excellent contracts from being presented as past-performance examples.
For procurements that offer a significant opportunity for subcontracting, past-performance evaluation must include an assessment of how well the bidder met applicable small-business goals in previous contracts that required subcontracting plans.
Price as an evaluation factor
Price is a mandatory evaluation factor for contracts, including best-value procurements. However, its relative importance can vary. For example, when mission success is important to the agency, the relative importance of price in the evaluation criteria can be lowered in comparison with other evaluation factors. For commodity procurements or nontechnical services, the relative importance of price could increase. In the extreme, some procurements raise the relative importance of price to such a high level that the RFP will state, “Award will be made to the technically acceptable, lowest price (TALP) offeror.” That TALP evaluation criteria should never be used for technical or professional services. The RFP will state that all evaluation factors, when taken together, are significantly more important than, equal to or significantly less important than price.
Capture manager’s role in shaping the evaluation criteria
Capture managers should not leave evaluation factors and subfactors to chance. After an agency releases an RFP, those factors and subfactors are set and cannot be changed without considerable effort on the part of the agency. Shaping evaluation factors to highlight important considerations in a procurement can make the difference between your company being a winner or a loser.
About the Author: Bob Lohfeld is the chief executive officer of the Lohfeld Consulting Group. Published in Washington Technology on Jan. 21, 2011
A new government database that tracks contractor misconduct and performance, previously available only to federal officials, is expected to be made public by April 15, Government Executive has learned.
In one of the most dramatic steps to date in shining a light on the conduct of firms that do business with the government, the General Services Administration will open its Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System — otherwise known as FAPIIS — to public scrutiny within the next three months, GSA’s Senior Procurement Executive Joseph Neurauter said in an interview on Thursday.
A provision in the wartime supplemental appropriations bill, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and signed into law by President Obama in July 2010, mandated that GSA disclose on a public website all information in FAPIIS, with the exception of past performance evaluations.
The bill did not provide a deadline for publicizing the information, which now is accessible only to a handful of government officials, lawmakers and contractors that are listed in the database.
“This is a good thing because it gives more transparency,” said Neurauter, who also serves as GSA’s suspension and debarment official. “That’s really what we are about. The more information that you can legally and within reason make available to the public, the better.”
FAPIIS, used by federal contracting officials since April, culls information dating back five years from a number of disparate federal databases and government records.
The database includes criminal, civil and administrative proceedings against suppliers in connection with federal awards; past performance evaluations; records of suspensions and debarments; administrative agreements issued in lieu of suspension or debarment; nonresponsibility determinations; contracts that were terminated for fault and defective price determinations.
And in a new development, the database also will include instances when a company’s behavior might have put its employees in harm’s way.
A provision in the fiscal 2011 Defense Authorization Act requires department contracting officials to publicly disclose cases when a procurement official denied or reduced a contractor’s award fee because of a company’s reckless or negligent behavior. The database also will include a determination of fault by Defense Department leadership.
For contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, federal contracting and grant officers are required to check FAPIIS before making a responsibility determination. The new public site, Neurauter said, will be searchable and user-friendly.
While much of the information available in FAPIIS is already publicly available on myriad federal websites, the data has never before been comprehensively assembled for public viewing.
On Monday, Jan. 24, an interim rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register informing the contractor community that FAPIIS data soon will be made public, Neurauter said. The public will have 60 days to comment on the notice.
But contractor officials already are raising concerns that opening the database to the public could jeopardize the integrity of the acquisition process and potentially risk the disclosure of private information.
“Making this data public opens the door to all kinds of misperceptions, misunderstandings and even mischief,” said Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, an industry trade association.
GSA officials are aware of industry’s concerns and are taking steps to redact data prohibited by the 1974 Privacy Act or that concerns a contractor’s proprietary information. Other information also could be withheld based on pending litigation, according to Neurauter.
“We can’t mindlessly put things in there,” he said. “We have to give it thought and consideration and understand there is a balance of competing regulatory and statutory interests that we have to be mindful of.”
