FedSavvy Logo 2019 RGB
  • Home
  • Why Us
    • Founder’s Philosophy
    • About the Founder
    • About The Team
    • Meet The Team
    • Join The Team
    • In the Media
  • Services
    • Black Hat Review Sessions
    • Capture Support and Competitive Intelligence
    • Battle Cards
    • Rapid CI™
    • Agency Evaluation Trend Analysis
    • Market Intelligence and Account Planning
    • Stand-Up Your Market and Competitive Intelligence Function
  • Blog
  • Shop
  • Login
  • Signup
  • Contact Us
Product was added to your cart

Cart

Deadly Sins in Proposals: Is it tool time or fool time?

March 16, 2023competitive intelligence, Fedsavvy Strategies, Win Loss trendsAdmin@fedsavvy

Oh, the nonsense we con ourselves into believing is not always going to catch on!  It’s that time for the obligatory eye roll at another deadly sin.  Read on as we continue our series in win-loss trends. 

Sin #13: Industry leading best practices = strength

U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) IT and network management contract

Protest Decision Date: December 17, 2020   

On the surface, this looks to be a straightforward, but very close decision.  DISA used the CIOSP3 GWAC to drive competition for a small business set-aside competition featuring two mentor-protégé joint ventures in Octo Metric and Valida-Tek CITI.  This appears to be a simple decision as Valida-Tek CITI wins on non-cost and cost measures being superior technically and less expensive.  Note the summary of the evaluation of the win in table 1 below.

Evaluation criteriaOcto Metric, LLCValida-Tek CITI, LLC
Subfactor Technical/Management Approach  
Subfactor Program and Project Management
Support
Green/AcceptableGreen/Acceptable
Subfactor Engineering, Test, and
Development
Green/AcceptablePurple/Good
Subfactor Architecture and DesignGreen/AcceptableGreen/Acceptable
Price$195,994,200$190,345,983
Table 1 – The scores were incredibly close making the subfactor for Engineering, Test and Development and Valida-Tek CITI’s slightly lower price an easy decision for DISA.

Octo Metric challenged the evaluation specific to a weakness received and (of course) assert they should have had more strengths than given.  Weaknesses assessed simply came from failure to provide a detailed response on a critical part of the requirements (lack of detail on managing Windows Active Directory), which is not overly interesting.  The interesting part of Octo Metric’s win strategy and approach to unravel the decision centers on a heavy reliance of Octo-made tool sets and intellectual property. 

We often find capture teams enamored with such tool sets as some sort of panacea.  Sadly, here we go again with such a torrid love affair. It was Octo Metric’s focus on their own tool (and a disappointing loss) that led to their claim of “unacknowledged strengths.”  See the below statement from the protest.

Additionally, the protester alleges that the agency failed to acknowledge strengths relating to two features of the protester’s proposal that clearly exceeded the solicitation’s requirements in a way that is beneficial to the government.  First, the protester alleges that it should have received a strength for its tailored asset library and management tools, which were developed from state-of-the-art techniques.

Oh my.  If it is “state-of-the-art” this absolutely should be a strength.  The plot thickens as we move through the protest digest. 

With respect to asset library and management tools, the protester argues that it proposed its Octo Metric Process Asset Library (OPAL), which is a proprietary collection of tools, processes, and templates based on widely adopted frameworks and best practices.  The protester contends that these tools are already in use in many locations across the government, are easy to use, and could drive cost savings.  These tools, the protester contends, exceed the solicitation requirements and are advantageous to the government. 

In response, the agency argues that it discussed the OPAL framework in its contemporaneous evaluation record, noting that the OPAL management framework addressed the solicitation requirement to demonstrate how Octo would manage task order projects through a cycle of planning, execution, monitoring, and controlling the projects.  However, the agency argues that Octo was not assigned a strength because this aspect of Octo’s proposal demonstrated that it met, but did not exceed, the requirement. 

The protester responds by noting that the contemporaneous evaluation ignores the true benefit of the OPAL framework, which offered specific, tailored tools, processes, and practices developed from state-of-the-art techniques.  Octo also argues that it did not propose “standard industry practices, it proposed best industry practices.” 

He cannot believe the counter argument either.

Of course the evaluators should absolutely reconsider!  Clearly, “Hooked on Phonics” didn’t do the trick and the evaluators did not read this enlightening statement correctly.

DISA was simply not impressed. The core takeaway for DISA evaluators was this tool set was simply an expression of how Octo Metric would work and that is in itself not a strength.

What is the lesson learned?

Levity aside, the premise used to assert a strength was based on the folly of the ever popular “best industry practices” = strength = we win.  DISA (and many other evaluators as we have found) could not care less.  That does not mean such tool sets or processes are useless, but simply pointing to them as unique without substantiation is path to delude oneself into an expensive loss.

This blog is not intended to disparage the ever-escalating array of tools and processes developed by the greater GOVCON universe.  This can be a great way to codify practices and knowledge.  Further, it can help bidders better explain the “why do I care?” aspect of a proposed solution and to demonstrate credibility.  HOWEVER, explaining exactly what benefits are realized and detailing the HOW a solution adds value beyond broad claims of “best industry practices” and “state-of-the-art techniques” is critical.

GOVCON, we plead with you on this point.  Tool time is fine.  You go with your bad self to develop unique intellectual property.  Just don’t expect others to be as enamored with your inventions if you cannot explicitly explain how and why they matter. 

Are you interested to find out more about our analysis on trends in evaluations?  Contact us today! 

© FedSavvy Strategies and FedSavvy Strategies blog, 2012-2023. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to FedSavvy Strategies and FedSavvy Strategies blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Admin@fedsavvy
Author: Admin@fedsavvy

Tags: competitive analysis, competitive intelligence, win-loss

Related Articles

M&A Plays in GOVCON…Star Quarterbacks are getting sacked

September 19, 2022Admin@fedsavvy

Competitor highlights: Huntington Ingalls …(new and improved) with Alion

July 30, 2021Admin@fedsavvy

GSA FEDSIM Winners and Spenders: The Return of the Blog!

February 14, 2023Admin@fedsavvy

Recent Posts

  • Deadly Sins in Proposals: Is it tool time or fool time?
  • Competitor Highlights: You can’t handle the truth about Huntington Ingalls!
  • GSA FEDSIM Winners and Spenders: The Return of the Blog!
  • Competitor Highlights: This isn’t the Jacobs you think you know
  • Deadly Sins: Ignorance is not bliss and your past does not govern your future

Savvy Source signup form!

Do you love #GOVCON market and competitive intelligence topics?  Sign up for our monthly newsletter...the Savvy Source!

Subscribing to Savvy Source magic...

Thank you for signing up for the Savvy Source!  

Tags

accenture alion AT&T black hat Booz Allen Hamilton business development process capture CIO-SP3 Collection competitive analysis competitiveintelligence competitive intelligence competitor federal contracting GDIT govcon HII leidos ManTech market analysis market intelligence mergers and acquisitions mindmapping Modeling northrop grumman Opportunity opportunity to watch palantir Peraton Perspecta production raytheon SAIC strategy top govcon top govcon competitors USAID washington technology win-loss

Quick Menu

  • Home
  • Why Us
  • Services
  • Blog
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Why Us
  • Services
  • Blog
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us
Fed Savvy Strategies Logo
Signup for Our Newsletter »

Contact Us

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
McLean, Virginia 22102

Contact Us

© FedSavvy Strategies 2012-2023. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from FedSavvy Strategies is strictly prohibited.
Designed by DOTLINE