After 16 years in federal contracting, I have never seen an acquisition proceed exactly as its predecessor. This statement applies to both one-off contracts and task orders competed under multiple award schedules/contracts. Take for example the simple requirement for custodial services which falls under the AbilityOne Program. While one may expect the requirement and acquisition process to be the same from one contract to the next… it is not. The teams, leadership, and requirements change and as a result each acquisition, no matter how similar to the previous, is unique.
Each acquisition team has its own character derived from the personality of the contracting officer, program manager, evaluators, and pool of contractors. As a contract specialist, every contracting officer I supported was different than the next; and this is not a bad thing. Each brings their own temperament and perspective developed over years of experience and, therefore, each has their own way of shaping the acquisition and carrying out negotiations; the same can be said for the other team members. Therefore, a change in any one of these positions will affect the character of the team and ultimately the acquisition. This change may be intentional based on lessons learned and the need for different expertise and approaches, but, more than likely, it is a natural result of employee progression and turnover.
Leaders at all levels will also impart their influence on an acquisition as many have seen in the transition back in forth between LPTA and trade-off source selections. I have experienced this effect first hand from my first line supervisor all the way up through the President of the United States. The first line supervisor often acts as a mentor and can be influential in the conduct of a team since they are the most likely resource to have the institutional knowledge with lessons learned from previous acquisitions. However, even a four-star general of a major command can have a direct effect at the operational level. I recall back in 2011 when the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) Commander decided to personally chair acquisition panels for service requirement over $10M. This decision significantly impacted acquisition planning since we were now required to brief a four-star general for even relatively small procurements. The policy added about three months to the milestone schedule to accommodate for the number of reviews needed in preparation for briefing a four-star general. It was also evident to the contractors since the length of time from Request for Information (i.e. Market Research) to Request for Proposal increased equally. (Disclaimer: This is not a critique of the AFSPC Commander as he made significant improvements to AFSPC acquisitions. It is simply meant to show that change can come from all levels of leadership.) From the top, Executive Orders have an immediate impact as well when each new President attempts to correct their perceived wrongs with the Federal acquisition system. President Obama did this with his Federal transparency policy, which increased public access to sole source justifications, and today President Trump did this when he directly exerted his influence over the Air Force One plane contract negotiation.
Finally, even for requirements that appear stable, like custodial services, do not assume that the follow-on efforts will maintain the status quo. My example here happened when the Air Force transitioned the “Big 3” base service requirements (custodial, refuse, and grounds) to standardized performance work statements (PWS) for use across all installations. This approach took the majority of the acquisition planning out of local offices by telling them what their requirements would be and how they would be priced. In this situation, we saw the refuse, grounds, and custodial services acquired via entirely new approaches due to the mandated PWS. For the custodial services, a price per square foot approach with defined service levels was adopted and, even though the negotiation was with the same AbilityOne contractor, the nature of the negotiation was very different than past negotiations since the base pricing structure and assumptions were now different. As a result, it became very contentious over the price per square foot methodology used by both sides. After this ‘standardization’ one would think the follow-on procurement would be the same, but fast forward 5-years and the requirement changed again as installations learned how to garner the services they desired within the limitations of the “Big 3” PWS. Proving once again that no matter how standardized things appear to be, there will always be variations in how they are acquired.
So, as the title says, every acquisition is unique. Therefore, when considering your options for the next follow-on effort, pay attention to the changes no matter how small. Attend the pre-proposal conference and ask questions; introduce yourself to the contracting officer and program manager; and, try to understand the acquisition objectives. This advice is even more important for the incumbent who may become complacent in the government’s expectations. By understanding the differences, you will see what is important to the government enabling you to adjust your capture strategy accordingly.