The Thinking Part of the (Job)

I enjoy government contracting.   

The point of a government contract is to meet the mission of the agency through leveraging the resources from the private sector. Contracts do not exist to exist. They exist to meet a mission. To get a job done. Therefore, to get the mission done, we need to get the contract done so the contractor can help get the agency’s mission done. 

At the core, it is that simple. Getting the contract in place may or may not be as simple. 

Government contracting is surprisingly simple, sometimes. 

Government contracting is maddeningly complex, sometimes.  

Most times it’s somewhere in between. The goal is to move us toward the “simple” end of the spectrum. And that requires thinking and creativity. 

What makes it so interesting to me is that it’s the decisions both buyer and seller make along the way that impact whether it’s simple, complex or somewhere in between. Each of those decisions affects the path to contract award. Those decisions require perspective, context, judgement. We make each decision within the context of all the rules, regulations, and processes of GovCon. Sometimes that path is simple, sometimes it is hard. But there is always a path. 

Finding that path is the Thinking Part Of The Job… 

…or the Thinking Part Of The Role, or Position, or Process, etc. The Thinking Part Of The —, or TPOT for short. The last letter is silent because it changes based on the context…plus it’s just funny and memorable to call it the TPOT because then we can refer to it as the “teapot”. 

The TPOT is the most important element of government contracting. The TPOT is how buyers and sellers make the important and impactful decisions that lead to meeting the mission through a given contract. Here is just a sliver of the decisions made through the TPOT. I highlighted who is making each decision. Each of The 3 Deciders is represented. 

1. The Government Economic Decider decides whether to fund a requirement (in full or partially). 
2. The Government Customer decides how flexible the requirement is do we need everything? What can we trade off, if anything? 
3. The Contracting Officer decides whether to use an existing contract to fill the requirement or to award a new contract. 
4. The Contractor decides which agency(s) to target, and why. 
5. The Government Customer decides what evaluation criteria matters the most, and why. 
6. The Contracting Officer decides whether and how to compete a contract or award it sole source (through a J&A). 
7. The Contracting Officer decides on the contract type. 
8. The Contractor decides which opportunities to pursue, and why. 
9. The Contracting Officer decides on the acquisition strategy (among hundreds of options). 
10. The Contractor decides which companies to team with, and why. 
11. The Contractor decides which RFPs to respond to, and why. 
12. The Contracting Officer decides whether to amend or cancel a solicitation based on new information. 
13. The Government Customer decides whether that new information should change the requirement (see #12). 
14. The Contracting Officer decides whether to include an offeror in the competitive range (or not). 
15. The Contracting Officer decides whether to execute a Termination or a Stop Work.  

And so on.  

Finding that path to award, then through to contract execution is the Thinking Part of the Job, the TPOT for both the buyer and seller.   

The challenge has often been that we did not have time to work on TPOT items because we were sucked into a quagmire of administrivia (finding regs, following checklists, organizing CLINs, managing ACRNs, updating clauses, etc.). For years players on both sides (Customer, Contractor, Contracting Officer) had to carve out time to work on the TPOT around all the administrivia contracting.  

There’s great news on that front: the introduction and adoption of AI is now making it much easier to get the administrivia done…and for GovCon professionals on both sides to focus on the TPOT.  

For example, as recent as a few years ago, I would have had to map out the elements of a why and how a contracting officer can set aside a contract for a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. Even if I Googled it, I would have had to piece it all together into a coherent plan. Now, we only need to ask one of many AI tools, “How does a Contracting Officer set aside a federal contract for an SDVOSB” and we get a nicely organized answer, in some cases along with sources. 

Now we don’t need to build the outline of the rules, or the list of steps through different parts of the regulation. Now we need only use what that AI gives us to decide if it fits the situation. If the SDVOSB set-aside fits the situation. If this is the BEST option under all the acquisition strategies available. If this approach will result in a contract that meets the agency’s mission. We get to focus our efforts on using our judgement to decide if that is the right path, and why. In other words, we get to focus on the TPOT. 

And the TPOT is what makes government contracting so much fun.  

The TPOT is also what makes Government contracting a profession done by professionals, and not just another task done by AI. 

It’s no coincidence that “creativity” is one of the Keys for Skyway that keeps using focused and delivering at a high level.