The 4 Rules of "Relational" Debriefing

Using relational debriefing to focus less on defending your award decision and more on helping unsuccessful companies...

The Government’s Transparency Problem

Back in 2015, I attended a policy conference among a small group of policy leaders, hosted by the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP). Set within a hotel in the Boston area, the small conference focused on the acquisition of services and the release of the new Defense Acquisition Pathway for Services under DoD Instruction 5000.87.

I don’t remember much about the actual conference, but there was one ice-breaker exercise that left a memorable impression on me.?The facilitator asked the group:?What do you think are the main reasons behind the X number of submitted protests this past year? The guesses were all what you and I would expect: Inconsistent evaluations that don’t match the original solicitation.??Unfair past performance ratings.?Poor documentation to back up decisions…etc.

Then someone raised her hand and said, “lack of trust.”?The facilitator holding the white board marker turned and said, “Ah, like suspicion?”?The woman responded, “Yes, lack of trust and suspicion…because the Government appeared to be hiding something.”??The facilitator nodded and added it to the list of proposed reasons.?But I remember thinking, wow, she nailed it…. almost every reason a company protests must be attributed in some way to suspicion of foul play.?And such suspicion is almost always due to the Government not being clear or transparent. ?Too formal. Not human enough.

The very fact that most protests are dismissed should also tell you something: The Government is not adequately explaining the award decision rationale to companies. The Government is notoriously terrible at talking to companies….about anything.?But especially about source selection matters.

How many protests do you think would be avoided if Government COs communicated their award decisions more clearly? ??

If only there was an opportunity for the Government to have some kind of conversation before things get out of hand and turn adversarial.??Maybe a conversation….directly with the offeror. One that is authentic, candid, and open… where the CO explains the rationality of the award decision in a way that lowers suspicion and actually helps that offeror with future competitions. ?

Why don’t these kind of candid conversations exist? Wait….they do! ?They are called “Debriefings.” ?

Used less effectively (but still legally), debriefs do nothing more than state minimum reasons for award rationale and check all the boxes for minimum legal compliance. Such processes typically happen with fast notices via email so the protest clock starts on the offeror. Because of this, the Government’s tone often appears adversarial and defensive. ?In turn, it invites a whole party of suspicious thoughts and misinformed grounds for protests.??

But… effective relational debriefs provide the sole opportunity for the Government to converse with the debriefed offer in order to (1) increase transparency about the award decision and process; and (2) help the company better connect to your office and therefore submit better proposals for the future. ?

So, what exactly is a relational debrief and how can use this powerful tool to prevent protests and build meaningful relationships with industry??

First let’s look at some FAR language…

FAR Guidance and Common Debrief Methods

This article is not meant to be a primer on debriefs, I will only be referencing “post-award debriefs” as outlined in FAR 15.506. ??Pre-award debriefs are covered in FAR 15.505, and the ideas in this article generally apply to all types of debriefings.

A debrief provides the opportunity for an offeror (unsuccessful or successful) to request an explanation of the contract award decision. At a minimum, the CO needs to explain things like weaknesses?or?deficiencies?in the?offeror’s proposal; total evaluated price and technical ratings; overall ranking of all offerors, and summary of the rationale for award (see FAR 15.506(d) for the entire list).

Interestingly, the last minimum element listed goes like this: Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures… were followed. (FAR 15.506(d)(6) [emphasis added].

Let’s focus on the phrase “reasonable responses to relevant questions.” As it turns out, the CO has a lot of discretion in determining the relevancy of questions, the reasonableness of the response, and the degree of clarity, guidance, and explanation warranted to the offeror.

The FAR actually allows the CO to engage in debriefs that are not relational or conversational. ?FAR 15.506(b) states that CO can conduct them “orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable to the contracting officer.”?So the FAR (as it should) defers to the discretion of the CO.?

Furthermore, the FAR’s focus starts and stops with the Government’s need to provide clarity on the award decision.?Anything else (like discussing areas of improvement and future opportunities with the company) is going above and beyond what the FAR requires.

With the fairly flexible FAR guidance, it seems reasonable for the CO to quickly issue an email, attached to the notice of award, that includes a written debrief.??It’s fast, it starts the protest clock, and it can be replicated quickly using a template.

But here are the consequences of the one-size-fits-all debriefing email: you are probably not increasing transparency and trust.

In fact, here’s the message you are sending to companies with the sterile, “consider this your debrief” emails :?I don’t have the time to explain this to you in any more detail.?I’ve done my duty to inform you to the minimum extent necessary.?Protest clock starts now. Thanks for playing.”

