Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

What to expect as the curtain comes down on federal fiscal year 2017

By

Government Product News asked Chuck Schadl for his take on government selling opportunities as the federal fiscal year draws to a close on Sept. 30. Schadl is Group Manager for Government Contracting Services at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Here are his views.

The federal government’s year-end spending sprees are legendary as agencies try to commit contracting dollars – lest they have to turn their leftover budgets back to the U.S. Treasury.

A study conducted last year, however, shows that spending just before September 30 seems to be trending downward, with more attention being given to better planning the spend that begins anew on October 1.

The study, “Positioning for 2017: Competitive Outlook in Defense and Civilian Agencies,”shows that for the past two years both defense and civilian agencies have softened their year-end spending spike. Big data and analytics firm Govini conducted the research.

That said, there’s still a disproportionate amount of contract dollars obligated in the fourth quarter of the federal fiscal year – at least 30 percent.

What can vendors do now to perhaps capture year-end money, as well as set the stage for the new fiscal year?

Keep reading this article at: http://americancityandcounty.com/federal/what-expect-curtain-comes-down-federal-fiscal-year-2017

Defense department’s ‘sources sought’ for IT services underscores importance of an effective capabilities statement

By

Market research undertaken last week by a unit of the Department of Defense places significant importance on small businesses having a written capabilities statement.

In fact, as the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) puts it, “It is vitally important that Small Businesses responding to this Sources Sought Notice do so with highly effective Capability Statements.”

The call for submittal of capabilities statements comes in DISA’s posting of a sources sought notice on FedBizOpps on September 11, 2014.  The purpose of the sources sought is to determine the availability and technical capability of small businesses to provide a wide range of information technology services to the U.S. Cyber Command, including assistance for offensive and defensive cyber operations.

The sources sought notice is a precursor to an anticipated indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity IT contract which will be open only to small businesses.  Small businesses are being sought to provide support for cyber planning, training knowledge, records management, science and technology research and development, and more than 30 cyber exercises a year.

The small businesses that DISA is seeking to identify include Small Disadvantaged Businesses, HUBZone Firms; Certified 8(a), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and Woman Owned Small Business.

The primary place of performance will be at USCYBERCOM Government facilities within the Ft. George G. Meade, MD local area. Local area is any facility within a 50 mile radius of Ft. Meade, Maryland.

Responses to the sources sough are due not later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time on September 29, 2014.

DISA’s sources sought notice may be seen at: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=63a08d1386b0426debf21c53cd8572db&tab=core&_cview=0.

For background information on the “sources sought” process, read: http://gtpac.org/2010/09/what-is-a-sources-sought-heres-the-answer

For general information on putting together a capabilities statement, read: http://gtpac.org/2010/05/what-is-a-capabilities-statement-and-why-should-i-have-one/

Clients of the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center may ask their assigned counselor for a sample capabilities statement as well as for a review of their capabilities statement before submitting it in response to any sources sought notice.

 

Business owner says soliciting government business worth the hassle

By

[Note: This article was written by Michelle Shoultz, president of Florida-based Frazier Engineering.]

For more than 20 years, Frazier Engineering had a strong commercial and municipal/county government customer base that comfortably sustained our small business.

But as the economy changed, we knew we had to change.

We decided to pursue unique certifications that would enable us to compete for federal work in a smaller competitive pool certifications such as 8(a), Disadvantaged Business Enterprise/DBE and Minority Business Enterprise/MBE).

Through the Small Business Administration 8(a) program, we were given opportunities that we would not have had before. However, if we did not already have the knowledge and manpower to support the requirements of those opportunities, our certification would only have been as good as the paper it was printed on. Our success to date has been the result of a solid team, being financially and technically sound, having a strong work history, and being actively responsive.

I’d like to share some lessons we’ve learned over time.

As a small-to-midsize, growing business leader, I would definitely recommend the time and effort involved in pursuing government contracts.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/04/01/business-money-edge-chamber/7146529/ 

 

Contractors brace for coming defense cuts

By

As the Pentagon readies a fiscal 2013 budget expected to map out $487 billion in cuts over the next 10 years, many contractors already are bracing for a new climate of austerity, but they are heartened by the Obama administration’s pledge to preserve America’s industrial base.

