Change Tactics to Change Results

It's commonly accepted that Albert Einstein made the statement "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” I reference this assertion to begin the discussion about Government and Industry doing the same thing over and over when it comes to federal agency market research, and expecting different results. By the way, different results are very much needed, on both sides.

?Here are a few truths about agency market research for Government and Industry stakeholders in Federal Contracting:

1. The Federal Government wants more Small Business Concerns to participate in agency market research activities.
2. Industry, especially Small Business Concerns, wants the Government to put rigor into the processs of providing them disposition (closure).
3. Industry wants Government to stop driving up the costs of doing business by making RFI responses more burdensome than necessary by asking for the same content that will ultimately be requested in a proposal.
4. Industry would like Government to not ask them to provide sensitive information during the RFI process without affording the same protections for that information, as RFP and RFQ responses provide.

I look forward to good discussion, and possibly some debate, around these points.?

One more truth. There are too many ways to throw good time, and good money at bad and questionable investments. This article is about the investment made by Government and Industry when it comes to federal agency market research. This is an investment I classify as questionable for both sides. More on this later.

When the government needs information to support their decision-making related to acquisition and procurement in support of their goals, they conduct market research. It's the same process Industry uses (or should be using) when deciding what requirements to pursue. Sometimes, federal agencies issue Sources Sought Notices and Requests for Information to get the answers they need. It's not a new process, but there is newness in the type of information being requested, and the level of effort required to respond to the current versions of these information exchanges. We call them RFTMI's for a reason.

Issuing and responding to federal agency market research is a questionable investment due to the actions, and inactions, of Government and Industry. The insistent "ask" by Government for Small Business to respond to market research sounds a lot like that other familiar but equally unhelpful guidance many of us refer to as "The Script." This is the information that has been, and continues to be offered to newcomers for decades, that includes:

• Become an 8(a);
• Obtain a GSA Schedule, and;
• Fill your CCR (Now SAM.gov) profile and marketing material with all the NAICS Codes you can find.

Just as I and The American Small Business Coalition community have been shedding light on how ineffective this blanket guidance is, the same is true in the case of blindly responding to agency market research.

Let's take the GSA Schedule (formerly Federal Supply Schedule, now the Multiple Award Schedule), for example. GSA wants as many vendors on the schedules as possible and maintains an ongoing sales pitch to this effect. This enhances the odds of them capturing more Industrial Funding Fees, and maintaining relevance for a program that has seen better days. The siren's song many hear regarding the pervasiveness of the GSA Schedule just doesn't pan out when you realize not every federal agency utilizes it, and that the GSA Schedule represents less than ten percent of governmentwide spending each fiscal year.

The sales pitch for market research isn't much better. The underlying sentiment of the pitch is about being included in opportunities, which is not untrue. However, the message being conveyed is:

RESPOND! RESPOND! RESPOND!

regardless of the relevance.

This has driven a mindset where companies set goals to hit a certain number in response?to these actions, as if they could associate tangible growth with activities that, in their current form, cannot result in a contract work, revenues or profits.

The mindset we should bring to the discussion about agency market research begins with questions such as:

• How effective is it for federal agencies?
• What are ways performance and the overall experience could be improved for all stakeholders?
• As it exists today, is it the best tool for achieving desired outcomes?

For Industry, it goes just as deep.

• What is your track record when responding to market research?
• What is the typical outcome you've experienced?
• What processes are in place to ensure responding to market research is plausible based on your focus and footprint?
• How much of your time and budget can you afford to spend on market research? Does this leave you time and budget for responding to solicitations that can result in an award?

Smart companies employ strategies they use when selecting and pursuing customers and opportunities. Those disciplines seem to get tossed out of the window with RFIs and Sources Sought Notices. I wonder why?

Here's something else to consider. Since the objectives of Sources Sought Notices and Requests for Information are to create awareness of a company or its capabilities, isn't this really about how companies conduct Marketing in federal contracting? That would mean the real question is, how much are companies budgeting for Marketing versus Bid & Proposal activities?

You do account for Marketing in your budget, right?

Peace, Health and Happy New Year,

Go-To-Guy Timberlake