Soloway, however, is concerned that the administration has yet to develop governmentwide business rules spelling out how contracting officials should use the information in FAPIIS. For example, the government has not provided guidance to procurement officials regarding how much weight a years-old tax discrepancy or equal employment violation should have in a company’s post-award responsibility determination.
“We are looking for clarity on how this information is going to be used,” Soloway said.
The Federal Acquisition Institute has developed a tutorial detailing the purpose of FAPIIS and the types of data it will include. The site is available at http://www.fai.gov/FAPIIS/trailer/module.htm.
– By Robert Brodsky – GovExec.com – January 21, 2011
Small business will get greater consideration from regulators who draw up proposed rules.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act already requires agencies to avoid imposing heavy burdens on small companies and search for ways to minimize those burdens. President Barack Obama wants more of that, according to a memo released this morning (Jan. 18, 2011).
Agencies must carry out the regulatory law by allowing small businesses more flexibility in meeting the compliance requirements, he said. They should “take into account the resources available to small entities,” Obama wrote.
For example, Obama directed agency officials to extend the time small businesses have to implement new requirements, such as a new business system.
He wants regulators to consider performance standards rather than meeting detailed design standards. Rules should also simplify reporting and compliance necessities, such as streamlined forms and electronic filing options, the memo states.
The memo also directs agencies to use different standards for small and large companies, or even exempt small companies from particular requirements that larger companies must comply with.
If an agency rule does not have these flexibilities, officials must justify why they aren’t there, the memo states.
“It is especially important for agencies to design regulations in a cost-effective manner consistent with the goals of promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job-creation,” the memo states.
The memo aligns with a small-business task force the administration created in April. One of its duties was to clarify policies that are necessary to aiding small businesses in the federal contracting marketplace.
Today, Obama outlined a new overall regulatory strategy to help boost the economy, along with this small-business memo. In it he pushed for more transparency and accountability in regulatory compliance.
– by Matthew Weigelt – Jan. 18, 2011 – Federal Computer Week
The Army has identified more than 4,200 full-time jobs in which contractors are performing either inherently governmental or unauthorized personal services, according to a new watchdog report released on Tuesday.
The Government Accountability Office report, which generally focuses on the Defense Department’s approach to counting service contractor employees and functions, includes previously unreported details on the scope of work being performed by Army contractors.
Since the start of 2009, the Army has completed at least one review of 24 of its 26 commands and headquarters organizations and identified 2,357 contractor employees performing inherently governmental functions, the report said. Examples of inherently governmental activities include awarding and administering contracts, determining budget priorities, and hiring or firing federal employees. Another 1,877 contractors were identified as providing unauthorized personal services that federal employees should be performing. Personal services contracts are contracts that make private sector personnel appear, in effect, as government employees. In both the inherently governmental and unauthorized personal services contracts, the department would typically be required to bring the functions back in-house.
An additional 45,934 Army contractors are performing activities deemed closely associated with inherently governmental functions. These jobs, which include assisting in contract management or evaluating another contractor’s performance, generally are not statutorily prohibited from outsourcing but require strict oversight and management.
Army officials indicated that the reviews help them decide which functions should be performed by military personnel. The GAO report did not provide details on the number of Army positions that have been subsequently insourced, and a Defense spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.
Officials at the Army’s Installation Management Command in San Antonio, Texas, told GAO that most insourcing during fiscal 2010 was a result of losing statutory authority to contract for certain security guard functions. They noted that most insourcing in fiscal 2011 will be prompted by budgetary decisions. In August 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to reduce funding for service support contractors by 10 percent annually from fiscal 2011 to 2013.
Agencies across government are expected to compile an annual inventory to determine the number and type of service contract employees. The Army collected the data on its centralized Contractor Manpower Reporting Application system, which captures information companies report at the contract line item level.
The Air Force and Navy have faced bigger challenges in developing their inventory of service contractor functions. According to the GAO report, the two services have decentralized approaches that rely on their major commands to review the activities of contractors listed in their inventories and report the results to headquarters.