At the Pentagon on Thursday (January 5, 2012) with President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Deputy Secretary Ashton B. Carter stressed the need for innovation and scientific progress. Both touched on the importance of innovation, maintaining the industrial base, and fostering science and technology.

“As we reduce the overall defense budget, we will protect our investments in special operations forces, new technologies like [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and unmanned systems, space and cyberspace capabilities, and our capacity to quickly mobilize,” Panetta said.

Carter said, “this guidance tells us to preserve investment, and even in some cases to increase our capabilities in key areas that are clearly important to the future — special forces in counterterrorism, countering weapons of mass destruction, building partner capacity, cyber, and aspects of our science and technology investments — making sure that we don’t simply revert to yesterday’s pre-9/11 force structure under the pressure of budget cuts.”

He offered assurance that the Defense Department does not “eat the seed corn” by making cuts that are irreversible. “As we make program changes, we want to make sure that 10 years, 15 years from now, we still have an industrial base that supports our key weapon systems even if we’re not able to buy in those areas at the rates or in the volume that we had planned before we were handed this $487 billion cut.”

The Professional Services Council, a contractors trade group, issued a statement applauding the administration for recognizing that a “strong, flexible and resilient industrial base is integral to ensuring future readiness and mission success.” But the council warned against “arbitrary cuts” to contracts, programs and personnel.

“Clearly, the planned reductions will have an impact on both the military and the industry. Those impacts could be exacerbated if the department does not pay close attention to how it can best capitalize on the capabilities of the private sector,” said PSC President and Chief Executive Officer Stan Soloway. “It is therefore more important than ever that the department buy smart and ensure it genuinely incentivizes and rewards performance and innovation rather than simply buying at the lowest price.”

The Aerospace Industries Association also was encouraged by the Pentagon’s approach, saying in a statement that officials “recognized the importance of a strong industrial base” and for planning reductions based on “a new national defense strategy … rather than simply lower numbers across-the-board.”

Richard Rector, a partner with DLA Piper who runs the law firm’s contracting practice, told Government Executive he expects “contractors’ work and the legal work to track the decline in spending, and that companies will be less willing to accept a loss on a key programs as the pie shrinks and there are fewer large programs.”

During the previous defense spending downturn, in the mid-1990s, the number of bid protests went down commensurately, he said, but companies today are apt to be “less sanguine about accepting a loss when profitability and margins are thin, and more likely to fight over things that at other times they would let slide.” That might mean more bid protests and more claims against agency contract officers for changing the scope of contract work, he added.

The American Federation of Government Employees urged the Pentagon “to take a balanced approach to spending reductions that subjects private contractors to the same cost-cutting scrutiny that has already been placed upon the civilian workforce,” AFGE President John Gage said in a statement.

“Tens of thousands of civilian jobs are slated for elimination, despite strong evidence that having civilians perform these jobs is the most cost-effective strategy,” he said. “Meanwhile, the department continues to increase spending on contractors, even though they are more costly and less accountable.”

The nonprofit Project on Government Oversight criticized both Defense officials and an advance story about the Pentagon review in The New York Times for failing to address possible savings through decreased reliance on contractors. “Beyond the secretary’s failure to provide specifics on how he’s going to achieve his budget savings, it was what he didn’t say that left us flabbergasted,” POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian said in a statement. “Not once did he mention the need to take a serious look at the more than $200 billion the Pentagon spends each year on outside service contractors.”

Brian said her group’s research shows the Pentagon spends more on service contractors than on its uniformed military and civilian employees combined, and that contractors, on average, bill the government “nearly twice as much as it would have cost federal employees to do the same jobs.”

Defense budget analysts Barry Watts and Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments wrote a December 2011 op-ed in Politico underlining the importance of contractors in maintaining the industrial base and the need for a long-term Pentagon strategy that sets priorities for critical capabilities.

“For-profit companies, defense firms cannot afford to maintain a broad range of weapon design and production capabilities if there is no funding,” they warned. “In 1997, for example, the British navy wanted to develop a new class of nuclear attack submarine, only to find that the British defense industrial base no longer had the necessary design or production skills. Fortunately, the Royal Navy could turn to a U.S. firm for the lost expertise. But if the Pentagon finds itself in a similar situation, to whom would it turn?”

