How to Improve Multiple Award IDIQ Outcomes

In recent years, the process of competing for multiple award IDIQs has become increasingly challenging for federal contractors. Evolving procurement concepts such as point-based solicitations, ambiguous SBA mentor protégé joint venture regulations, and limited “Best in Class” contracts have complicated the federal procurement landscape.

Billions of government dollars flow through these “must have” contracts annually. And because of the 10-year period of performance on these contracts, companies pull out all the stops to secure an award. Unfortunately, some contractors question their potential customers’ procurements in the form of pointed and voluminous comments on solicitations. And some have increasingly included protests as a part of their win strategy. Many contractors spend millions of dollars of their B&P budget to secure a seat on a contract vehicle, knowing they still have to invest to compete for task orders on the vehicle. While these contracts are essential for the government to meet its mission and manage spend, the growing complexity has led to delays and protests, pushing agencies to seek alternative solutions.

Are we stuck here, or can industry and government collaborate to improve multiple award IDIQ procurement outcomes for all?

Identifying the Core Challenges with Multi-Award IDIQ Competitions

There are many recent examples that highlight the broader concerns affecting multi-award IDIQ contract competitions. Just in the past four years, we have seen the competition for NIH CIO-SP4 ($50B), VA T4NG2 ($60.7B), GSA Polaris (no limit), GSA OASIS+ (no limit), DHS PACTS III ($8.4B), DLA JETS 2.0 ($12B), Department of State EVOLVE ($10B), DHS First Source III ($10B), and Army’s ITES-4H ($10B). Also, currently in competition are NASA SEWP VI ($60B) and Alliant 3 ($75B), with Army MAPS ($50B) scheduled to be released early in 2025. As of today’s date, of September 13th, 2024, all of these contracts are still in evaluation or delayed by protests, except for DHS PACTS III which was recently awarded, but no contracting activity has begun yet. While procurement offices have sought to streamline evaluations for these IDIQ procurements, the actual results have been quite difficult. The following points outline five significant challenges posed by overly complex IDIQ procurements:

1. Complex Submission Processes

Some recent examples include DHS PACTS III and VA IHT 2.0. For PACTS III, the point-based selection process lacked a maximum score and allowed for unlimited project examples creating a teaming and resource-intensive burden. For VA IHT 2.0, The contract included two phases with Phase 2 requiring over 150 project references, two sample task orders, a scenario-based technical demonstration, and numerous administrative documents. The advisory down-select process only allowed for a one-month gap between notifications, compelling teams to prepare for both phases simultaneously, leading to a heavy proposal phase burden for all offerors.

2. Increased Protests

Protests between FY 2022 and FY 2023 rose by 22%, largely due to GWACs like CIO-SP4, which has seen over 100+ protests since the initial proposal submission. The limited number of “Best in Class” contract vehicles has led some companies to pursue multiple avenues to increase their chances of award, including protest. This is not meant to imply that protests were always lodged frivolously; when solicitation requirements lack clarity; e.g., teaming, MPJVs, and past performance; companies may feel compelled to submit a protest as a last resort.

3. Complications from Joint Venture and Teaming Requirements

The SBA’s October 2020 regulation updates on joint ventures brought unforeseen complexities. Although solicitations often include joint venture provisions, they typically lack the details to guide submissions. This has led to numerous amendments and protests to clarify permissible joint venture activities.

4. Evaluation of Experience Based on Dollar Size and Quantity

Scorecard-based IDIQs (which are increasing in prevalence) reward the quantity and size of experience with higher point values. While this may prove that a company has performed similarly sized work, this does not demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter, or the quality of a contractor’s work. This approach may overlook companies that, although smaller in scale, could better fulfill the mission objectives.

5. Award Delays and Available Contract Options

An expanding list of delayed multi-award IDIQs complicates the available purchasing landscape for government agencies. These delays restrict the available contract options, affecting both new and established federal contractors who might not have been eligible for previous GWACs like CIO-SP3 or Alliant 2. These ongoing delays raise questions about the number of viable options that contracting offices have to compete requirements and the limited access they have for strong, qualified firms in the federal marketplace.

What Can the Government Do to Improve the Competitive Process for IDIQs?

The government can adopt several strategies to streamline and simplify the competitive process for IDIQs, ensuring it aligns better with both government and industry interests. Below are six ways that government can improve the competitive process for IDIQs.

1. Simplify Response Requirements

Recent IDIQs often feature complex response requirements, including extensive documentation and collaboration demands. To streamline this, the government could standardize response formats and limit requirements to essential elements only. For instance, adopting a singular evaluation method like a written submission with an adjectival rating system (e.g., NASA SEWP VI) and consider reduced page counts. If multiple phases are necessary, each phase should be simplified to focus on key evaluation criteria. If it is difficult for bidders to respond to the requirements, it will be equally difficult for the government to evaluate.

2. If Using a Scorecard Approach, Clearly Define the Scoring Guidelines

For point-based solicitations, setting clear minimum scoring thresholds (e.g., OASIS+) can help vendors assess their realistic chances for award, potentially reducing unnecessary bid expenses and protests. This transparency in score thresholds will strengthen the small business industrial base as small businesses who can meet the score threshold on their own will bid as a solo prime instead of feeling compelled to form a MPJV to maximize their score. Without defined score thresholds, companies are left spending an extraordinary amount of time and resources to try and maximize their score not knowing how many points will result in an award.

