Over the holidays I was thinking about “Sorry Letters,” or their official term, Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors. I had previously authored a series of articles on Exchanges with Industry, and one of the titles specifically addressed these types of notices. In that article from 2015, I focused primarily on the FAR requirements, the limitations and constraints of such correspondence, and I did not get into any stylistic or preferential elements. If you’re interested, here is a link to that previous article: https://skywayacq.com/skyway-co-insight/notifications-to-unsuccessful-offerors/
But for this article, I wanted to explore the personal side of this process and gather some insights from the Skyway team of former Contracting Officers, and from some of our community members, to compare the various outlooks and perspectives on how to deliver bad news to prospective contractors. My own thoughts on these notice letters focused on delivery and setting the right tone. I sought to abide by the terms of the FAR but to maximize the opportunity to show gratitude for the contractor’s interest, to sound sympathetic at their unsuccessful effort but encouraging for future attempts, and to lay a foundation for positive future relations. My approach focused on conveying the necessary information but also filling in the gap between a perfunctory note and the more formal debrief. In fact, from a time-savings perspective, I sort of hoped that an effective “sorry letter” could forestall or pre-empt a debrief, and sometimes it did.
However, as I learned from my fellow Skyway teammates and community members, an even better technique is to follow-up, or even replace, the official notification with a phone call. One colleague noted that COs need to remember that they are part of an important business relationship, and significant relationships require more than a simple form letter, especially after a tremendous bid & proposal (B&P) effort. While acknowledging the risk of inadvertently disclosing too much or even some proprietary information, my teammate emphasized that COs must recognize their position in this relationship demonstrate that understanding by communicating with an unsuccessful offeror in a more personal way than a template form letter.
Another teammate admitted to having “off the record” conversations with certain unsuccessful offerors about their proposal. He was quick to assure me that such conversations happened only with reliable, experienced contractors that were well known to the CO, and that both the government personnel and the contractor personnel knew to not use any aspect of the discussion in formal correspondence or in an open setting. As such, the contractors had established a reputation for trustworthiness, built carefully over a long period of time, and the government contracting professionals were similarly seasoned, experienced and highly-regarded. Some may frown at the practice, and it must certainly be undertaken after a lot of reflection and a great deal of care, but it does reiterate the point about relationships and the value of personal contact.
The final validating point comes from a contract employee, who echoed the concerns about form letters and their relatively low value. She notes that a government contracting professional that avoids frank discussions with the contractors are not top-notch performers, either through inexperience or lack of knowledge about their job. And in fairness, she acknowledged similar disapproval for industry personnel that will not reach out to the CO for two-way dialogue and effective feedback.
Moreover, she noted that in her company’s case, after losing several high-profile task order competitions on a large IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity) contract, they contacted the CO and informed them that the company would no longer bid on future TOs. The CO pleaded with them to remain in the mix, as the government was moving away from Lowest-Price, Technically-Acceptable (LPTA) requirements, and that their company had always submitted the best (albeit) higher-priced solutions. As a result, that company eventually won the largest TO to date. Had they not contracted the CO with their concerns and business decision, they would have simply opted out, and then lost out on that big win, and potentially even more in the future.
In closing, it seems that both government and industry understand the value of real interpersonal relationships, and that even bad news can be accepted with the right tone, attitude and display of respect. The FAR has strict rules about procurement integrity, and procedures support the notion of fair and open competition. But that does not preclude open, frank discussion between the government and industry, and both sides indicate that such communication is the preferred method to build and sustain lasting, positive business relationships.