With the end of the fiscal year comes the right of passage for government contracting personnel and contractors alike; the end-of year budget dump or as I like to call it, the end of fiscal year feeding frenzy. This time of year is characterized by the worst practices in federal contracting: lack of any real acquisition planning, abundance of improperly justified sole-source contracts, and the overall lack of meaningful competition.

Coming off the heels of a new report by GAO on the lack of competition, one clear issue is the woefully inadequate communication between industry and government.

The SBA takes the general position that a procuring agency does not need to document in a contract file any other prospective sources if the agency selects an 8(a) participant to perform the requirement, offers it to SBA, and SBA accepts the requirement into the 8(a) program. SBA officials note that it is the procuring agency's responsibility to conduct market research to determine whether the requirements of the Small Business Act can be met, and then to determine the appropriate contracting vehicle to use. However, SBA considers market research requirements to be satisfied when a participant in the 8(a) program self-markets its abilities to a procuring agency and is subsequently offered a sole source 8(a) requirement. When we discussed this issue with procurement policy officials at DHS, they said that, while these activities may meet the regulatory requirements, in practice they like to see additional market research so that the offer to the 8(a) firm has a more solid basis. {Emphasis added}

Get it off one's desk seems to be the prevailing attitude, along with the closing down of accepting any new requirements to handle the end-of-year rush to get dollars out the door. Is it just simple correlation that more procurement activity carries more risk of protest? If so, then something has gone wrong.

To improve competition and get meaningful best value outcomes, communication with potential vendors is an essential part of the market research process. Common forms include written exchanges of information (e.g., submission of marketing materials or responses to Requests for Information), in addition to also meetings with potential vendors.

However, it is the risk aversion and untrained contracting officials, combined with poor integration with program management and contracting that often makes this process difficult. A recent article in Government Procurement magazine shared a similar sentiment:

This concern can have a chilling effect on communication with vendors. In response to a request for a meeting prior to release of an RFP, one state official recently wrote: "If I meet with them even as an introductory meeting, then I assume they understand they will be precluded from bidding on any project we bid out the next six months." Is this level of concern by state and local officials warranted? We think clearly it is not.

Nor do I. In fact, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, "Contracting by Negotiation," balances the dual goals of "openness" and "integrity" in the procurement process by specifically encouraging pre-RFP meetings and exchanges of information between public officials and potential vendors. Good acquisition planning needs open communications, not to mention the FAR specifically identifies "one-on-one meetings" as an appropriate means of accomplishing these exchanges. Program Managers needs to ensure they know what is appropriate, and Contracting Officers need to provide this guidance and act as business advisors in this process. Simple processes to help alleviate end-of-year fiascos before they happen.

What really are the goals here? Openness, transparency, and fairness for starters. Procurement official must treat all potential vendors impartially and provide equal access to all. This ensures the process is fair. For these reasons, I believe initiatives like the Better Buy Project are an important tool to meet these procurement goals, since crowd sourcing is the foundation for access to all, along with Acquisition 2.0 tools that continue to provide the transparency and openness required of the contracting process.

An informed understanding of current industry capabilities and practices results in both better RFPs and better contracts, since industry will have participated in requirements development to ensure fairness, but also realistic objectives and schedules to also help ensure positive outcomes.

More communication with industry promotes more competition, better solutions and better pricing. Ambiguity in the final RFP translates to misaligned solutions or risk for a vendor who responds with higher pricing. The latest developments, especially in such complex fields as information technology, healthcare and environmental sciences, are difficult to harness unless you put industry competitors to work for you.

Let's capture innovation and stop reinventing the wheel, as I too believe it is ridiculous to think that government officials are so easily manipulated or influenced with these approaches that communications and Acquisition 2.0 initiatives will rig procurements. It is risk aversion and the lack of accountability indicative in the procurement process that acts as barriers to success. Continued advancements through Acquisition 2.0 pilots will hopefully not only demonstrate the potential of openness and transparency, but also provide guidance on transforming the way government does business and allow for accountability to the taxpayer, which should be the ultimate goal.

Preamble: I'm Kevin Merritt, CEO of Socrata, a leading provider of open data services, based in Seattle, WA. While Socrata is focused squarely on helping government organizations share their data in human-comprehensible and machine-readable ways, I don't personally have a long tenure of experience selling software or services to the government. In full, transparent candor, the procurement process is the most challenging part of working with the government. It's complicated. So much so that many companies selling to the government have GSA contracting specialists to help navigate the process. As a taxpayer and businessperson, I'm in favor of making it simpler and more effective for innovative companies to do business with the government.