The Air Force completed its initial review in January 2010. But for approximately 40 percent of the contracts, reviews contained inadequate or incomplete responses that could guide a decision to insource those functions, GAO said.
The Air Force Material Command, for example, identified 152 contract actions that potentially involved inherently governmental functions. The official responsible for the command’s review process, however, was unsure of the extent to which these determinations were correct.
The Navy issued guidance to its commands in September, but the results of its initial review were not yet available. The service had previously planned to establish roughly 10,000 civilian positions by fiscal 2015 through insourcing contracted services.
“DoD has acknowledged the need to rebalance its workforce, in part by reducing its reliance on contractors,” GAO said. “To do so, however, the department needs good information on the roles and functions played by contractors, which the department currently does not have.”
Air Force and Navy contracting officials told auditors they rely on processes other than the service contract inventory — such as post-award monitoring — to avoid placing contractors in inherently governmental functions.
According to the Air Force’s fiscal 2010 insourcing plan, the majority of decisions to bring work in-house would be based on analyses of whether the work could be performed more cost-effectively by government employees. Navy officials said their commands review contracts during the pre-award and option phases to prevent the award of contracts that include inherently governmental functions or unauthorized personal services.
The Defense Department reported spending on service contracts leapt from $127 billion in fiscal 2008 to $140 billion in fiscal 2009, although the surge could have been influenced by more thorough and detailed reporting by the military services, according to GAO.
In 2009, Defense officials announced they would cut 33,000 service support contractors departmentwide by 2015. The Pentagon had planned to replace those contractors during the next five years with 39,000 new full-time government employees, many through insourcing.
As of June 30, 2010, more than 16,500 civilian positions were established across the department as a result of insourcing contracted services, Thomas Hessel, a senior analyst in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, told Government Executive in September. More than half of these positions were brought in-house because the work was determined to be inherently governmental, closely associated with inherently governmental, or otherwise exempt from private sector performance, he said.
The Defense Department has halted insourcing at its Pentagon offices and commands because of a fiscal 2011 billet freeze. But the military services are not subject to the freeze, allowing insourcing to continue.
– by Robert Brodsky – GovExec.com – January 19, 2011
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of government contractors surveyed consider the government to be slow and inefficient in resolving contract issues, with 56% believing that the inefficiencies are caused by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and 18% saying it is caused by the contracting officer, according to Grant Thornton LLP’s 16th Annual Government Contractor Industry Survey.
“These findings were not unexpected given the changes in DCAA policy adopted in the aftermath of Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports issued in July 2008 and September 2009 that severely criticized the quality of the DCAA’s work,” noted Kerry Hall, Grant Thornton LLP’s Government Contractor practice leader. “The GAO reports and the DCAA changes that followed likely contributed to the survey findings, namely that the process of resolving contract issues is increasingly inefficient.”
More than half (55%) of government contractors reported that their revenue from federal business increased during the past year, while only 22% reported reduced revenue from federal business.
Other highlights of this year’s survey include:
Revenue from the stimulus program — 72% of respondents anticipate no significant revenue growth from the stimulus program over the next 18 months, while the remaining 28% foresee modest growth.
Identifying claims for out-of-scope work — 31% of government contractors consider their procedures for identifying out-of-scope work to be very effective, while 69% see them as being either somewhat effective or not effective. The failure to identify out-of-scope work effectively and seek related compensation may contribute to reduced profit rates.
Bid protests — A total of 22 bid protests were filed during the past year by companies surveyed, and 11 of them were sustained by the GAO or the court hearing the bid protest. This appears to be a higher sustainment rate than has historically been the case and could possibly signal an emerging trend.
– from The Financial – Jan. 18, 2011 – http://www.finchannel.com/Main_News/Business/79196_Contractors_believe_the_government_is_inefficient_in_resolving_contract_issues/
Filed under GTPAC News · Tagged with 8(a), Air Force, Army, DoD, government contract training, government contracting, GSA, HUBZone, Interior Dept., Marines, market research, marketing, MBDA, parity, SBA, small business, woman owned business
In the next few weeks and months there are many government-sponsored conferences being held to attract small businesses to, and inform small businesses of, government agencies’ upcoming contracting opportunities.