— by Charles S. Clark – Government Executive – January 6, 2012 at http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=49718&oref=todaysnews

Want to meet government buyers? Albany, GA is the place to be on Feb. 22nd!

By

Ever heard of “speed dating” where couples are matched for short periods of time to see if the chemistry is right?

Well, through a unique event on February 22, the same principle is being applied – EXCEPT it involves matches between local businesses, government agencies, and prime contractors.

If you want the opportunity to meet with buyers from local, state and federal agencies, you can’t afford to miss this event!

On Tuesday, February 22nd, the Albany (GA) Civic Center is the place to put your best marketing techniques to work.  You’ll get a chance to meet with — and present your capabilities to — decision-makers and buyers from representatives of local, state, and federal government agencies, including the State of Georgia, the University System of Georgia, the Georgia Dept. of Corrections, the City of Albany, the Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, the Marine Corps Command, the IRS, the General Services Administration, and the federal departments of Commerce, Interior, and Juvenile Justice – among others scheduled to be in attendance.

Along with 15-minute one-on-one meetings with buyers and contracting officials, attendees will have a chance to attend briefings on each of these topics:

  • Business Communications, Elevator Pitches and Capability Statements
  • Reading and Responding to Bid Solicitations
  • The Do’s and Don’ts of Government Contracting
  • Government Market Research
  • SBA’s New Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) Certification Program

The featured luncheon speaker for this very special day is Ms. Pat Hanes, Regional Director of the Atlanta National Enterprise Center with the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Coffee and informal networking begins at 8:00 am.  The day’s program begins at 9:00 am and runs until 3:00 pm.

This event is completely free, so register now!  Simply click here to register and then hit the “Sign Up” button.

In today’s market, the big boys should be wary

By

Budgets, technology give advantages to nimble government contractors over the larger competitors.

A profound and dramatic shift is underway in the government market that will dictate the type of companies that succeed and fail going forward.

We are witnessing a change from “economies of scale” to “economies of skill” as a successful business strategy in the government information technology market.

A significant share of new business will be driven by companies’ ability to adapt legacy programs to new technology and budget realities rather than capture entirely new programs.

Mergers and acquisitions will be driven by the highly differentiated capabilities of the company to be acquired rather than by the acquiring company’s objective of efficiencies through growth in market share. And if you doubt this is the case, you haven’t attended recent conferences for investors in this market.

Two key market drivers are behind this change in business strategy: budgets and technology.

The outlook for budgets is relatively flat. The implication is that there will be less spending on new program starts but relatively more spending on enhancements and improvements to existing programs. At the same time new technologies not only are being increasingly introduced but also increasingly disruptive.

Disruptive technologies and incremental enhancements are not a good match the classic “design-build-operate” paradigm. Companies in the past have leveraged their scale in the design-build-operate procurement model to win new programs. Companies in the future that can leverage their unique skills, smaller scale and agility in the new world of “adopt-insert-improve” will have a competitive advantage to capture business.

This evolution of the market negates many of the advantages of scale that have driven business strategy. Companies could gain market share and drive top-line growth through acquisitions, while at the same time achieve bottom-line growth through less than proportional increases in overhead and general and administrative costs. Disciplined engineering processes and program management practices provided additional competitive advantage to larger companies in the pursuit of new programs. As a result, many decisions to be a sub rather than prime on new program procurements were driven by the reality of being unable to “compete against the big guys.”

In contrast, just as specialized remodelers have distinct advantages over new homebuilders in renovating buildings, so too do niche companies have competitive advantages in the new adopt-insert-improve environment. Their competitive advantage can reflect specialized expertise in a technology, disciplined architectural and systems engineering capabilities for technology insertion, and subject matter expertise in mission operations.

Traditional reliance on agency relationships and domain knowledge will continue to be necessary but no longer be sufficient to win business for technology enhancements to legacy programs.