Are you really able to explain everything to the company with a “fill-in-the-blank” email template?

Let’s look at a better way

The Relational Debrief (and its 4 Rules)

Oxford dictionary defines “relational” as “concerning the way two or more people or things are connected.”?Relational is about connections and building relationships. So, the term "Relational Debriefing” focuses on the connection between the offeror and the Government.

A relational debrief is conducted in the form of a conversation. It’s handled in person (or virtually), but always face-to-face and in real time. Remember the language of the FAR concerning “reasonable responses to relevant questions” (FAR 15.506(d)(6)).?The threshold for “relevant questions” should be low, and the goal is to open yourself up to discussing appropriate details and responding to the company’s legitimate questions about the process. The goals include clarification, guidance, and trust-building.

I want to start with a disclaimer:?The relational debrief takes some extra work and time.?At first, it may ?sound crazy to you.??It also seems fairly risky, as relational debriefing calls upon you to open yourself up to unsuccessful offerors.?To many reasonable-minded COs, this leads to the unnecessary risk of saying things that lead to new grounds for protest.

But despite apparent additional time and risk, this is the way I handled my debriefs when I was a CO in the USAF.?None of my awarded contracts had protests, and we built strong relationships with many great companies. ?So, we ended up saving time. And the so-called “risk” of vulnerable transparency worked in our favor – with taking the change and making ourselves vulnerable, we earned trust.

I had a great lawyer, and this article is a tribute to him. Before my first time conducting a debrief at the USAF office, I told him I wanted to do an in-person debrief because I did not like the sterile emails. He loved the idea and helped me develop it. I asked if he wanted to be on the invite, and he said “Don’t put me in that room with you.?The debrief is about providing clarity to them, not making a defense for you.?Don’t make it adversarial.?Try to help them.” ??With that statement, he shifted my viewpoint on the focus of debriefings.

So we eventually made a routine process out of it and followed these four rules listed below:

Rule 1:?Debriefs are not about you. ?So be helpful, not defensive.

This is the first big rule to relational debriefing. Don’t make the debrief about you.?You are opening yourself up for a more fluid conversation… for the sake of the offeror.?You are explaining the basis of your decision, for the benefit of the offeror. It’s all about them.?They need clarity, and you want to give it to them.

Don’t just think this way.?You need to act this way as well. When you conduct yourself, do not give any appearance that you are on the defensive. Be kind, warm, and focused on giving clear and open answers. Also be kind, helpful, and clear about the information that you cannot disclose to them (more on that under Rule 2).

I would advise you create a template power-point slide to guide every conversation. ?

Also, you can set the tone as soon as you receive the request for debriefing. ?Upon getting the request, reach out on the phone and let the company know you would really prefer they come to your office (or join a remote call) for a face-to-face conversation.?Not many companies would reject the chance to have a one-on-one with contracting officers. ?Say something like, “We want to make sure we are being as helpful as possible in explaining the decision so that you have what you need to compete for future opportunities.” ???

In other words: You don’t give a "thanks for playing" kind of tone… you are giving a "please, keep playing and let’s talk about how you can play better" tone.

It’s also good to use more informal words like “let’s chat about it” or “I’d really love to meet you and make this more of a conversation.”???Again… it takes away the formal and adversarial tone, and turns it into an opportunity for the debriefed offeror to learn and be helped.

This was the brilliant guidance from my lawyer.??Take out the legalese and make it more authentic and helpful.?Awesome.

Rule 2:?If you have nothing to hide, don’t hide anything.

If you actually do have something to hide, you may be in trouble.?And, sorry to say, a company should protest you and hold you accountable to protect the integrity of the federal procurement system.

But I’m going to assume you are a diligent, fair, and prudent contracting officer. You have crossed your t’s and dotted your i’s.?You made a fair decision and backed it up with good documentation and a strong award decision rationale.??Great. ?But you still have a potential communication problem.?In other words, are you being as transparent as you could be about your good, well documented decision???Protest statistics say, probably not.

Being completely open about any relevant question is the scariest part of relational debrief. ?And it seems like the riskiest. Some of my supervisors were not big fans of this approach.??Oftentimes, the debriefed offeror would bring their own attorney, which I encouraged. But I still didn’t have one with me.?There were a couple times when I would answer a question and immediately their attorney would scribble something down on a notepad.?I remember thinking, uh oh… what did I just say??

One time, I even helped a company look at the different times they have to protest with GAO vs Court of Federal Claims, etc.?I had forgotten, so we looked it up together. The company even told me they were going to protest.?Needless to say, they never did. ??

I was overtly helpful because I was confident in my work and the work of my team.

