GSA $2.5 Billion Cloud Computing Procurement RFQ: Real Opportunity or a Mirage for SME Vendors

The Federal Cloud Computing Initiative is partnering with GSA SmartBuy and the Defense Department’s Enterprise Software initiative for the cloud services contracts. The contracts are reported to be worth an estimated $2.5 billion over five years. Multiple contracts are expected to be awarded.

from May 10th, 2011 Washington Technology article GSA launches $2.5B cloud computing procurement

Let’s play a round of Government Procurement Jeopardy . . .

Answer: Fat and Slim

Question: What is the real opportunity for SME vendors to successfully pursue and win the recently announced GSA $2.5 Billion Cloud Computing RFQ?

Okay, maybe it is not quite Jeopardy . . . after all, Alex Trebek was busy today. However the end point is still the same in that announcements of large dollar government contract opportunities are often dismissed by the majority of SME’s as an elusive quest that warrants little more than a mumbled chagrin of why bother.

However, if one is to believe that cloud computing and in particular Enterprise-as-a-Service (although I like the Everything-as-a-Service version of the acronym) is as Peter Fingar wrote in an April 2010 article Enterprise-as-a-Service – That’s where BPM Comes in, is a disruptive delivery model that represents an economic versus technological shift, we could be talking about an entirely new playing field that might actually favor qualified SME vendors.

Focusing on what the RFQ refers to as being the five key areas of acquisition interest, which are; mandatory email-as-a-service, migration and integration services; and optional office automation and electronic record management services, that can be provided as a government community cloud, provider-furnished-equipment private cloud, secret enclave or public cloud, may be an indication that the government has finally eschewed the overarching, monolithic platform mindset of yesteryear that favored the big players. Or to put it another way, the government has realized that the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

It will of course be interesting to watch this one as the RFQ progresses, to actually see if the apparent glitter of government opportunity is indeed laced with SME gold. In the meantime, and over the next week, I will be examining the likely vendor candidates for each of the five areas of service focus referenced in the RFQ in an effort to identify the likely winning candidates. That’s right, a qualified opinion in which I hope I do a better job than I did in picking this year’s Stanley Cup playoff contenders.

30

Poll results indicate that the government is only accessing 25% of its total possible supply base

Even though it is still early in the process, our recent poll on LinkedIn is delivering some interesting results.

To this point in time, 55% of respondents to the question Winning bidders for government tenders are decided before the RFP is issued 90% of the time – does this surprise you? said no, while 20% indicated that they did not pursue government contracts at all.

This means that only 25% expressed the opinion of surprise at the revelation that with 90% of all RFPs, the winning bidder has for all intents and purposes been selected.

So where do governments go from here?

Well to start, the industry must abandon the premise or perhaps the current definition of transparency and a level playing field. In reality, true transparency is actually understanding what the playing field is and like a K9 PROWEAR, determine which opportunities are best to pursue based on a distinct or unique competitive advantage long before an RFP has been issued.

While we will be releasing a 60 minute PI Inquisitive Eye TV Special, in which we have the opportunity to interview Washington-based government procurement expert author Judy Bradt about her new book Government Contracts Made Easier, focusing specifically on the contracting challenges highlighted by the poll results, I think that it would be a good idea to revisit my white paper, presentation and corresponding Roundtable Discussion on Transparency in Government Procurement.

Each were the result of my participation at the 3rd Annual Government Procurement Conference in Washington, D.C. a year ago this month, and continue to garner considerable interest.

Joining us in the roundtable discussion was of course Judy Bradt, the former CIO for the US Federal Government Karen Evans, the CEO for IACCM Tim Cummins, and 30 year public sector veteran and the author of Towards Tesco – improving public sector procurement Colin Cram.

White Paper: Transparency in government (June 2010)

Presentation: Contracting to Win (Washington Keynote)

Roundtable Broadcast: 3rd Annual Business of Government Summit (Day 1, Roundtable)

Click to Listen to Radio Broadcast

30

The winning bidder in government tenders are selected before the RFP is actually issued 90% of the time . . .

According to the former Senior Aide for Gov. Mario Cuomo, Al Gordon, the winning bidder in government tenders are selected before the RFP is actually issued 90% of the time.

In this second segment excerpt from the Government Contracts Made Easier Series of interviews with Small -Medium Enterprise or “SME” business owners, we welcome to the show National Strategies’ Al Gordon, whose many years as a senior aide to former New York State Governor Mario Cuomo has enabled him to gain the expertise and insight to help companies successfully navigate the complexities of procurement, legislative and regulatory issues in the state and local government market generating over $7.3 billion in new revenue.

The Government Contracts Made Easier Series is based upon the critically acclaimed book of the same name by industry expert author Judy Bradt. In the past 20 years, Judy has helped more than 6,000 clients win in excess of $300 million in US Government contracts.

 

Click to Listen to Radio Broadcast

 

or Watch The PI Inquisitive Eye TV Version

Here is the link to Judy’s book Government Contracts Made Easier

 

Click Here To Order

30

IACCM’s Cummins Hits One Out of the Park Regarding Dishonesty at the Top!

Tim Cummins’ blog offers one of the industry’s most “cerebrally balanced” and even refreshing views of the procurement world. And I don’t say that with whimsical alacrity.

