With shrinking budgets and a reduced workforce, government stakeholders are increasingly pursuing efficiency. While the Federal government wants industry to bring innovative ideas to the table, it has struggled against overly prescriptive requirements. In the past, it took significant effort or eye-catching innovation to get the government’s attention. Not anymore. Buyers are on the hunt and actively seeking new ideas and tools to do so.
Buyers now expect sellers to lead with an advantage-based approach when responding to government opportunities. Gone are the days where solicitations asked for a few “same or similar projects” in the same dollar range (ideally with the same agency), a skills-to-requirements matrix with a few cookie-cutter corporate plans, and resumes of key personnel. True differentiators were rarely apparent, and claimed successes and savings were not often substantiated. But now, the norm is shifting towards value-driven narratives, quantified and supported benefit realization projections, and precise mitigation of schedule, scope and cost risks. Along with the increased use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA) and Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) processes, streamlined procurement methods will force companies to convey a succinct advantage-driven approach from the moment of their first touchpoint with the government.
AI in the buyers’ world
Government buyers and their acquisition teams are starting to use AI to write solicitations, scan offers for compliance, and evaluate submissions for value-based solutions. AI tools analyze solutions for strengths, weaknesses, and not only immediate but also long-term benefits. These analyses, along with price, form the basis for the “best value” decision. AI also is starting to play a role in translating winning proposals into successful performance by objectively measuring parameters set by the government and those promised by the contractor. Feeding offers and solicitations into AI along with current performance measures helps with a 360-degree review and identifies questions as to why efficiencies from past similar projects aren’t being realized under current performance.
One of the biggest pain points for a Federal contracting officer is performance documentation. AI assists in taking away the hassle of acquiring accurate performance data lost due to workforce churn, subjectivity, and lack of time. The government is able to tap into the analysis power of AI to reach a more realistic performance rating at the required intervals. And those Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) performance reports are what help companies win the next contract.
See where this is going?
AI can analyze, provide recommendations, and outline pros and cons, but it can’t be the decision maker. There are concerns about AI inserting bias, favoritism, and over-scoping requirements or over-promising in proposals. AI has the potential to revolutionize Federal contracting more than the ‘Revolutionary FAR Overhaul’ will. Strategic planning and analysis are critical in this new era. We must be on the leading edge through these shifts and go forth fearlessly.
What sellers must do to win
Sellers must understand AI’s limitations. The truth is that there aren’t any shortcuts to a competitive award in the GovCon marketspace. Don’t be misled by those suggesting otherwise. This is particularly true for Generative AI (GenAI). While GenAI boosts productivity, competitive wins in GovCon are determined well before responding to a solicitation. Factors like customer familiarity with the proposed program manager and validation of the solution with government customers in advance of the opportunity are crucial. These steps have been proven to mitigate the risk of competitive loss. Government customers prefer working with people they know, like, and trust. Introducing a solution for the first time during a technical evaluation screams risk due to unfamiliarity. Regardless of how well GenAI is used, you might still lose if these basic strategies aren’t applied.
Two former GSA contracting officers noted that poor-quality proposals from unknown companies are given grace the first time but leave a negative impression if repeated. Companies relying on AI to increase proposal submissions risk damaging their brand. Output is not the same as outcome. A rising concern is that GenAI makes responses look and sound the same while lacking innovation and quantifiable benefits. This has led to identifying use of AI tools in developing proposals and increased calls for oral presentations. Sellers must explain their proposed solutions in a traceable, defensible, and explainable manner. If sellers can’t articulate how they derived their proposed solution, then they are likely to lose. The real winners must first be able to show how what they propose addresses requirements, follows instructions, and meets evaluation criteria. Then, they must be able to explain how their offering provides real, quantifiable benefit realization and risk mitigation to the government. This includes showing alignment with the statutes that govern the agency’s mission. If you want to win in GovCon, you need to own your offering. You cannot easily replace these steps with AI if you want to win.
GenAI vendors claim productivity gains allow more time for strategy. However, formulating strategy after applying GenAI is too late. It’s like adding security to software after deployment.
We aren’t against GenAI nor trying to stop its advance in the GovCon space. We do, however, advocate for its wise use. The most important thing in a human relationship is not communication but empathy. If a government buyer senses that a seller doesn’t understand what’s important to them, the buyer won’t pay attention to the offering. Authentic intelligence is crucial.
What does that mean?
Having the necessary upfront, dialogue-based, collaborative strategic analyses before using GenAI to formulate a response. Sellers must understand the issues driving the requirements, validate them with government customers, and know what the ideal winner looks like to the government. They must understand the psychographics of decision-makers, conduct competitive assessments, perform gap analysis, and qualify discriminators. Sellers must be able to formulate a win strategy that is traceable and defensible to company leadership. They must develop an inventory of proposal strategies and scoreable strengths in advance of any writing or prompting. Most importantly, sellers must be able to also explain their offering to the government in a traceable and defensible manner.
Need for authenticity in new era of competitive GovCon
These considerations are just table stakes (i.e., the basics) essential to winning a competitive procurement in the GovCon space. Yes, GenAI can help with efficient analysis of artifacts to support strategic analysis activities. However, the bottom line is that as much as things change, they remain the same. The GovCons that succeed focus on the necessary upfront dialogue-based collaborative strategic analyses and derive “authentic intelligence” as an essential complement to their use of GenAI.
Join the Conversation