When a contract comes up for re-compete, it is a chance for other competitors to win that work. The government has, as we all know, very specific rules for competitions that level the playing field. However, any time you compete for work that has been performed by another contractor, you must recognize the inherent advantage that competitor has in the competition.
When I started in the government back during the 80’s, contractors and government were two very separate groups. The line was very clear and it was rare that contractors were even used to perform government work. In fact, the agency I worked for had a clothing factory in Philadelphia and they actually produced clothes for the military and every person working there was a government employee.
But 20 years later, contractors had become a bigger part of everyday operations and that factory had shut its doors and all those clothes are made by private industry. First to go was a host of administrative duties; then more and more technical positions were allowed to be filled with contractors. Thirty years later, we now have contractors working on major programs as subject matter experts.
With so many key personnel now on a fixed term, it becomes an issue for projects when the contract is getting ready to expire. I have had program managers tell me that we must go sole source for the re-compete, because the program has invested 5 years in the current contractor staff and the program would lose momentum if people were changed. However, the position description is for a senior engineer or IT person and specific program knowledge is not required to do that job.
So, when the RFP hits the street, that contractor has people and knowledge of that program that no other competitor has. Unless it’s low cost technically acceptable, that experience will give that company an advantage that the other competitors will not have in the competition. The government, being aware of that situation, tries very hard to design evaluation factors that mitigate that advantage, but it is impossible to eliminate it completely.
Let’s be honest, the very people who have worked for 5 years with this contractor will be evaluating the offers, and while they do not have the final say (which lies with the CO and the source selection authority), it will color the ratings each contractor receives. I personally have rejected technical evaluations that reflected biases towards incumbents and had teams better justify ratings for technical reasons.
The strategy in my mind to beat an incumbent is to offer something very close or better for the technical requirements and hopefully be cheaper. In competitions, as technical factors become more equal, price becomes more important and that can be a formula to beat an incumbent.