Toward the end of this article, you’ll see a list of many government-related vendor conferences coming up, along with details on how to register.
But before jumping right into that list, the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) suggests you take a few preparatory steps. After all, it’s important that you make a sound decision about whether it’s worth the time, effort, and expense to attend a particular vendor conference.
First of all, small businesses should make no mistake about it: government agencies may need you more than you need them. Federal agencies are under the gun to ensure that small businesses — including 8(a) firms, companies in HUBZones, service disabled veteran owned small businesses, and others such as women-owned businesses at the subcontract level — get their share of the “contract spend.”
(Keep in mind that this is especially true as the federal government nears the end of its fiscal year — Sept. 30th of each year. Contracts must be obligated by that date, or agencies lose those budgeted funds. In addition to spending by that date, often there’s also a rush to meet small business goals.)
All this is why agencies host conferences — to demonstrate that they are reaching out to the small business community.
Does that mean that you should attend as many governmental vendor conferences as you can, and that by attending, contracts will begin to fall in your lap? Hardly.
From GTPAC’s perspective, government-sponsored vendor conferences run the gamut in value. Some are well-organized, featuring details on specific, upcoming opportunities as well as access to the decision-makers. Other conferences, however, can be disappointing, consisting of little more than “a dog and pony show.”
So how do you select a good conference to attend? How do you reduce the risk that you’ll be attending a conference that has little value to you?
There are several things you should do before deciding to go to a government-sponsored vendor event. Here is a checklist:
1. Research the conference sponsoring agency’ s forecasted contract opportunities. Look for the sponsoring agency’s annual procurement forecast on that agency’s website. Use www.google.com/unclesam and type in the name of the federal agency and “procurement forecast.” (If that search fails to produce the results you need, check https://www.acquisition.gov/comp/procurement_forecasts/index.html.) One thing for sure, before you attend an event, you want to make sure the sponsoring agency buys what you sell.
2. Find out what contract opportunities will be the subject of the conference. Even if an agency buys what you sell, you’ll want to make sure that will be the focus of the conference. Look in the conference announcement — see if the agency identifies specific goods and services that will be the focus of the conference. Are the NAICS codes for future contracts identified, and do they match-up with yours?
3. Determine whether you’ll get access to decision-makers. Look for opportunities to meet one-on-one with the people who make the buying decisions. Good vendor conferences will provide you with the opportunity to meet, on an appointment basis during the event, with agency contracting officials. See if you can make appointments as a part of the registration process or whether such opportunities exist on-site at the event. Think outside the box: If you arrive early — or stay late — will you be able to spend time with the people who award contracts?
4. Once you select a conference, prepare yourself. Remember, only one-third of the “action” occurs at the event itself. You should spend the first third of your time preparing to attend. And another third should be spent in follow-up, after the event. If you are not prepared to make this much of an investment of your time, maybe you shouldn’t attend. To help you prepare, attend, and follow-up, we recommend you read our detailed article at: http://gtpac.org/2010/05/14-tips-for-attending-a-government-expo-or-trade-show. Your GTPAC Counselor will be glad to elaborate on this topic and provide you with additional advice. You can find our contact information right here.
Now, what you have been waiting for: The information about upcoming government vendor shows. Here they are:
2011 Conferences
- NAVSEA Small Business Conference – February 1, 2011 – Miami, FL – Details at http://www.sbconference.org/.
- Small Business Dynamics and Job Creation: Facts, Obstacles and Best Practices – February 2, 2011 - Atlanta, GA – Details at: http://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/2011/01/tech-hosts-small-business-forum-feb-2/.
- USDA Forest Service A&E Business Opportunities Briefing – February 9, 2011 – Atlanta, GA – Details available at http://gtpac.org/2010/12/learn-about-architectural-engineering-services-needed-by-the-forest-service.