In March the General Services Administration (GSA) conducted a pilot project designed to make procurement a more transparent process. In the pilot, GSA submitted to industry an RFI for the next phase of evolution of data.gov. I participated in the pilot and want to share my feedback as a means to hopefully improve the overall procurement process.

Historically, GSA would issue a Request for Information (RFI) and industry would submit their responses in private. There is no back-and-forth communication between GSA and industry while the RFI response window is open. Without regard to GSA specifically, an RFI is often used to conduct basic market research and to help refine the requirements that will ultimately be included in a formal solicitation - the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The BetterBuy pilot project was novel in that it asked industry and interested individuals to submit their responses to the RFI, through a publicly editable wiki. It was the most transparent and collaborative RFI conducted by the federal government to date.

For those unfamiliar with wikis, they are web-accessible, collaborative content management systems. They allow anyone to create new content pages and even to edit the content created by others. Wikis work well for a few reasons:

• General trust between and among the participants.
• A community moderation system that identifies and corrects erroneous content.
• A robust audit trail that shows who created (or changed) what.
• Tools allowing site administrators to manage content revisions and versions.

In general, the BetterBuy wiki pilot was a success. Quite a few people participated and the discourse was civil. I believe the GSA data.gov team received valuable feedback, which will shape and influence the detailed requirements of the RFP. As importantly, I believe industry received some valuable feedback from the GSA data.gov team.

GSA would not have conducted the pilot unless there exists a serious intent to improve the procurement process. I believe their intention is sincere and genuine. To that end, I have some constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the process in the future.

1. Don't map the structure of the RFI to the structure of the anticipated RFP. By doing so, the participant pool is somewhat restricted to those comfortable and/or familiar working within a prescribed format. What might be better is for the soliciting organization to loosely enumerate their questions and requested feedback, and broadly categorize those by subject area - background, physical architecture, logical architecture, security, functionality, accessibility, pricing, terms and conditions, etc.
2. One of the potential benefits in a more open process is a level playing field. As such, provide an RFI platform that offers more transparency about the participants themselves. For example:
1. Participants should use their full names and identify their affiliations;
2. GSA administrators should be easy to identify;
3. Industry submissions, including the possibility for multiple submitters per company, should be easy to identify;
4. I suggest having three contributor profiles with corresponding, visually distinct badges - administrators, industry and interested citizens.
3. The wiki site itself was a little sluggish throughout the response period, but especially in the last few hours leading up to the close of the response window. Make sure there are adequate resources so the site operates smoothly In future acquisition collaboration programs.
4. The GSA itself should be more collaborative during the RFI response window. For example, if industry responds to an initial question in a way that doesn't provide the answer/clarification it's seeking, why not annotate the response with a follow-up question? It's this kind of back-and-forth dialog that represents a really open and transparent discussion.
5. Consider using IdeaScale or similar crowd sourcing platforms instead of a wiki. Potential benefits include:
1. A more natural environment for questions and answers, especially when it's anticipated that there will be multiple answers per question and/or multiple answerers per question;
2. The ability to more elegantly categorize questions by subject area;
3. Greater ease of use, improving participation;
4. A clearer question and answer threading system allowing participants to both respond to official GSA questions/requests but to also reply, rebut and/or provide feedback on the answers provided by other participants;
5. Visual indicators and/or badges identifying participant roles and their affiliations;
6. The ability for participants to vote up/down good/bad ideas submitted by others;
7. The ability for participants to suggest new questions that weren't initially thought of;
8. The ability for administrators or participants to mark a response as the best answer;
9. More transparency around the number of answers provided, new questions asked, top votes, etc. via statistics and analytics.
6. Without regard for my 5th suggestion, if a wiki is the preferred approach for collecting industry feedback, take advantage of wiki "sections" which can be edited in isolation, more locally, without locking the entire page and without encountering edit collisions.

Unfortunately the current acquisition and procurement processes exclude many innovative companies - lacking the expertise, patience or desire - from providing much needed, best-of-breed technologies and services to the government. However, I believe the GSA is demonstrably serious about improving the acquisition process and the BetterBuy pilot is a big step in the right direction. We all can look forward to a more streamlined procurement process in the future.

Why has it been so difficult to execute performance-based contracting? Certainly the complexities of modern-day service contracting play a part, but as Steve Kelman, former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy points out, it has been a frustrating and slow moving initiative making little headway in proper execution of these methods.

...There is one obvious reason for this: If you haven't included performance metrics in your contract, it involves a lot of work to change it into a performance-based contract when you go to recompete it. And there are other reasons. Sometimes it is genuinely difficult to develop relevant performance metrics for contractors, just as it is for in-house activities -- for example, what are relevant outcome-based metrics for State Department diplomacy? Finally, there is the sometimes vexing issue of changing and adding to performance metrics during the life of a long contract as technology and user requirements change...

