GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: NEWS+ANALYSIS Contracting 101

• 51916
  

  Although some of these ideas are disputed I can tell you from first hand experience that some of these are facts. SOME C.O.s have no idea what the FAR rules are. SOME contracts are put on FEDBIZZOPPS with very little of the required technical information to even bid on because a "local" or "favored" vendor has given and informal bid and will be the only one to respond to the formal bid. And if you think SCHMOOZING does not go on just look at the top 25 Federal Contractor contracts. Anything from fueling stations to fences to MRO contracts. SAIC, GRAYBAR, SUPPLYCORE etc. But the networking is in Washington not the local Federal Building hallway. Wake up we may be small but no dumb.

  AA

  A Adamson Posted June 8, 2008 12:18 PM
• 17517
  

  The advice given in this article does a disservice to both contractors and contracting officers. As a contracting officer, I appreciate prospective contractors who recognize that my position requires me to be fair, equitable, and to use contractors who follow the rules. Let me debunk a few of the comments made. 1. We do want contractors to submit proposals for projects that we have announced on FedBizOpps. Competition is good for business, everyone's business. 2. Don't bring me popcorn. Don't bring me anything. The appearance of taking a bribe is enough to make competent contracting officers cringe. 3. Don't ask security to see me. I don't take cold calls. If you have a product to sell, send me an e-mail with your line card or corporate capabilities. Most importantly, if you are a good business with a solid reputation, I'll find you. Probably through your response to my FedBizOpps request!

  Helen Curlee Posted June 23, 2006 3:26 PM
• 16812
  

  Most of the suggestions made in the referenced article are incomprehensible to me as to what makes government contractors successful. I would focus on three of Ms. Kent's ideas.

  First, it was suggested that people enter government facilities and ask the security personnel to get you to "the right person" as "time is not thought of as a limited, valuable commodity" by government people. In most cases if you have no sound reason to be there, most DoD and Intel security people will escort you out the door. Government people work as hard as you do and they do value their time.

  Second, it was suggested that companies that have lost contracts should not attend debriefings out of fear of being "associated with angry losers." I have learned from every debriefing I have attended, especially with the Army. Debriefings are an excellent way to better understand a customer's decision-making process, what is important to them and how to write a better proposal the next time.

  Finally, the article recommended that companies should never protest contracts lost. If a company wants to protest just to go on a fishing expedition, that's wrong. It wastes the government's time and the company's money. However, if the government has indeed made an egregious error, then industry owes it to them (and their constituents) to point it out. This can be done professionally without insulting anyone's integrity or harming current relationships. The company will also gain insight into the government's decision-making process that cannot be found anywhere else.

  Ms. Kent says that most of her clients are small businesses. That may be true, and if you follow the "Do's" and "Dont's" she suggests, they'll stay small businesses.

  Robert J. Guerra Posted May 19, 2006 11:15 AM
• 16811
  

  As a federal employee who is doing more with less these days, I do not have time to drop what I'm doing and talk to a contractor who is asking about my dentist appointment last week as Ms. Kent suggests. The article also described that Ms. Kent explained that in the federal government "time is not though of as a limited, valuable commodity the same way it is in the private sector". What contracting offices, if any, has Ms. Kent visited and did she ever get any contracts? If not, I would suggest she go against her advice and attend debriefings. My office sees contractors that attend these sessions as willing to learn from past mistakes and exhibiting a true desire to know us as a customer so they can get it right next time, not as "angry losers". The message that Contracting 101 describes is opposite from the real contracting world and describes a disservice to Ms. Kent's paying Federal Sales 101 students. Procurement Technical Assistance Centers administered by the Defense Logistics Agency offer free and/or reasonably priced help to contractors who want to sell to the government. P.S. I would have responded sooner to the Contracting 101 article about Eileen Kent, but I was too busy.

  Janis E. Kaiser Posted May 19, 2006 11:10 AM
• 16810
  

  Eileen Kent has obviously has not sold to the government for a while. Since 9-11, you must have a valid name and number or that's as far as you get. Many of her ideas are outdated. She is right about one thing, sales are based on relationships. Her methods for obtaining the relationship are flawed, and need a tune up.

  Ron Brahin Posted May 19, 2006 11:07 AM
• 16809
  

  I am a Contracting Officer for the Department of Defense and although I'm not a lawyer, some of the things Ms. Kent advises her "students" to do are very nearly illegal and certainly unethical. The fact she instructs these small business owners to ingratiate themselves to the government officials so they will be favored and get contracts is highly offensive. As are the "tips" she gives like saying if you weren't called personally the night before by the Government Contracting professional to say a Request for Proposal was being posted on the Federal Business Opportunities web site, you are too late as the agency has already picked the successful bidder/offeror. Has Ms. Kent never heard of a little law called the Competition in Contracting Act? Has she not been keeping up with current events and did she not read all about Ms. Darlene Druyun and Boeing? I will no longer look to Government Executive for insightful truth.

  Terri Schwarting Posted May 19, 2006 11:02 AM
• 16808
  

  Given the current climate of ethics in the Contracting world, it is absolutely offensive that Eileen Kent is giving such advice - and I use the word loosely - to small businesses. To wander around in the halls until someone takes you to the right place? To only respond to RFPs on FedBizOpps because the Contracting Officer will give you a call the night before to let you know that there's something to propose on? I could go on and on. The only good advice she gives is to not quote the FAR to a CO. It boggles my mind that small businesses actually pay to hear this drivel. She has asked small businesses to basically place a CO in the position of having to decide whether or not they are going to break the law. The Contracting community has gotten such bad press, this article just furthers the opinion that all COs are willing to break the rules for the sake of a box of popcorn and someone to discuss their dentist appointment with. I am appalled that GovExec would even print this article without a disclaimer, or some sort of legal review. I agree that small businesses could use some assistance when attempting to sell to the Government, but anyone who takes Ms. Kent's class isn't getting it.

  Gwendolyn R. Mills Posted May 19, 2006 10:59 AM