- Model Based Enterprise (MBE) Supplier Education & Training Summit - February 22, 2011 – Hunstville, AL - Details at: http://model-based-enterprise.org/MBE-Events/default.aspx.
- Small Business Speed Partnering – February 22, 2011 - Albany, GA - http://gtpac.org/2011/02/want-to-meet-with-government-buyers-albany-ga-is-the-place-to-be-on-feb-22nd/
- Southeastern Regional Matchmaking Event – February 24, 2011 – Miami, FL – Details at: http://www.businessmatchmaking.com/regionMia.shtml.
- Public Health Preparedness Summit – February 22-25, 2011 – Atlanta, GA – Details at: http://www.phprep.org/2011.
- Greening the Supply Chain Listening Session – March 17, 2011 – Atlanta, GA – http://gtpac.org/2011/03/greening-the-supply-chain-listening-session-scheduled-mar-17/
- US Army Corps of Engineers 3rd Annual Regional Service Disabled Veteran & Small Business Conference – March 22-23, 2011 – Atlanta, GA – http://gtpac.org/2011/03/corps-of-engineers-announces-design-construction-conference/
- Jobs Act Tour – March 30, 2011 – Atlanta, GA – http://gtpac.org/2011/03/jobs-act-tour-coming-to-atlanta-on-mar-30/
- “Getting Back to Business” Atlanta Small Business Procurement Industry Fair – April 13, 2011 – Atlanta, GA – http://gtpac.org/2011/03/gsa-and-health-human-services-host-industry-fair-april-13th/
- US DOT OSDBU Small Business Summit – April 20-21, 2011 – Washington, DC – https://www.fbcinc.com/osdbu/default.aspx
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Small Business Conference - April 27, 2011 – Decatur, GA – http://gtpac.org/2011/03/epa-to-hold-small-business-event-april-27th/
- GSA Training Conference and Expo 2011 – U.S. General Services Administration’s Annual Expo – May 10, 2011 – San Diego, CA – Details at: http://www.expo.gsa.gov/ (Copies of the proceedings from the May 2010 GSA Expo in Orlando, FL may be found at: http://208.112.78.139/gsaSchedule2010/admin/display.cfm.)
- Warner Robins Air Logistics Center Small Business Outreach Event – June 22, 2011 – Warner Robins, GA – Details to be announced.
- DLA Enterprise Supplier Conference & Exhibition – June 27-30, 2011 – Columbus, OH – https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a6f1568f5a0c0127c543fd1630ce0ac4&tab=core&tabmode=list&=
- 2011 Veteran Entrepreneur Training Symposium (VETS2011), June 27-30, 2011 – Reno, NV – Details at: http://stats.aqseventsupport.com/e3ds/mail_link.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fveterantrainingsymposium.com&i=2&d=269UY252-0V30-411Z-9385-765U50858358&e=chuck.schadl@innovate.gatech.edu.
- 7th Annual National Veteran Small Business Conference and Expo – August 15-18, 2011 – New Orleans, LA – Visit http://www.nationalveteransconference.com/ and sign up to receive email updates on registration, agenda, speakers, and other announcements or submit any questions you may have regarding the conference.
- National Recreation and Park Association Congress & Exposition – November 1 – 4, 2011 – Atlanta, GA – Details to be announced.
2010 Conferences (Note: Conference materials are posted on many past conferences.)
- GSA Schedules Contract Training- December 13 and November 15, 2010 – On-Line Webinar - Register for the Nov. 15 webinar at https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/670264562; Register for the Dec. 13 webinar at https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/913141458.
- 7th Annual Alliance South Small Business Procurement Fair – December 7, 2010 – Atlanta, GA – Details at: http://www.allianceforbiz.com/events/specific_event.php?id=128.
- Aerospace Industry Committee (AIC) 8th Annual Requirements Symposium – November 16 – 18, 2010 – Perry, GA – Details at: http://www.wrcoc-aic.org/Page8.aspx.
- 6th Annual Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Forum – November 10, 2010 – Atlanta, GA – Details at: http://gtpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Annual-GSA-Veterans-Small-Business-Event-11.10.2010.pdf.
