Several articles have recently been published advocating holding contractors more accountable for past performance. I've been around RFPs and proposals since 1974 and I don't believe I've seen one that didn't ask for some sort of past performance data. Contractor's are asked to provide evidence of their ability to complete the anticipated contract by submitting a synopsis of some number of contracts over some period of time that relate to the anticipated contract as an indicator of the contractor's ability to perform. There have even been questionnaires that have to be sent to reference customers and returned to the contracting officer by the time the proposal's submitted. Isn't this enough?Not only is it not enough but it's inadequate and will never provide the desired results.
Questionnaires are a pain in the behind of every reference. Most companies tend to use the same set of references for every proposal. Has anyone ever sent a questionnaire to an official where there was a performance problem and what happens to the official's other work? Citations that the contractor picks wouldn't be biased would they? You just know that everyone is going to confess past indiscretions.
This isn't a problem whose solution depends strictly on contractor action. The government bares partial responsibility for both the problem and the solution. Most evaluation criteria puts past performance well below every other factor and I've never been told how pass performance is scored. Is it pass/fail; on what basis? Is it numerically scored; what separates a score of 99 from 100 and what difference does it make?
One way of correcting the problem would be a database, available to source selection officials, containing quarterly (or annual) ratings for every contract. Would it make it any easier? Would past performance actually count for something? Would contractors ever really know how they're evaluated? It would sure be a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Holding Government Contractors Accountable
Sunday, July 19, 2009
What Should Become of Preferences For Minorities Contractors?
What should become of preferences or set-asides for minority enterprises? With a President of mixed race and with the black man and white woman on the Supreme Court soon to be joined by a wise Latina has the 8(a) program reached it's useful end? If it is our intention to reward success based on merit while letting the content of our character and not the color of our skin be the basis for our interracial actions then the 8(a) program should be allowed to slip quietly into the abyss and the sooner the better.
There is no constitutional basis for giving anyone preferential treatment particularly when the cost of the preference is paid for by everyone else who should have the equal right to chase business based on capability not genetics. There is a legitimate argument for separating contracts into categories along the lines of big and small business and maybe even along the lines of big, small and micro. Certainly micro and small business can't compete for airplane contracts or even enterprise class information systems but there is a well identified, historic market for the things they can provide.
Restricting competition to business size would allow the competitors to be judged on their capability within various domains not by arbitrary happenstance or other skewed criteria. If you are capable of providing best value to the government and the taxpayer at a real and reasonable cost then no other standard or basis for award should apply. After all, the court decided that race or gender wasn't adequate grounds for denying promotion to the New England firefighters, shouldn't that bit of clear thinking be applied equally, to all of us? I believe someone had a dream about just that concept.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Mailing Lists
For the past several of days I've been trying to whittle down an email list totaling more than 6,000. I sent the last mail to the whole list on Monday giving everyone the option of receiving future emails or having their name removed from the list. There was really no bad news, I lowered the number of the names on the list by 1501 addresses and still have quite a few people that either still want to hear from me or haven't bothered to respond. There was a couple of curiosities or surprises.
What I found the most curious is that the people I expected to lose are still there and those that I thought were on the edge of their seats waiting for the next email are gone. I got a couple of notes offering the excuse of a full mailbox but mostly I just got "remove" or "I'm in." Not bad but it may explain why so many of those that dropped off are just no longer in business.
I thought my email was instructive and very easy to understand. I simply asked that those that wanted to remain on the list to do nothing and those that wanted to stop receiving emails from me to just reply to the email with the word "remove" in the subject line. I thought that would save people the time and trouble of a full reply and, because I think of myself as well as others, I would get all the information I needed to complete my task without having to open all those emails. With a list of more than 6,000 names that I had to contend with I don't think the request was unreasonable.
My ego was definitely stroked by those thoughtful enough to send me a note saying how much they enjoyed my periodic ramblings and those that took the opportunity to write a little more than the word "Remove" in the subject line didn't really inconvenience all that much. It did get me to thinking though.
Did those that went out of business do so because they failed to listen to their customers? I work out of my home in a one man business. When out of the office the land line rolls to my mobile number and I always answer the same way, with my name. Nine times out of ten the first words out of the callers mouth, especially if their trying to sell me something which is the most inappropriate time, "May I speak to Dan Light?" I had just answered the phone with a clear and audible, Dan Light but they weren't listening or, in my opinion, worse they didn't care enough about my business and their job to not use an auto dialer. At that point there is absolutely no way I'm buying anything their selling.
Did that happen to people I know? I certainly hope not but more important, did those people that removed themselves from my email list think I was doing it to them. I may never know. I can't ask them. I won't get feedback. I no longer have their email address. If I do this again maybe I'll ask first.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Health Care Cost Stiffels Businesses; Wait Until It's Free
I hear that the rising cost of health care is limiting the growth of small business and in some cases eliminating them. Everyone says something has to be done, some say government intervention is the answer. If you think health care is too expensive now just wait until Congress gets their hands on it. Remember these are the people that brought you the Social Security lock box, Medicare and Medicaid.
Ask any Native American how the Bureau Of Indian Affairs has helped them. The congressional dinning room looses $25 million a year. Something has to be done but that something isn't the bumbling hands of an already bloated government. Government is never the answer.
