Tony Talks with Long-Time Fed and CMS Contracts Manager Brian Hebbel
In my last blog, I discussed some of the ways to improve government-industry communications. I mentioned that I had recently done a workshop with Brian Hebbel, a former CMS contracts manager. What follows is an interview with Brian to add his perspective. My perspective is mainly driven by my IT and business background, although I did work for GSA’s Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) staff for a short period. Brian spent his Federal career in contracts, so he has seen the communications issues first-hand. As a contracting officer and manager, he had to work with both the vendors and agency program and technical staff.
Tony: Brian, thanks for agreeing to participate. I wanted to get your thoughts on a few areas … As a former contracting officer, do you feel that the major breakdowns in communications between government and industry are driven more by the rules and processes or more by cultural norms?
Brian: That’s a great question Tony. The Government certainly has a lot of rules and regulations. Fortunately, there are some easy to follow rules and regulations are centered around increasing communication with industry. However, most people working in both industry and Government have no idea that there are regulations and guidance aimed at increasing communication. The regulations including FAR 15.201, Exchanges with Industry before Receipt of Proposals and guidance provided by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s Four Myth-Busting Memos. The FAR regulation and OFPP memos were written to provide communication guidance between industry and Government.
I do believe there are cultural norms that drive the lack of communication and create an environment of distrust and suspicion of industry intentions. Since being retired for 18 months after having a 35-year career as a senior acquisition official, I believe some of the breakdown is based on what industry needs from the Government to be adequately prepared to understand the Government’s programs and pain points. Industry can do some of this research on-line or at Agency events. However, face-to-face meeting provide both valuable information to the Government and industry alike.
Cultural norms regarding communication with industry in my opinion appear to be worsening as there is a trend for senior Government officials accepting positions for better opportunities in private industry. As the experienced staff take with them their knowledge and skills as they vacate the Government, less knowledgeable and skilled workers are left in their wake. In past year, Government officials tended to stay in Government their entire career and were comfortable engaging and communicating with industry.
Tony: Focusing more specifically on CMS, with the increasing complexity of CMS’ business environment, what are some suggestions you have on how government and industry can better partner together to solve healthcare challenges?
Brian: Through the years, CMS leadership has done a better job communicating through various events including CMS Tech Topics, the CMS Convergence Conference, NCMA Woodlawn Chapter events and senior leadership speaking at various conferences.
When I was at CMS, I had suggested that rather than have a typical “Industry Day”, CMS could/should issue a Sources Sought Notice in the FBOs looking for industry’s unique ideas to support CMS. The best industry ideas would be highlighted in the CMS auditorium for a day to showcase these ideas. If successful, it could be done on a regular basis. HIMSS national events are a great way for industry to showcase their products and services. However, few CMS officials attend these events because of budget limitations and other constraints.
I quoted Tony Trenkle in my book, How to Market and Sell to the U.S. Government: A View from the Inside. At an Industry Day event, Tony stated to the 400 or so attendees that he didn’t want to meet with Agency officials unless they can help him solve a problem. With that in mind, my suggestion to industry is generally do not meet with an agency official(s) unless you can help in their specific area to:
- SOLVE A PROBLEM
- SAVE MONEY
- DISCUSS INDUSTRY TRENDS
- NEW TECHNOLGY IN THE MARKETPLACE
If you can’t meet one of these four objectives, you’re creating problems for the industry officials trying to access the government offices who really can help the government achieve its program objectives. Federal officials don’t have much time in their busy day to meet with industry. Therefore, provide value to them and you will have a better opportunity to meet.
Tony: How do you see the Federal contracting environment evolving over the next several years, given Federal staffing and skills shortages?
Brian: I think there are some very good and some not so good trends on the horizon. I’m not sure how they will play out, but I think more change is coming in the next few years compared to what we have seen over the last few decades.
Major changes include the following:
Streamlined Acquisition Procedures are taking place now. Agencies like DHS are taking more risks to test new acquisition methods for competitive procurements. We’re starting to see more two steps proposals, more orals presentations in Step 2, the elimination of past performance criteria in IDIQ contracts and group debriefings to name a few.