- Department of Defense “Industry Day” focusing on the shipbuilding industry along the Gulf Coast - November 9, 2010 – Biloxi, MS – Details at: http://gtpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/3rd-Annual-DoD-Shipbuilding-Industry-Day-Nov-9-2010.pdf
- The Governmental Purchasing Association of Georgia’s annual Georgia Vendor Exhibitor Fair - November 2-3, 2010 – Perry, GA – Details at: http://gtpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/GPAG-Vendor-Fair-Nov-2-3-2010-Perry-GA.pdfNational SBIR Beyond Phase II Conference & Technology Showcase – September 13 – 17, 2010 – San Antonio, TX – Details at: https://www.beyondphaseii.com/index.aspx. Emergency Response Contracting Conference - June 21, 2010 – Atlanta, GA - Conference proceedings now posted at http://gtpac.org/training/training-video.
- 4th Annual SDVOSB/VOSB/SB Conference & Match Making Expo – October 28 – 29, 2010 – Tampa, FL – Details at: http://www.dm.usda.gov/osdbu/FBOAnnouncement_13Aug2010.pdf.
- Small Biz Contractors’ Forum Presents: Contacts & Contracts – October 27, 2010 – Atlanta, GA – Details at: http://www.nasbc.org/contacts-contracts-georgia.
- City of Albany Small Business Procurement Program Kick-Off & Orientation – October 18, 2010 – Albany, GA – Details at: http://gtpac.org/2010/10/city-of-albanys-small-business-program-kick-off-set-for-oct-18.
- University System of Georgia – South Georgia Regional Procurement Expo 2010 – October 15, 2010 – Savannah, GA – Details at: http://gtpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Univ.-System-of-GA-Procurement-Expo-Oct.-15-2010.pdf.
- Effective Problem Solving – Life’s Most Important Skill – September 9, 2010 – On-Line Webinar – details at: https://mep-nist-events.webex.com/mep-nist-events/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=997194952
- Annual U.S. Army Infantry Warfighting Conference – September 13 – 16, 2010 – Columbus, GA – Details at http://gtpac.org/2010/09/army-vendor-showcase-in-columbus-ga-in-sept.
- GSA’s Public Buildings Service Educational and Matchmaking Conference – August 31, 2010 – Atlanta, GA – Details at http://gtpac.org/2010/08/gsa-to-host-public-buildings-service-vendor-conference-aug-31st - Conference proceedings now posted at http://gtpac.org/training/training-video.
- Interior Dept. Small Business Boot Camp
- Air Force Information Technology Conference - August 30-31, 2010 – Montgomery, AL – Details at http://gtpac.org/2010/07/air-force-to-host-it-vendors-in-montgomery-al.
- Clayton County (GA) Business Community Meeting- August 26, 2010 – Jonesboro, GA – Details at http://gtpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Clayton-County-Business-Community-Meeting-Aug.-26-2010.pdf.
- Minority Enterprise Development Week Conference – August 25-27, 2010 – Washington, DC – Details at MEDWeek flyer - Conference proceedings now posted at http://www.medweek.gov/conference-presentation.
- SBA Veterans Export Business Symposium - August 24, 2010 – Lawrenceville, GA – Details at Veterans Export Symposium 08 24 2010.
- USWCC Women-Led Economy Launch Meeting - August 17, 2010 – Atlanta, GA – Details at: http://www.uswcc360members.org/memberarea/EventList.aspx - Post-conference details now available at: http://www.uswcc.org.
- Georgia Small Business Summit – August 17, 2010 – Macon, GA – Details at http://gtpac.org/2010/07/sen-isakson-to-host-small-business-summit-in-macon.
- Marine Corps Logistics Command’s Annual Vendor Event – August 12, 2010 - Albany, GA – Details at http://gtpac.org/2010/06/albany-marine-corps-base-hosting-vendor-event-aug-12th - Conference proceedings now posted at http://www.logcom.usmc.mil/sbpo
© 2011 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.