There are implications of this new environment for different segments of the market. Niche technology-driven companies will be increasingly attractive – both as teammates and potential acquisitions. Classic systems engineering and technical assistance contractors will be vulnerable if they lack technical knowledge and engineering expertise required for major enhancements to their current programs. Large primes will be on the look out for niche technology companies, and at the same time could likely divest their commodity-type service organizations.

Irrespective, we are seeing the demise of bigger is better as a successful strategy for this market.

— by Jim Kane is a senior consultant at Suss Consulting and a director of the Systems and Software Consortium, Inc., as printed in Washington Technology, Jan. 12, 2011.

Contractors put more focus on being focused

By

First there was Motorola’s decision to split. Now ITT Corp. has made the announcement that it will break into three companies.

These moves and other evidence have me thinking that we are entering an era in which specialization rather than diversity and size might be the key to future success.

We’ve written a little about this in the past week or so — in a blog I wrote from the Raymond James investor conference last week and a column that Jim Kane wrote for us on the topic.

We’ll write more about this in the future, but I wanted to throw out a couple more facts that have come to my attention.

First, a little more from the Raymond James event. Raymond James analyst Brian Gesuale used CACI International and SRA International as examples of where size was rewarded on Wall Street earlier in the 2000s but wasn’t as the decade closed.

SRA’s revenue grew by 89 percent from 2005 to 2010, but its market capitalization fell 41 percent. CACI’s revenue grew 94 percent, but capitalization fell 14 percent.

Gesuale’s conclusion is that the era in which bulking up was the best way to build value is over. The key to creating value now is specialization around customer missions because it makes the work a company does more critical to the agency and thus a little more insulated from cutbacks. It doesn’t make you immune, though.

So it was with Gesuale’s words ringing in my ears that I started working on our annual mergers and acquisitions roundup, when we list all the closed deals from 2010.

I found that seven Top 100 companies divested units last year, and eight other deals also involve non-Top 100 companies selling parts of their businesses.

That’s a total of 15 deals out of 99 that closed last year. I can do the math — 15 percent.

To me that is significant. It shows that in this economy, companies are focusing on core capabilities. They are looking inside themselves and deciding who they are and what they want to be. That introspection is convincing many companies to sell businesses — some of them very good businesses — that aren’t central to who they are.

The other side of the coin is that you see companies making acquisitions that enhance their core capabilities and send them where they want to go in the market.

So you see a company like Vangent acquire Buccaneer Computer Systems and Services to continue to build its health care business.

How those activities will reshape the market remains to be seen. We’ll still have very large players who will win big contracts and have huge revenue numbers. But that is just one measure of success.

What might be more interesting is looking at profit margins and the type of work companies win. One indicator will be the valuations on Wall Street as several of the more focused contractors become public companies. Earlier indications are good when looking at companies, such as Global Defense Technology and Systems and KeyW Corp., that have had successful initial public offerings in the past year.

As a taxpayer, I also hope that the more nimble and specialized companies will have a higher success rate in serving their customers. That’s the real bottom line.

— by Nick Wakeman – Washington Technology – Jan 13, 2011

GSA holds great power in picking government cloud computing contract winner

By

When Clint Boulton wrote about the competition for the cloud services proposals that have gone to the General Services Administration, he correctly pointed out that Google, IBM and Microsoft all have products that are essentially similar. 

The three companies are proposing to provide Web mail and other office applications in a cloud-based environment. All of them will cost about the same, and all will provide federal workers pretty much the same thing. But that doesn’t mean that these companies have an equal chance of winning. It doesn’t even mean that any of them will win. 

The GSA has great latitude in awarding contracts, and the companies have great latitude in what they propose to deliver. In addition, it’s a certainty that whoever eventually does win the contract award will find the decision being appealed. So any move to cloud services will happen only when something final comes out of the process. But there’s no guarantee that the end result will resemble the initial proposals. 

First, it’s important to remember that federal government contracting is rife with rules that attempt to make sure that the government gets the best overall deal, that no unfair practices are taking place and that a number of Congressionally mandated requirements are met. Second, it’s not unusual for the GSA to ask for modifications to a proposal to reflect changes in technology, the products in question or to meet emerging requirements that weren’t in the original RFP.  