The issue is beyond metrics, as it starts with understanding the outcomes and objectives of what performance-based contracting is all about. It requires a different mind-set, a different set of skills and capabilities, but most important, it involves understanding that culture is probably the biggest barrier of all.

The tools of the Acquisition 2.0 community can have a role in changing this culture, as one of the central tenets of this methodology is about collaboration, specifically between industry and the government. Using initiatives such as the Better Buy Project, outside parties, as well as those inside the government, can add value to the dialogue:

...Program managers need to recognize that some of the things that add to the time it takes to get a contract awarded are good investments that ensure faster and better execution of the contract in the long run. In that case, the evidence is overwhelming that using performance metrics -- whether for in-house or contracted activities -- can improve performance by motivating and focusing employees and facilitating feedback, which is a necessary tool for organizational learning. We need to bring those benefits to contracting...

Of course, determined leaders acting as change agents will always be needed to push for new ways of doing business. Deborah Broderick, the FBI's new senior procurement executive, seems to understand these responsibilities and has taken a lead in changing the culture at FBI and its mixed track records of procurement outcomes.

One of her approaches was to actively engage training where it counts, to help program managers, contracting officers, and the contracting officer's technical representatives in developing proper performance-based contracts with objectives at the time of actually writing the bid. This approach has allowed for innovation, and the ability to focus on outcomes. Further, the approach measures those outcomes through development of proper performance metrics and other contract provisions specific to the procurement in question and not generic metrics made for manufacturing or other boilerplate metrics that are used for the sake of speed and cutting corners. As Dr. Kelman points out, these methods will take time, and leaders must help offset the pressure for speed and sacrificing doing what is right. This pressure is often short-sighted, and may help contribute to the status quo; cost, schedule, and performance issues.

Acquisition 2.0 tools can help aggregate the ideas for performance metrics through crowd sourcing, as both industry and government know what has worked, but more importantly, what has not worked. We have to understand that performance-based contracting is not a silver bullet. However, when investments are made in these techniques, the return on that investment has the potential to be great, and go a long way in improving government management overall.

To date, there have been 100+ ideas submitted for the BetterBuy Project ("the Project") and they keep coming in! Community participants are obviously very interested in the federal acquisition process and how to improve it. A little while ago, GSA's FEDSIM published Data.gov and ClearPath, which are the two Project pilot procurements which will test a few of the ideas/concepts that have been submitted.

As Mary Davie indicated in her March 25, 2010 blog entry titled "Transparency, Collaboration and Participation in the Federal Acquisition Process is Here," the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council's Acquisition Management Shared Interest Group (SIG) is taking the next step to review the remainder of the ideas that have been submitted, categorize them and select a an additional number to be discussed further and possibly placed into action.

The Acquisition Management SIG has initiated the review process and is working towards the end goal of categorizing the remaining suggestions/ideas. We are discussing each suggestion in light of the ultimate objective of the Project, which is "how can we use collaboration and social media to make the federal acquisition process more efficient and effective?" Once complete, our plan is to involve the GovLoop Acquisition 2.0 community to further flesh out the suggestions through additional crowdsourcing, etc.

Please stay tuned for further progress reports and remain engaged in the conversation!

Hello all-

Sincere thanks to GSA for the opportunity to make our first post in this space.

Upon seeing the BetterBuy initiative mature and bloom into two very real pilot opportunities, we were faced with a challenge:

How can we craft effective RFI/RFQ/RFP Responses that balance transparency with our obligations to privacy?

In order to avoid shareholder lawsuits, public companies are required to guard corporate assets which can include a company's trade secret assets and other proprietary information such as, clients (i.e., past performance), project methodologies that create competitive advantage, detailed pricing data and more. Each of these items is probably key to include in a winning RFQ/RFP response and/or a persuasive RFI response.

In an age where technology can facilitate a full RFI/RFQ/RFP response in an online Wiki, how can we maintain an environment that allows public companies to respond to BetterBuy's Wiki-style Requests without this legal risk? We wanted to bid, but we wondered whether a public company might face that built-in obstacle that private organizations might not. Did other organizations have similar challenges?

Thanks again for the opportunity, and we look forward to sharing additional observations and lessons learned soon.

GSA FEDSIM has two BetterBuy pilots underway: Data.gov and ClearPath. The experience so far has been interesting. On my end, there was a tremendous amount of uncertainty leading up to the launch. Will the wiki work? Will people know how to use it? Can the server handle all the traffic? Will one or two voices dominate the discussion?

