RFP innovation - moving from resumes to something else?

This sounds like a situation where use of an oral proposal could be appropriate.

I’m not sure what you mean by “admin support” personnel but that often notes a step below professional type jobs.  Regardless some ideas include requiring submission of detailed resumes addressing specific performance requirements, use of oral presentations including “pop” quizzes, and past performance evaluations covering this exact issue.

On 10/17/2023 at 9:48 AM, goviegogo said:

Our RFPs aren't cutting it. We keep getting contractors (especially admin support) who look great on paper but are completely unqualified when they walk through the door. Are there some innovative RFP/source selection strategies that weed out the contractors who advertise one thing but provide another? Our contracting shop pushes back when we want too much say on who a contractor puts into a position. I understand that when we put our noses into it, it opens up more risk for the government. But it's getting ridiculous.

It’s not clear what or who you are referring to - the contractors or their personnel and what they are “advertising “.

-Are they specific, Key personnel; did you specify specific minimum qualifications and experience; what did you evaluate ?

-If key personnel, do your solicitations and contracts address proposed substitute restrictions or approval procedures for proposed substitutions? 

Are you evaluating relative, recent past performance of the company?

Two ideas:

1. Don't ask for resumes.

2. If you do ask for resumes, don't ask for resumes of people who the offeror says will perform the work. Ask for resumes of people who are currently performing similar contracts for the offeror.

joel hoffman said:

It’s not clear what or who you are referring to - the contractors or their personnel and what they are “advertising “.

-Are they specific, Key personnel; did you specify specific minimum qualifications and experience; what did you evaluate ?

-If key personnel, do your solicitations and contracts address proposed substitute restrictions or approval procedures for proposed substitutions? 

Are you evaluating relative, recent past performance of the company?

Thanks, everybody. They aren't key personnel. But to your point, I think I would like to change up our past performance questionnaire to target this issue a little more closely. It might also help to require some different skills-based requirements for contractor staff instead of your typical resume. I don't know - it's been really frustrating.

How about throwing your past performance questionnaire in the trash, and doing phone calls with recent customers instead?

Are you issuing task orders or new contracts when this problem arises?

I agree with Joe Bernier.  Using oral presentations as part of your evaluation process may be helpful.  You could raise this issue with each offeror (typically their key personnel) and explain the problem you are having and ask them how they will avoid it happening with the personnel they assign to your contract.  The evaluation team would need to judge who is persuasive and who is just regurgitating talking points. 

Ji20874 also makes a good point about more thorough (and meaningful) past performance evaluations that aren't just a paper drill.

ji20874 said:

How about throwing your past performance questionnaire in the trash, and doing phone calls with recent customers instead?

This is excellent advice.  Don’t rely on questionnaires sent to offeror recommended “friends.”  Also don’t place too much emphasis on CPARS.  Instead contact any customers you can find.  Often that means asking sources who else they are aware with experience dealing with the offeror. It often takes some digging but it’s usually worth it.

formerfed said:

This is excellent advice.  Don’t rely on questionnaires sent to offeror recommended “friends.”  Also don’t place too much emphasis on CPARS.  Instead contact any customers you can find.  Often that means asking sources who else they are aware with experience dealing with the offeror. It often takes some digging but it’s usually worth it.

I agree that customer interviews were very effective for me vis a vis customer questionnaires. I didn’t use written questionnaires that had to be returned. I used the questionnaire as an oral interview outline guide for consistency. The outline paralleled the information that we required from the proposers for specific project experience and performance ratings plus any other information that I desired to elicit from the reference . 

I also hated when government agencies kept sending them to me for the same contracts, rather than establishing a database or some access to those questionnaires.

The main problem of course with interviews is that it means some government employee or employees has/have to actually CALL and SPEAK with another human…then document the conversation…

Let me add that we reserved the right in the solicitation to call references for proposer identified project experience/with performance ratings, if we needed to verify a past performance rating or the details concerning the experience and performance.

If we had personal knowledge of the firm’s past performance and relative experience, we usually didn’t need to call a reference.

I find this thread to be most interesting.   

There is an indication of a long term failure of RFP's that provide that multiple contractors have failed to perform.   This is coupled with no indication of the exact work, the magnitude of the work, how the work is defined (PWS or otherwise) and the comments seem to be provided by someone that is a program office person and not a CO or COR.   

The individual has asked how to improve the RFP process to improve contract performance.  Based on the limited information how does one know that  it is the RFP process and not that of contract administration or even a skewed view of what the contract is to accomplish.  I have especially wondered about the whole matter based on this in the original post  "on who a contractor puts into a position" and follow-up comments that seems to provide that there is no key personnel clause in the contrat.    Person put in a position?  Is not an outcome being acquired?   How does person matter within the scope of the work defined if there is not key personnel clause?

