Corner
Each issue, Kennedy
Consulting Research
& Advisory (KCRA)
offers a take on the
current state of the
consulting profession
Matthew A. Merker is a
Senior Analyst & Lead for
Public Sector Consulting
Research for KCRA
(Kennedy Consulting
Research & Advisory). For
additional information, visit
kennedyinfo.com/consulting
The Minefield of Federal Procurement
Consulting to the U.S.Federal Government
is not what it used to be. The free flow of
funding to consulting firms from various
federal departments has been stagnating
or in steady decline since the economic
crisis in 2008. As funds become scarcer,
competition among firms increases in the
federal procurement process. Additionally,
clients must face the prospect of having less money to spend while undergoing greater scrutiny as they navigate the
increasingly complex minefield that is
federal procurement.
Budget decreases have dictated that
federal departments must become stricter
in the distribution of funds for consulting
services. Clients must look at the services
needed with a cold eye and truly determine
if the work they need cannot be achieved
with internal resources, even if the process
is more difficult in the long run.
Added to that is the challenge that clients
in federal departments face when it comes
to the divides between their identified
needs and what their contracting offices
dictate they can do in terms of acquiring
outside support. Several factors, while not
new to federal government, have become
increasingly present in the procurement
practice, creating opportunities for
some and challenges for others in the
competitive proposal process.
The increasing use of Lowest Price
Technically Acceptable (LPTA) over Best
Value in proposal criteria is an example of
the growing challenge both for clients and
consultants. LPTA, a criteria that places cost
at the apex of award determination, has been
increasingly used over the past several years
over Best Value, a criteria that places greater
emphasis on quality of consulting work.
While most federal clients would prefer
their request for proposals to be focused
on quality, their contracting offices are
more often placing these requests in the
LPTA category, which precludes fair
competition from premium service firms
based on cost over capability to perform.
Another example can be found in
the prioritization of small business for
federal procurement. The U.S. Federal
Government has increasingly focused
on providing priority to small business
in the procurement process. This creates
advantages for these businesses trying to
penetrate the federal market, but also often
dictates that larger firms team up with these
businesses in order to compete as well.
Finally, increased scrutiny on contract
vehicles and what statements of work
(SOWs) can be placed on those vehicles
creates greater challenges across the
board. For a long time, consultancies were
able to add work regularly to existing
contract vehicles with loose regulation by
federal contracting offices.
Now, there is much greater scrutiny on
new SOWs. Gone are the days where terms
such as “business process re-engineering”
could be used to describe IT, S&O, and HR
services in one breath. Firms and clients
must now tread more carefully through this
process, ensuring that work added follows
vehicle criteria to the letter.
These three practices are only a sample
of the increasingly complex U.S. federal
procurement process. The minefield that
clients and consultants face in this process
is only becoming more treacherous and
will continue on this course throughout
the economic recovery and likely beyond.
MATTHEW A. MERKER
Matthew A. Merker