If you are confident in the legality of your decision, don’t hide what you shouldn’t hide.?Let them see your confidence.

There are some things you cannot discuss in a debrief, and you need to make sure the debriefed offeror understands FAR 15.506(e).??These things include point-by-point comparisons of the debriefed?offeror’s proposal with those of other?offerors; trade secrets; privileged or confidential information; etc. ??Here’s what I would say after discussing the slide that covers FAR 15.506(e):?“This is information we need to protect, and by letting you know we cannot disclose it, I hope it gives you the confidence that I am protecting your information with other offerors.”????

Sidenote 1:?Relational debriefing will undeniably make your source selection documentation better. ??You’ll start to read tech eval forms and think “I’m going to have to explain this face-to-face with the company later….is this tight enough?”

Rule 3:?Transition from a discussion about the past to a discussion about the future

This was my favorite part of the relational debriefs.?At some point, after explaining the rationale for the award decision, you shift ?the topic and say something like, “Okay, let’s talk about the future. ?Can you tell me what other kinds of things your company does? You guys are based in Reston, right? Etc.”

So the Debrief would have 2 Parts.?Part 1:?Discuss Rationale of Award Decision.??Part 2: Discuss future opportunities for the debriefed company.

Sometimes Part 2 took longer than Part 1!

Most debriefed offerors love Part 2, as you can imagine.?It gives you an opportunity to have a good market research one-on-one conversation with the company.??The offeror just lost a competition (Note: I usually don’t have a Part 2 for successful offerors that want to be debriefed, unless they ask). Part 2 is an uplifting boost for these companies and serves as another signal for the company to please, keep playing. ?

Again, this Rule has critics.?Some may say that the one-on-one involves inappropriate conversations that give insider information to companies over others. I don’t find this concern very convincing. ??Keep your information even-handed and fair, of course.??But giving offerors guidance and providing help to unsuccessful companies drives the spirit of the Myth-Busting articles released by OFPP decades ago.?We need more collaboration, not less.?Especially if that collaboration will lead to every unsuccessful offeror giving much better proposals for the next competition.?And if the company is a small or non traditional business… how is this level of attention not good for the government?

Let them know about upcoming requirements. Let them know about challenges your offices are facing. Give them some guidance on Procurement Technical Assistance Centers?(PTACs) or other offices that may help them with opportunities. Talk like a human being talking to another human being.

Remember Rule 1 - the debriefings are for the offerors, not you.??To carry this concept to the next level, you can do something that the FAR does not require but is incredibly effective in building relationships.

Plus, it’s very fun.

Rule 4: ?You really do have the time for relational debriefings. You just make the time happen.

There are some competitions with over 10 unsuccessful proposals.?It’s hard to have 10 or more relational debriefs when you are (1) overworked; (2) short-staffed; and (3) pressured to be “protest free” as soon as possible.??I get that.?Perhaps if you are dealing with those numbers – another debriefing approach is best, or it’s a sign that you need to down select to a lower number so you have a more manageable pool of post-award debriefs. ?

But I promise that you can set your team up to have these conversations, regardless of your workload, staff size, or time constraints. You just make the time happen.??Prepare a template power-point to guide the conversation and book a room (or do it remote now – even easier).?And then give that company one of the most meaningful and memorable 1 hour (or 30 minute) sessions that it will ever have with the government.

So, hopefully you see that this kind of relational focus on debriefs will, in the long run, save you a lot of time.

Again, I attribute my successfully low protest rate almost entirely to my use of relational debriefing (and a little luck dodging the frivolous protest trolls… we all usually get hit with one eventually!).?If you are a company reading this and have experienced one of my debriefs, back me up!?It works.

Conclusion :??Get yourself back into what good CO’s do best

I can’t resist bringing up emerging technology and artificial intelligence as I close this article.?But it is true that AI will soon take over the more menial, “automatic”, legalese, and mundane aspects of our job.????Like automated post-award debriefs sent via email.

So what’s left??What are the aspects of your job that robots will not easily replace??There are two main functions:??critical thinking and building relationships.

The “relationships building” function of humans is the reason why many AI scholars believe that doctors are in more danger of losing jobs to AI than nurses are.?

What relational debriefing allows you to be is a human being to companies. ?A helpful human being.?

Try it out.?I think you’ll like the results.

Mr. William (Will) Roe Roberts is Director of Acquisition Solutions for ASI Government, LLC. He was previously first Acquisitions Director for the DoD Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC). Will is a member of the Florida Bar and has over 15 years of experience in Government Procurement. His notable work includes the creation of guides, trainings, and contract vehicles to assist the DoD in acquiring and delivering emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.