I do not need a reply to my thoughts but my comment for @goviegogo it is that I (again based on limited info) think you are looking in the wrong place.   You should be looking at contract administration and the relationship you have with your contracting shop on how contract performance are meeting both the terms and conditions and   program expectations of what the accomplishment of contract effort actually is to be.   I say this especially noting that you express that the problem is in my terms systemic.

On 10/17/2023 at 10:48 AM, goviegogo said:

Our RFPs aren't cutting it. We keep getting contractors (especially admin support) who look great on paper but are completely unqualified when they walk through the door. Are there some innovative RFP/source selection strategies that weed out the contractors who advertise one thing but provide another?

The responses to this post have tended to focus on source selection criteria primarily past performance.  That may be the issue, but have you looked at the description of the work you want done?  The problem may not be the source selection criteria, but the way you have identified what you want done.  If you are having systemic problems as you described, I would put my money on the description of the services to be provided instead of source selection criteria.

Yes, not knowing the specific problems results in speculation…

I was thinking this afternoon while working in one of my hunting camp food plots about this statement.  

On 10/17/2023 at 9:48 AM, goviegogo said:

We keep getting contractors (especially admin support) who look great on paper but are completely unqualified when they walk through the door.

It reminded me of paragraph (c) of FAR construction contract Material and Workmanship Clause at 52.236-5.

“(c) All work under this contract shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The Contracting Officer may require, in writing, that the Contractor remove from the  work any  employee the Contracting Officer deems incompetent, careless, or otherwise objectionable.”

One could write similar coverage for service contracts, if you unable to integrate other solutions.

On 10/20/2023 at 9:46 PM, joel hoffman said:

It reminded me of paragraph (c) of FAR construction contract Material and Workmanship Clause at 52.236-5.

(c) All work under this contract shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The Contracting Officer may require, in writing, that the Contractor remove from the  work any  employee the Contracting Officer deems incompetent, careless, or otherwise objectionable.

One could write similar coverage for service contracts, if you unable to integrate other solutions.

Another similar idea is some offices stress collaboration and partnering in their solicitations.  It appears in the evaluation factors and solicitation instructions where offerors respond with how they address various aspects such suitability of staff.   It also can be included in past performance.

Some other suggestions made here might help - better define the required work.  That can be done in specific position terms or at an overall level.  That helps set mutual expectations.  I know sometimes with “admin support” personnel, there’s a reluctance to avoid appearances of staff augmentation or personnel services in writing needs so the wording is intentionally vague.  But it’s important for the government to establish what they need and offerors to respond with their proposals with the right staff.

On 10/20/2023 at 8:46 PM, joel hoffman said:

Yes, not knowing the specific problems results in speculation…

I was thinking this afternoon while working in one of my hunting camp food plots about this statement.  

It reminded me of paragraph (c) of FAR construction contract Material and Workmanship Clause at 52.236-5.

“(c) All work under this contract shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. The Contracting Officer may require, in writing, that the Contractor remove from the  work any  employee the Contracting Officer deems incompetent, careless, or otherwise objectionable.”

One could write similar coverage for service contracts, if you unable to integrate other solutions.

I had personal experience using this remedy back in 1981 or 1982 as a project engineer on a contract to construct facilities for a Solid State Instrument Landing System at Columbus AFB, MS. A contractor employee repeatedly failed to wear a hard hat until I would direct him to. Finally, one day he just refused and asked me what I was going to do about it. I told him he was repeatedly violating the Contract Safety and Occupational Health requirements and encouraging others to do so.

Thus, I directed him to leave the job site, get off the AFB and not return. Fortunately, the job foreman agreed with me. I escorted the young man to the gate and told the gate guards not to let him back on the Base.

Also fortunately, our Corps District’s   policy was that any Corps rep on a project had the authority to stop the work at the immediate location due to deliberate and/or serious safety violations and to direct necessary corrective actions.

Im sure that I overstepped my authority but the guy was a troublemaker, there were no cell phones then, my Area Office was many miles away from the Air Base and I was the sole USACE employee on the Base.

I was a relatively new Corps employee but had 10 years of construction contracting experience in the Air Force and outside world.

My GS-14 supervisor and our GS-15 Area Engineer backed me when I explained the situation to them by land line after escorting the culprit out the gate…

My Area Engineer once “fired” the site manager for Arundel-Atchinson-Ball JV on the Columbus MS. Lock and Dam construction contract (directed that he be removed him from the position) around the same time. But it was for being a total, insulting, obstinate jerk.

The JV protested to the KO, who was the District Engineer/Commander (Army Colonel, later BG). I remember that the firing got reversed because only the KO had the authority, unless specifically delegated,  to remove the site manager for being “objectionable”.

The amusing thing about that occurred a year later, when I met a Quality Control site manager’s girl friend (he was on a different contract) who happened to be the jerk’s daughter.

She told me that she detested him and said he deserved to be fired!!