Several months worth of effort went into the launch. When we finally went live, I was anxious to see the response. And at first, nothing happened. . . . .

A few individuals created user names, but didn't change anything.

A few more folks provided free 'editing' services, correcting typos, spelling out acronyms, and correcting verb tense.

Finally, after about a week, we started to see meaningful discussions and contributions on the wiki. I was curious about why it took so long, so I asked a few users about their process. It turns out that industry had the same questions that I had. No one was sure who was 'authorized' to speak for their company. Normal procedures for providing a response to the Government for these companies are established, and this wiki threw a wrench in the works. It took a few days for them to develop a plan on how to response. One company even wanted to know when we were going to lock down the changes so that they could post their info at the last minute.

From my perspective, the Data.gov use of the wiki was a resounding success. We received a substantial amount of feedback, and our resulting solicitation will be significantly improved as a result. It will, however, take us longer to review the feedback and judge what should go into the final version. Now I'd like to see more attention on the ClearPath wiki. . . .

Lastly, I'll end my post with some wiki statistics:

Pages
(All pages in the wiki, including talk pages, redirects, etc.) -49
Page edits since BetterBuy was set up -373
Average edits per page -7.61
Registered users 152
Active users who have performed an action in the last 7 days -33
Views total 68,718 (misleading number - includes our testing)
Views per edit 184.23

Page Views
Main Page -46,304
MediaWiki:Sidebar -3,406
Background and Questions -3,143
Section B - 1,717
Section C - 1,694
RFI - 1,468
Section D - 1,097
Section F - 849
Section H - 714
FAQs 588

The General Services Administration buys a lot of stuff (products and services) for the country, and they're figuring out how to help us all get what we pay for.

Overall, the GSA's trying to figure out how to break from traditional bureaucracy, learning from private industry and the public, asking people what they think via a site BetterBuy.

One really good idea from BetterBuy is being tried now.

The GSA wants to break away from the traditional system where the companies that provide the stuff help specify what the stuff should be. Normally, they put out Requests for Information and Requests for Proposals, and companies help the GSA figure out what to specify.

That means the companies that want the business gets to define what the business is, and can tailor that to their strengths and weaknesses. Any change to this could threaten the less effective, less competitive businesses.

The deal is to open up this process to everyone, including the public and the companies who want business from the Feds, so that we can work together for the country. One way to do that is on the Net using a Wiki, and that's what they've created, the BetterBuy Pilot(s) Wiki.

GSA is seeking input on a requirement to provide a data repository for data.gov. The data.gov pilot was ready to launch on March 25, 2010. The second is called "Clearpath". For this one, GSA is looking for input on the technical infrastructure for our Clearpath hosting, and developing the approach for a future acquisition. GSA will launch Clearpath in a few weeks.

You are invited to contribute in multiple ways:

(1) Help us write the draft solicitation

(2) Ask questions below each section

(3) Engage in meaningful technical debate below each section

(4) Point out mistakes

(5) Ask general questions

(6) Contribute! This is the most transparent acquisition that GSA FEDSIM has ever attempted.

For better explanations check out Federal Computer Week GSA tries wiki approach to develop RFPs or GSA solicits wisdom of the crowd for acquisition improvements

Today, GSA's FEDSIM group launched two acquisitions using ideas submitted to the BetterBuy project website - specifically, ideas for applying collaborative technology to the acquisition process.

The first acquisition is data.gov. GSA is seeking input on a requirement to provide a data repository for data.gov.

The second is called "Clearpath". GSA is looking for input on the technical infrastructure for our Clearpath hosting and is developing the approach for a future acquisition. GSA will launch Clearpath in a few weeks.

In the first phase of this pilot, we have launched a wiki (http://betterbuy.fas.gsa.gov) and are asking the public to contribute and help us shape the requirements and solicitation. The wiki contains background information on the requirements and draft sections in 'b-m'. Comments and questions (and answers to our questions) in each section are encouraged. We will also use Twitter to tweet procurement statuses and to receive and answer questions. The twitter account to follow is @gsa_fedsim

In subsequent phases of the acquisition we will incorporate additional Web 2.0 tools to continue the collaborative process.

We intend to provide updates about our progress from both the government and industry perspectives on the BetterBlog site, so check it often. If you are contributing to the requirements build as either a government or industry participant and would like to blog about your experience, let me know and we'll set you up to post.

You are probably wondering how we selected the ideas we decided to use on the first two acquisitions. We reviewed all the ideas submitted through BetterBuy, categorized them, and matched appropriate ideas with the selected acquisitions. Our focus was on incorporating collaborative technology in the acquisition process.