The next time you take a trip to the doctor's office count the support staff; those folks that run up your bill but don't directly contribute to well being. Granted some are there to handle increased patient load but the bulk are there to ensure compliance with government regulation. Getting everyone to sign their HIPPA forms is a full-time job. The sue happy, blame somebody else crowd has driven up the cost of malpractice insurance and forced doctors to run needless tests for protection against runaway stupidity and over zealous lawyers. Try watching television without being inundated by someone asking you to call some law office to participate in some suit, it can't be done.
Want to lower health care costs? Get government out of the process.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Business Plans Don't Deliver?
The Wall Street Journal asked "Why Don't Business Plans Deliver" in a June 22nd article. In general, they found the state of business plans to be rather dismal. I can't disagree with that especially when we're talking about the business plans of small business. Small businesses tend to rely far too much on platitudes, ambiguities and a tendency to avoid adequately addressing those areas that require real thought and research. But this isn't about business plans. In the "For Further Reading" section Keith R. MacFarland stated, "The strategic planning model is due for a new release, one that enables companies to keep pace with changing environments, quickly create and adapt strategy, and empower people throughout the organization to make effective choices. I couldn't agree more.
The "Strategy Paradox" (Michael E. Raynor) points out that sometimes commitment to the best strategy results in the most abysmal losses. Witness the Sony Betamax and Discman. Good strategy meet with better strategy and once again validated Von Clausewitz's law.
Historically, and to a great extent rightly so, business schools have taught, develop a strategy through a stringent process, be happy with it and ride it to the end. They allowed for once a year tweeking but by and large you were expected to live or die by your strategy until the company's strategic plan became little more than something to look pretty on a shelf.
In order to succeed you have to have a viable strategy that drives the decision process and eliminates or reduces choices that don't fit the company's business model. This implies application of the rigor that befell Sony. So, in order to succeed your strategy needs to be caste in jello so that you can always explore every option and debate every decision. That won't work either since, as they always say, if you don't know where you want to go you're liable to end up anywhere. While you're debating every decision opportunities will pass you by, not to mention your competition.
What's a owner to do? Loose opportunities that fall outside rigorously set boundaries or loose them to a decision process that is still debating where you want to go when the opportunity that will take you there whizzes by? How about peripheral flexibility?
Knowing what tomorrow looks like today is impossible. Randomness and the Black Swan is always a factor. Designate an individual or form a small group (or a consultant) whose job it is to continuously survey all the things that effect strategy and develop contingencies to mitigate risk and prepare for potential changes in the market. In other words:
1. Anticipate the ever evolving future and decide on the most likely scenarios.
2. Formulate responses to the mostly likely scenarios.
3. Determine the delta between the resources needed to meet today's demand and those to meet the future.
4. Identify source to supply the required resources.
5. Continually review, amend and readdress the portfolios of options so they may be activated as necessary.
Monday, July 6, 2009
People Buy People
The saying go that people buy from people they trust. LinkedIn just ran a pole on the question "If the adage "People buy People" is true then why do people buy you?" All the usual suspect were there for answer options (expertise, personality, etc.)and, in general, expertise leads by a slim margin followed by personality. Experience and character were next and looks hasn't shown up yet. I believe that any answer other than expertise or experience is against current EEO/EEOC laws.My take on the legality issue first popped up in an Organizational Behavior class while chasing an MBA. At the time the buzz word was "Chemistry" but the intent was the same.
Everyone believes that for an organization to work you have to have chemistry among the participants. The financially successful networking industry has grown up around the idea that people by people. Pay your money to BNI or a Chamber function and get to know prospective clients before you try to sell them something. Sounds good to me. I wouldn't want to hire someone that wouldn't get along with their fellow employees and I wouldn't buy a product from someone that I was suspicious of because I didn't know them or their intentions. I don't believe you do either and I don't believe you should have to. Too bad the government doesn't feel the same way.
Aren't practices such as buying from people that share your interests or hiring employees that you have chemistry with blatantly contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission? I think so and I brought it to the attention of my Organizational Behavior professor in hopes of generating a lively discussion. No such discussion took place you understand, the topic and opinion points out the absolute idiocy of the having government meddle in areas outside those in which they we intended to meddle; namely those enumerated in the constitution.
When it comes right down to it doesn't the question become, "Why should I hire/buy from the handicapped, women, minorities or those with whose sexual orientation I find disagreeable?" If I don't have that chemistry or connection with you can I put off the hiring/buying decision until I find someone more like myself? I think you, me and anyone else should have that right.
Before you march in front of my business chanting homophobe, sexist, and/or racist allow me to clarify my stance. Beyond not wanting government involved I buy into the whole chemistry/connection philosophy. I realize that not hiring based on merit has the possibility of putting me at a competitive disadvantage but I'm only guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not success. Let the market deal with stupidity. If I don't hire a well qualified minority someone else will and I lose. If I won't rent my house out to a woman it may sit empty until I go broke.
Tom Peters, Ron Stone (my aforementioned professor) nor anyone else seems willing to do anything except espouse the "can't we all just get along" philosophy but no one ever wants to discuss what it really means. In the mean time the government owns the banks, and automobile industry and their making a grab for health care. There's talk of another stimulus package and everyone's debt to the Feds went up an approximate $37,000 this year. Forest Gump's mama was right. stupid is as stupid dose.
Posts