Category Management may result in fewer Agency IDIQ awards and a larger use of contracting vehicles that can be used by all Agencies. Although this sounds appealing on the surface, in reality, it may further limit competition and limit the ways for new contractors to enter the Federal space, thus eliminating a lot of innovation and create ideas industry has to offer.
The U.S Digital Service is pushing to streamline the acquisition process and the Section 809 Panel (panel created by the Defense Authorization Act ) is looking to streamline the regulations by eliminating a large percentage of them.
Tony: In my previous blog, I talked about the need for vendors to do better at partnering together, not just on specific procurements, but as key players in helping an agency’s mission. You mentioned in our workshop that vendors should have joint meetings with government officials. Can you discuss that in a bit more detail?
Brian: I really like this thought and idea. At CMS, some programs now have in their contracts a requirement for contractors to collaborate with other contractors. The Government can’t do it alone. Neither can industry. No single contractor has all the knowledge and skills needed to meet many of the complex contracting needs of Government. However, by teaming with experts in a respective area, well in advance of a known procurement, it may provide the information you were hoping to receive along with the Government receiving valuable information to assist them in making informed decisions on future procurements. This technique is not often used by industry, but it can be a game changer to help break down communication barriers and create a winning scenario for your company.
Tony: One of the challenges that vendors have is getting an in-person meeting with Federal officials. Even when the meetings occur, there is often little or no good follow up by either side. What suggestions do you have for changing that environment?
Brian: Let’s face it, a contractor’s motive to have a meeting with a contractor is to gain some sort of an advantage to receive work from the federal agency. That’s the real objective. However, that’s not the objective industry must use to get a meeting with a federal official. Contractor’s need a strategy to obtain a meeting, a game plan for what to do and say at the meeting to help the Government. Finally, they need to have a goal of their key(s) expected results of the meeting. The follow-up is just as important. I would generally meet with two contractors a week when I was a Federal official. However, the work tempo was such that soon after they left my office, their capabilities quickly became a faded memory. I generally only remembered the contractor that did follow-ups. These included follow-up emails, phone calls or seeing them at an event. I like the “Rule of Three” when it comes to someone remembering you or your company. You need three contacts for someone to remember you.
Tony: Government protests have gone up in 4 of the 5 last fiscal years. Why do you think this is occurring? What can be done to minimize protests?
Brian: Protests are easy to file at the GAO. As a Government official, we saw protests as a way for the existing contractors to extend their contracts for up to 100 days. The dollar size and the fee associated with the contract extension would more than cover the lawyer fees. In addition, the lawyer could gather information to determine if the Government erred in its evaluation, since the debriefings don’t always provide contractors enough information for them to conclude whether or not the decision was made correctly.
Secondly, with the proliferation of IDIQ contracts, there is a lot at stake if a vendor is not selected as an awardee on one of these large IDIQ contracts. If they are not selected, their opportunity to bid of future contracts within the scope of the IDIQ contract is significantly diminished.
At CMS, the number of contractors attempting to do business at the Agency has significantly increased over the past 10 years as Congress has implemented new programs. This investment by industry coupled with the size of the CMS contracts, creates a lot at stake for contractors looking to leverage the opportunities at CMS. This large pool of contractors has also resulted in more offerors bidding on the work, and in turn, more contractors losing on bids with significantly large investments.
What can be done to minimize the Protest is a challenge. Of course, better debriefings, telephone in particular, can result in less debriefings. Sometimes, the Government may receive a few very good proposals and the choice between one contractor versus another is a slim margin. Industry has a tough time accepting this after putting so much time and effort into a proposal. I do like the two step process that is taking place, with contractors being told after Step 1 that they are not eliminated from the competition, but are put on notice that it is recommended that they not submit a proposal for Step 2. This not only reduced the number of contractors submitting proposals in Step 2, but also significantly reduces the dollar amount contractors must spend on proposal efforts.