It’s also not unusual for one-time competitors to decide to team up to win a contract so they can provide a capability at a price that no one else can offer. And, of course, it’s possible that the GSA will decide that all of the proposals are deficient, and not award the contract to anyone. All of these things happen routinely in government contracting. 

In the case of IT contracts, there’s a big advantage in being the incumbent contractor providing a service. You already know exactly what’s going on; you already know the people awarding the contract; and you know exactly how you’ll do the migration. Because of this, you might be able to propose a solution that has the best credibility. It also helps a lot if you have long experience in crafting winning proposals. You know exactly how to present your products and solutions so that they meet the requirements, stated and implied, of the procurement.  

If there’s one company that leads in this group, it’s IBM. Despite the fact that IBM is primarily a computer hardware, software and services vendor, this company is good enough at federal contracting that it’s won systems integration contracts for everything from helicopters to spacecraft. The fact that IBM is also the incumbent, that federal employees are already used to IBM’s Lotus product line, and that IBM should have the easiest time in migrating existing Lotus users to Lotus-in-the-cloud won’t be lost on the people evaluating the proposal.  

But that doesn’t mean that IBM will have an automatic win. The GSA does pay attention to the proposed cost, and if a company proposes a credible solution that’s significantly more cost effective than the company with what might be seen as the best technical solution, they might win anyway. As unlikely as it may seem, the GSA really does try to keep a tight hand on the purse strings, and has been known to be flexible about technical requirements if it will substantially lower the price. 

But to win, the proposed solution will have to be credible. IBM probably can demonstrate that it can meet the government’s needs in terms of responsiveness, security (even if this product isn’t yet FISMA certified) and the ability to meet the needs of very large organizations. Microsoft, which has a long history in government contracting, although not as long as IBM which won its first government contract in the 19th century, can point to vast installations of desktop, server and Web software throughout the government. But Google might have problems in this area. In addition, all of those Gmail outages, the occasional security breach and the Google cloud’s growing pains could give the government evaluators pause. 

Or they might not. Google might be able to convince the GSA that it can deliver everything the federal government wants, and the GSA might be in a mood to take a break from IBM and Microsoft. But whatever solution gets chosen will have to be justified, and that’s where we’ll see exactly what made the difference. And then if anyone is still paying attention, we’ll learn more during the appeals. Or we might not. 

The only thing you can really count on with the GSA cloud services contract is that it won’t really be over at the end of September. There’s no assurance that whatever company gets the win will really be the winner. There may not even be one winner or even a winner at all. The arbiter of what’s best for the government is the GSA, and ultimately they’ll decide using their own criteria what’s best for the federal government. Unless, of course, Congress gets involved. 

— by Wayne Rash – eWeek – Sept. 23, 2010

What is a “Sources Sought”? Here’s the answer!

By

This is a frequently-asked question by both new and established clients of the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC).  The label “Sources Sought” may be seen on many contract opportunities posted on FedBizOpps (FBO), the place federal agencies advertise their upcoming contracts.  (You can search for Sources Sought using the “Advanced Search” link on the FBO home page.)

A Sources Sought is not an actual bid or proposal solicitation; instead, it’s a solicitation of interest.  Think of a Sources Sought as market research being conducted by a government agency to determine what the capabilities and interests of the marketplace are. 

GTPAC’s advice to our clients is to always respond to a Sources Sought if it appears to be of interest to you.  Contracting officials frequently complain about the few responses they often receive in response to Sources Sought announcements.  Responding, therefore, can distinguish yourself in a positive way from your competitors, and may lead to an inside track on an eventual contract.   It’s also wise to be realistic: A Sources Sought notice may — or may not — be followed-up by the agency with the issuance of an actual bid or proposal solicitation. 

There are always very specific instructions in each Sources Sought for responding.  Follow these instructions to the letter, and give them no more and no less than requested – in other words, give the federal agency which posted the Sources Sought notice exactly what it asks for.