3. Reconsider Scorecards Entirely as an Evaluation Approach

There is some validity to using a binary approach to scoring offerors, especially in the case of OASIS+ where there is no cap on awardees. However, for most multi-award IDIQ contracts, simply getting more points does not equate to getting “stronger” contractors. Also, as agencies have adopted scorecard approaches to their IDIQs, contracting teams have struggled to apply the mechanics and intricacies of score-based evaluations to selecting awardees. This includes understanding the complexity of the required documentation, verifying the accuracy of scores, and confirming qualifications and project experiences. All are more labor-intensive and burdensome than the traditional proposal requirements and evaluation methodology, which leads to delays in the evaluation process.

4. Use Proven Approaches That Work

There are numerous cases of IDIQs that were successfully awarded with minimal delays and protests – in many cases, these IDIQs used subjective evaluation approaches that allowed the government to distinguish the strength and relevance of Offerors more effectively. For example, sample task orders require companies to be specific in how they meet technical requirements. The original VA T4 and T4NG contracts had three sample task orders with each requiring very specific knowledge of current VA technical priorities. This allowed the VA to distinguish qualified offerors from those who did not bring a deep understanding of the VA environment. Another example is Navy Seaport NxG which requires experience with the Marine Corps or Navy to be eligible for an award – this approach automatically removes those companies with no Navy or Marine Corps experience from consideration.

5. Simplified and Continuous On-Ramp Opportunities

Since many of the multiple-award IDIQ contracts are only competed once every 10 years, the government should consider more, not fewer, On-Ramp opportunities. For example, GSA OASIS+ is planning to allow for continuous on-ramps, which allow companies to pass on the initial competition if they are not able to meet the awarding score threshold, but then on-ramp when they are able to meet that score. Contracts such as Navy SeaPort NxG and FAA eFAST MOA both offer open seasons or rolling admissions which have enabled more companies to attain a viable contract vehicle.

6. Set Standards for Joint Ventures

Government customers should clearly define joint ventures’ role and evaluation criteria in solicitations. This includes specifying what contributions each party in a joint venture should make and ensuring that smaller entities aren’t overshadowed by larger partners but have a fair chance to showcase their capabilities. While the updated SBA guidelines do require agencies to evaluate SB teaming partners and JVs, agencies still have the ability to prevent a contract from being JV-dominated by using techniques like flagging a risk if the team hasn’t worked together in the past.

How Can Industry Help to Improve the Competitive Process for IDIQs?

Improvements aren’t solely the responsibility of the government. The contracting industry also plays a crucial role in enhancing the IDIQ process. Below are five ways that industry can help improve the competitive process for IDIQs.

1. Take the Time to Assess the Potential Return for a Contract

Historically, up to half of awarded prime contractors on agency-level multiple award IDIQs never win any work on the contract. Too often companies bid IDIQ contract vehicles with the expectation that being on the IDIQ will automatically result in task order work. However, those companies are typically outperformed by contract holders who bring existing past performance and/or have existing relationships with customers inside those agencies. Companies need to take more time to realistically assess their chances of winning task orders post-award and understand the opportunity cost involved in pursuing an IDIQ that results in limited returns.

2. Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

Regular interaction among incumbents, new entrants, industry groups, and contracting agencies starting about 2-3 years in advance of the recompete can provide valuable insights and feedback to the acquisition process. Engaging early in the acquisition planning ensures that industry perspectives are considered before the government finalizes their solicitation strategies. Industry often waits too long after the government acquisition planning process has started to offer their feedback and suggestions.

3. Leverage Industry Associations

Entities like PSC and ACT-IAC can serve as platforms for collecting industry feedback and advocating for acquisition reforms that benefit a broader range of contractors. These associations can help articulate common challenges and propose practical solutions without exposing individual companies to direct backlash. The key is to get the associations involved early in the acquisition planning process to provide industry-based recommendations prior to the release of a Draft RFP.

4. Encourage Realistic Procurement Timelines

Industry can work with government agencies to advocate for more realistic procurement timelines that consider the resource constraints of government contractors. By advocating for schedules that allow adequate preparation time, companies can deliver higher quality proposals without undue strain on their internal resources. GSA recently extended the Alliant 3 proposal due date giving offerors six months to prepare their responses to the Final RFP. One specific recommendation that industry can make to their government customers would be to have agencies release a thoughtful and detailed Draft RFP, then provide a pre-solicitation notice of when the Final RFP is anticipated to be released.

5. Provide Constructive Feedback to Agencies

After participating in a competitive procurement, companies can provide constructive feedback to contracting agencies regarding the solicitation process. This feedback can include suggestions for simplifying submission requirements, clarifying evaluation criteria, and improving overall efficiency. Federal agencies should be open for this feedback and allow for these post-mortem comments to improve future solicitations on re-compete requirements or new programs.

Moving Forward

Navigating government procurement is inherently challenging. The procurement landscape for multiple award IDIQs includes systemic challenges that, if left unaddressed, will continue to perplex and frustrate government and industry stakeholders.

It’s important to remember that the fundamental objective of the procurement process is to secure contracts in a manner that is fair and equitable and strategically aligns with the government’s mission. Significant advancements are possible when there is a concerted effort from both government and industry to refine and enhance these processes.

We encourage readers to engage in this dialogue and contribute to the evolution of procurement practices.

If you have any questions about the insights shared here or wish to engage in a deeper discussion, please reach out via email (blake.harvey@redteamconsulting.com), phone (703-787-9009), or web form. Together, we can work towards a procurement system that better serves everyone involved.