I get that this may be obvious, but for federal contractors, every competitive advantage matters. The government contracting market is enormous, which means that opportunity abounds. However, abundant opportunity also creates a lot of competition. Small competitive advantages are often the difference between winning and losing.
One often overlooked competitive advantage contractors can develop is being able to understand the government’s side of government contracting (the buyer’s point of view). This perspective creates an advantage because when a contractor understands the processes and decisions the government team makes as it navigates the path to contract award, the more able a contractor is to follow, influence and respond to those processes and decisions.
Both sides of government contracting (GovCon)
There are two sides to each contract: the buyer (the government) and the seller (the contractor). By default, contractors know the contractor side, but contractors typically do not know the government side very well. Few people have been on both sides, as buyer and seller.
To put a sport analogy on it, contractors who know the rule book are better able to play the game. Likewise, contractors without this context and insight are at a distinct disadvantage. One specific example in applying this competitive advantage is when contractors understand who makes the decisions from the government side. In other words, who are the players who decide who wins the contract?
Who decides?
In straight Federal Acquisition Regulations terms, the contracting officer generally decides who wins a contract (per FAR 15.303). However, even when the contracting officer is the source selection authority, he/she is not making the award decision in a vacuum. There are other groups involved in that decision. There are effectively three groups of deciders in every contract award:
The 3 deciders
Decider’s role in the contract award process
Economic decider
Provides the funding
Customer (end user)
Has the specific need that the contract
Contracting officer
Executes the process to award a contract to meet the customer’s need
How knowing the other side is a competitive advantage
Each decider is critical to the government meeting its mission through the support of contractors. Contractors have a competitive advantage when they understand the roles, responsibilities, motivation and concerns of each of the “three deciders.” For example, the contracting officer does not drive the requirement, the customer does. The contracting officer does not allocate the funding to meet the requirement, the “economic decider” does. What the contracting officer does have is the ability to award the contract to meet the customer’s needs with funds from the economic decider. Having only two of the three deciders involved is not enough. Without all three deciders, both the government and contractors risk ineffective contracts (or no contracts at all), which undermines the government’s ability to meet its mission.
If the contracting officer and the customer go it alone, they may award a contact, but it will not have any funding without the “economic decider” — meaning that contractors will propose to and win a contract that does not generate any revenue.
If the “economic decider” and the customer go it alone, they may have funding to meet a requirement, but without a contracting officer they do not have a means to award a contract to a contractor to get the work done. If they do manage to execute an agreement of some sort (such as a purchase order or other transaction, etc), it may be difficult to enforce and administer the contract — and the contractor may not get paid.
If the “economic decider” and the contracting officer go it alone, they are likely to fund a beautiful contract to buy something that the customer does not need or want — meaning that contractors will propose to and win a contract that does not support the customer’s mission. While this may be a short term win for a contractor (i.e. revenue), there is great risk that the customer will not use the contract, will find a way to terminate it, or the customer will not value it as past performance in future competitions.
Bottom line: Contractors who understand the nuances of the “3 deciders” have a competitive advantage over those who focus on only one decider — and possibly on the wrong one.
Kevin Jans is the founder and president of Skyway Acquisition. Skyway Acquisition provides consulting and training that includes both sides of GovCon. Government and contractors both leverage the experience and expertise of Skyway’s team of former contracting officers to better navigate federal contracting by understanding it from both sides.
The post Contractors win more by knowing: The 3 deciders on the other side of GovCon first appeared on Federal News Network.