We know that responding to a Sources Sought represents an investment of time, but by responding to a Sources Sought you actually may influence how a federal agency “packages” any eventual Solicitation.   After formally responding to a Sources Sought, you are at liberty to contact the point-of-contact identified in the Sources Sought and offer any suggestions and/or insights you may have about performing the particular work.  This relationship-building actually could created an “insider’s advantage” for you on the procurement, possibly even leading to a set-aside (limiting competition to only a few firms in your small business category) or a sole-source award (if your capabilities and expertise are unmatched by others).

The agency involved should notify those who respond to the Sources Sought of the eventual outcome, but don’t rely on that 100%.  If GTPAC’s bid match service identified the Sources Sought in the first place, our electronic service should pick it up again when it turns into an actual Solicitation.  Also, remember that FedBizOpps offers options to be notified.  We recommend you put yourself on a “Watchlist” (which will automatically cause an email to be sent to you regarding any developments on a particular Solicitation) and on the list of “Interested Vendors” (which you and anyone else can view by clicking on the tab marked “Interested Vendors List”).   The latter can be helpful in terms of not only seeing who your potential competitors might be but also identifying potential team members. 

Finally, if a particular Sources Sought announcement spells-out no specific format for laying-out your capabilities, GTPAC recommends you send in a government-specific Capabilities Statement.  Give it your best effort and respond by the deadline:  Not one second late.  Contact your assigned GTPAC Counselor for more tips.     

© 2010 Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center – All Rights Reserved.

What is a Capabilities Statement and why should I have one?

By

Clients of the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) often ask about how to best present themselves to government officials, particularly contracting officers, small business specialists, and prime contractors.  GTPAC Procurement Counselors — most former contracting officers themselves — consistently advise that there are four key ingredients to making a favorable impression within the government marketplace:

  1. Familiarizing yourself with the particular agency you are targeting,
  2. Being prepared to deliver a concise “elevator speech” (a 30-second description of your expertise),
  3. Presenting a business card which displays your CAGE, NAICS, and NIGP codes, and
  4. Having a “Capabilities Statement.”

While the first three ingredients are fairly straightforward, here’s what’s important to understand about creating a Capabilities Statement for your business:

A Capabilities Statement should contain particular information
and be organized in a certain way
for use in the government sector.

For instance, a Capabilities Statement should always identify the company’s CAGE code.  The reason for this is that a company has a CAGE code only if it’s registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), the federal government’s vendor database.  Showing your CAGE code is important because that way contracting officials know you are oriented to the government sector (if you weren’t, you wouldn’t know you have to register in SAM) and are properly registered (federal agencies can’t do business with you unless you’re listed in SAM).  Prime contractors pursuing government contract work like to see their subcontractors and suppliers registered in SAM, too.  (For help with SAM registration, visit http://gtpac.org/sam-gov-registration-is-free-and-help-with-sam-is-free-too.)

Identifying your PSC/FSC and NAICS codes is important, too, because that means you know what they are and their significance.  (There are such codes for every product and service, and government agencies specify their contract opportunities using these codes.)

Similarly, if you are marketing to state and local governments, you should show your NIGP codes in your capabilities statement, because state and local governments use NIGP codes (instead of PSC/FSC or NAICS codes).

Providing point-of-contact information for the references you list is important, too, in case a government official wants to make a call or send an email to one of them.  Each reference should also describe the type of work you performed or the products you delivered.

Over a period of time, you’ll want to develop several different versions of your capabilities statement, each tailored to a particular government sector audience.  This is just like tailoring a personal resume when applying for a particular job.  You want your past work descriptions to match-up with the contracting needs of the agency to which you’re marketing.  Small Business Specialists within government agencies use this information to decide whether to refer you to contracting offices, end-users, and prime contractors.  Contracting officials use this information to make initial determinations about whether you appear to have the wherewithal to perform.

GTPAC also recommends, in addition to a Capabilities Statement, that you create a one-page briefing sheet on your firm.  It, too, should be tailored to each audience or occasion.  Briefing sheets can be very helpful as handouts when you are attending trade shows, expos, pre-bid conferences, or face-to-face meetings.

If you need a sample Capabilities Statement or more guidance on this subject, contact your GTPAC Procurement Counselor for help.  Remember, too, to attend GTPAC classes to obtain detailed instruction on marketing your business to the government sector.

© 2010-2016, Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center, All Rights Reserved.

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More