Insights Blog

Can GSA help agencies gain efficiencies?

Washington Technology Article

In 2014, many legislators and pundits hailed the Federal Information Technology Reform Act (FITARA) as the most significant changes to the federal IT procurement system since the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996. Bolstered by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance giving agency CIOs more authority for delivering IT on schedule and within budget, agency CIOs are accountable for reporting results through an IT scorecard. However, at the May 18 House hearing, the scorecard was dismal. The scorecard reports four key measures of technology reform success: Incremental Development Risk Assessment Transparency IT Portfolio Review Savings, and Data Center Consolidation. Overall scores of 24 agencies were as follows: Zero received an A Only one agency received a grade of B 22 received grades of C to D, and One received an F. Those are poor grades, and if an IT contractor received such a score, they certainly would not … Continue reading Can GSA help agencies gain efficiencies?

Continue reading...

GSA VETS 2 & Alliant 2 – Get a Second Opinion

UPDATE: GSA VETS 2 due date was extended to June 20. Alliant 2 and Alliant 2 SB will be released on or about June 20 with a 60-day turn. Plan ahead!

I have written extensively about the General Service Administration (GSA)’s evaluation approach for GSA One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS), Alliant/Alliant Small Business 2, Veterans Technology Services (VETS) 2, and the new Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS). The advantage for GSA is objectivity since bidders self score, thus supposedly reducing the risk of protest. The advantage for bidders is that they know in advance if they have a good probability of securing a spot on these critical Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs). A recent article on the HCaTS procurement pointed to some major risks for bidders who fail to achieve compliance. Apparently, GSA did not award the maximum number of slots available and instead disqualified a number of bidders, possibly for compliance issues. The bidders who focused only on their bottom-line scores and did not carefully check the compliance of their proposal and associated documentation lost out. Now 26 bidders have filed … Continue reading GSA VETS 2 & Alliant 2 – Get a Second Opinion

Continue reading...

Benchmarking: Improve Your Win Rate Through Continuous Quality Improvement [presentation slides]

APMP Bid & Proposal Con Presentation – Maryann Lesnick

Benchmarking proposal quality and proposal shop capabilities is essential for serious competitors in the federal market. This session explores how to improve win rates by benchmarking against industry best practices. Using benchmark targets from industry research and experts, this session explores how to select baselines of best practice measures and criteria, develop a tool for benchmark analysis, assess performance in comparison to other companies or industry best practices, and take action to close gaps and improve performance. Learn how to integrate benchmarking and process improvement as a routine practice. Download presentation Maryann Lesnick, CP APMP,  is a principal consultant with Lohfeld Consulting Group, with 30+ years’ business development, writing, editing, capture, proposal, project, and quality management experience. For APMP-NCA: Membership chair (2016), chapter president (2014-15), vice president (2012-13), Logistics chair (2011), and Boot Camp chair (2010). She is a Practitioner Level APMP certification mentor, ACT-IAC Fellow, certified Microsoft Office specialist, … Continue reading Benchmarking: Improve Your Win Rate Through Continuous Quality Improvement [presentation slides]

Continue reading...

APB: A Writing Model for Reluctant Writers, Enigmatic Engineers, and Circuitous SMEs [presentation slides]

2016 APMP Bid & Proposal Con Presentation – Julia Quigley

Proposal managers routinely receive non-compliant, unclear, and dry content. Those asked to write proposals often resist because they aren’t good writers or they’re new to proposals. In this presentation, Julia Quigley introduces the “APB writing model” to alleviate those concerns. APB stands for Approach summary, Process, and Benefits explanation: three essential elements for responding to every requirement in the solicitation. This presentation explains what each element should accomplish, connects these elements to evaluator scoring habits, explains how to scale APB to fit page limitations, demonstrates APB’s impact on evaluators, and shows how to build a response from scratch with APB. Download presentation With a Master’s in Rhetoric and Composition, Julia Quigley has created proposal writing strategies and conducted training to help subject matter experts understand how to respond clearly and compellingly to solicitation requirements. Prior to joining Lohfeld Consulting Group, Julia managed proposals for small and mid-sized federal contractors and … Continue reading APB: A Writing Model for Reluctant Writers, Enigmatic Engineers, and Circuitous SMEs [presentation slides]

Continue reading...