In fact Cummins is one of the few who will take a stand on difficult issues, even if it attracts consternation from the quickly fading, old mindset establishment.

His post in Commitment Matters today regarding my Procurement Insight article on negotiation is a case in point. Here is an excerpt from his post:

‘You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate’ is the title of a blog by Jon Hansen, in which he challenges the ‘adversarial state of mind … that for so many years has hindered the buyer and supplier relationship …. negatively impacting an organization’s ability to sustain positive results”.

Jon castigates much of the negotiation training delivered by Karrass and others who encourage the ‘win-lose’ mentality. I agree with his comments. There are still many who see the negotiation itself, rather than the outcome it inspires, as the objective. This transactional, commodity-based thinking certainly does not fit well with many of the relationships required by business today.

Within the article, Jon also addresses the question of ‘lying’ and the sense among many that this is not only acceptable, but normal. He suggests such attitudes destroy trust and maintain the cynicism associated with many negotiators, especially those in Procurement.

While broadly agreeing with the point that unprincipled negotiation will lead to disappointing results, I regret that I do not entirely share Jon’s perspectives on the question of lying. Sadly, this is not so much to do with the negotiators in sales or procurement – it comes from the top.

Tim Cummins

Of course that is all I am going to share with you within the confines of this blog, encouraging you to visit, and yes subscribe to Commitment Matters to read Tim’s post as well as my subsequent comment in its entirety.

By the way, I think I just got a great idea for a topic for an upcoming PI Window on Business segment on Blog Talk Radio?!

30

You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate!

A famous tag-line from the ads that almost always seem to find their way into airline magazines promoting the services of Dr. Chester L. Karrass’ firm is “You don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate.”

Karrass, the author of four books on negotiation techniques including “The Negotiating Game’, ‘Give and Take’ and ‘In Business as in Life – You Don’t Get What You Deserve You Get What You Negotiate,” challenges the reader to take the bull by the horns and gain the upper hand in any situation.

Unfortunately, it is this adversarial state of mind coupled with a misguided view of transparency, that for so many years had and to a certain degree still does hinder the buyer and supplier relationship to the point of negatively impacting an organization’s ability to sustain positive results in the key areas of cost savings and quality performance.

Given that many, many suppliers are continuing to stay away in increasing numbers from responding to RFPs , especially within the realms of the public sector tendering process, one would hope that this “better the person on the other side of the table mindset” had finally given way to the realization that people buy from whom they “know, like and trust.”  In short, building relationships that enable a supplier to legitimately and transparently win preference with buyers,” versus becoming figurative notches on their negotiating belt is now the order of the day.

However, and based on a recent exchange within the confines of what has been called the “#1 supply chain and sourcing group” in the world of social networking with 63, 419 members, old habits or ideas die hard.

Greg Williams, whose firm The Master Negotiator posed the following question to the membership, is just one example of this realization; “As a procurement professional, do you lie when negotiating? Do you know how to detect, defuse, and defend against lies during negotiations?”

He then goes on to write:

“When you negotiate, do you lie? Please, don’t even think about becoming indignant. Everybody lies when negotiating, for one reason or another. If you say you don’t lie, you’re lying!

Depending upon what someone is trying to achieve, some lie substantially more than others. Some people believe, when they’re negotiating, if they tell a ‘white’ lie, it’s OK. Some believe, a successful negotiation outcome justifies the mean, and thus they do what is necessary to accomplish the goal.

You can be more successful during negotiations, by being aware of what motivates people to lie.”

Of course not surprisingly, many of the 98 comments that were posted did indeed become indignant at the suggestion that lying is an inherent part of the procurement process.  Some of course added a comedic twist in their reply such as Adrian Scott who wrote “No, I didn’t lie to you…the truth changed…”

All this being said, the issue I have with Greg’s “question” beyond promoting his services which include “gaining insight into ways to detect when someone is being deceptive,” is that it attempts to keep the embers of mistrust burning at a time when the profession has started to realize that a win-win relationship has to mean more than a hollow expression of a noble sentiment.

As a radio host for example, I always provide my guests with a show outline including the list of questions I will be asking in advance.  A few news people have suggested that this is not desirable because you somehow want to “catch” a guest in a lie or saying one thing, but doing another.

This is the same “old school” way of thinking that is similar to the Karrass mantra of getting the upper hand that is more in line which a Genghis Khan conquer or be conquered approach to purchasing.

I of course believe that providing the guest with the questions in advance gives him or her a level playing field by which to come back with their very best.  The advantage of this method is that the thoroughness of my research into the subject matter is the ultimate litmus test or “truth” filter.

To this end, more and more procurement professionals are doing their homework on what they intend to purchase versus taking the easy route of learning hard negotiating techniques.  That’s right, the “you don’t get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate” mantra is one of laziness as it attempts to implement cheap parlor room tricks as the means of driving a one-sided advantage.

In the end, the difference between a true procurement professional and what one senior executive during a CPO Agenda Roundtable Discussion referred to as a dime-a-dozen buyer, is the level of one’s commitment and where his or her energy is subsequently directed in terms of achieving a best-value result for ALL stakeholders.

30