So what about the other 100+ ideas we received on the site that we aren't using or the ideas that aren't technology related? We are thrilled with all the ideas we've received and the dialog that is taking place around them. We are going to continue to leave the BetterBuy site up and monitor for additional ideas and comments.

We have asked the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council's Acquisition Management Shared Interest Group to review the ideas and select a few more to put into action. That group will be reaching out to the Govloop Acquisition2.0 to recruit volunteers to work further on those selected additional ideas.

The Govloop Acquisition2.0 group has been an incredible catalyst for discussion and ideas to improve the federal acquisition process to make it more open, transparent and collaborative (which was how the BetterBuy project was born in the first place).

I want to thank all of you for your energy and participation, particularly the ACT/IAC and the National Academy for Public Administration for the help and support provided on this project.

We have just begun our journey!

Better Buy may have some competition...or a great friend. It depends on how you look at it.

OpenGov Tracker has done something that the feds haven't been able to do so far -- create a pretty, user-friendly dashboard for tracking and voting for ideas across the federal government.

Analysis: OpenGov Tracker and Better Buy share the same goal -- an improved federal government. However, OpenGov Tracker is broader in scope (covers whole fed gov) while Better Buy focuses on acquisition.

Here's my question: How can OpenGov Tracker and Better Buy work together to get a better outcome for an improved federal government?

Let me first apologize to Andy Krzmarzick, as I have been promising a post on performance-based contracting and how it relates to the Better Buy Project and the Acquisition 2.0 initiative. I actually started that post, but put in on hold a bit as I found something of interest that I have also been meaning to discuss.

At the Better Buy Project forum at the National Association of Public Administration (NAPA) last December, I was discussing with Mary Davie of the General Services Administration the need to reform not only acquisition, but the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) itself. We both commented that we often get curious looks when we mention this in conversation, but part of the rebuilding of the acquisition mission is to look at the FAR, as it seems ripe for an overhaul. In fact, the FAR can be fertile ground for change, and that change can certainly be done under the umbrella of Acquisition 2.0 tools and methodologies, much like performance-based contracting.

The FAR, in my opinion, has become a snake-pit of over-regulation; a maze of parochial interest. As lawmakers turned to help constituencies and thus narrow interests, or through well-meaning yet poorly planned and poorly though out policy, the current FAR is an example of simply how not to conduct world-class buying.

I was revisiting a wonderful piece of common sense approaches to reform by the Procurement Roundtable (PRT) that are very relevant to the current transformation discussion, not to mention illustrative of how difficult reform can be as the report is dated December, 1999.

The recommendation regarding policy guidance I believe to be spot on, and concur with the PRT that the way forward is much less regulation and far fewer detailed procurement laws. The reform process would work in an Acquisition 2.0 construct, where mission and broad policy statements commence the process of the final outcome; a digital, e-procurement guidance or FAR 2.0.

Under FAR 2.0, guidance should focus on outcomes and mission by concentrating on National or agency goals and objectives. This guidance would not be regulation, and would certainly not be details about how to perform the mission.

The next step is recreating FAR 2.0 would be a crowd sourcing initiative, much like the Better Buy Project. The acquisition community would be able to comment on eliminating the redundancy and over-regulation, focus on commercial best practices, and eliminate those existing statutes, agency regulations, and other directives that burden procurement and detail how to perform the mission. This approach is what the PRT referred to as a "zero-based" approach; which is to start with a blank sheet and add only what can be thoroughly justified.

Further input would of course be proposals for re-creating and streamlining the buying process, changing the new FAR to make it a "what, not how" model of world-class procurement. The rule for streamlining and creating FAR 2.0 would be to follow those commercial processes that allow for a fair and open acquisition process, and allow for real transparency and accountability to the taxpayer. This new process would be based on constant innovation; eliminating and revising any existing guidance or policy that does not allow for the leveraging of new information technology. The goal is to build an acquisition process for the 21st century, and executed by a right-sized and blended 21st century acquisition workforce with the right skills and capabilities to leverage this new process.

Not an easy task, no doubt. However, recognizing the institutional challenges that have hampered reform in the past are the first areas to attack by change agents and leaders who claim to want real, meaningful reform, and who are also demanding accountability and transparency. Some agencies will continue claiming uniqueness, and Congress may the biggest obstacle. However, the Acquisition 2.0 forum and the collaborative nature of this FAR 2.0 initiative can use the successes and lessons learned from Better Buy to involve all the concerned stakeholders, including the organizations that published the overly prescriptive guidance and have legitimacy to claims of uniqueness. Only by taking risks and exploring innovative ideas can we expect to see change that matters.