In force since 1972, the Brooks Act is a law requiring federal government agencies (and many states and other public agencies have adopted the process) to select AE firms “on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification” rather than by price. In essence, the Brooks Act established qualification-based selection.
And then the fun began.
If you take price (a very handy and empirical variable) out of the equation, you’re left with a hodge-podge of touchy-feely, soft issues that are seriously challenging to sort through. My firm has done 27 projects like this one. Your firm has only done 24. Can anyone truly say that my firm is more qualified? At some indistinguishable point, we’re both fully qualified. (Don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating price as a basis of selection. Read on.)
With qualifications-based selection, the challenge became, how to select the ‘most’ qualified firm from among a healthy list of ‘fully’ qualified firms. The selection criteria quickly become intangible and highly subjective. This leaves public servants, who have to answer for their decision-making, in an uncomfortable spot.
How to rationalize the intangible?
Introduced in 1975, the Standard Forms 254 and 255 were intended to level the playing field and let a broader spectrum of AE firms compete for government work. But, as with all changes, there were unintended consequences. By reducing qualifications to what amounts to a spreadsheet, firms could be lined up, measured and ranked. Once ranked, the top few would be asked to submit a price and the winner announced. The real value that a firm could bring to the project was frequently lost in translation.
Things have evolved since 1975. Today, the number of fully qualified firms for any given project is huge. The truly incompetent weed themselves out pretty quickly and those that are left are all more than capable of executing the project on time, within budget and to the required standard of quality. As a profession, you’re pretty darn good at what you do!
Recognizing this, and in an effort to make the process more streamlined, the SF330 was introduced in 2004 but it still lines the firms up, then measures and ranks them based on what is hoped will be rational criteria. In other words, the goal is to compare apples to apples, whether you’re an apple, an orange or a cumquat.
Your marketing and business development efforts have the opposite goal. You want to stand apart from the crowd, proudly individual and incomparable to any other firm that attempts to stand beside you.
Read most firms’ SF 330’s and you’ll fall asleep. The project descriptions simply say, “We were present.” They don’t say, “We saved the project from disaster,” or “We contributed a brilliant idea,” or even “We screwed up royally!” They simply say, “We were there.”
So fight back! Don’t write boring project descriptions, write intriguing stories. Don’t include predictable photos, use compelling, thought-provoking images. If you have to use the silly form, make it sing and shout!
I once helped a design firm win a large federal government project by introducing a brand new section to the SF Form. Titled, “Special Introductory Section,” we took three pages to tell the firm’s story in a way that was compelling, engaging and persuasive. Yes, we took a chance that some Contracting Officer would reject it as “Non-responsive,” but we counted on his or her innate curiosity and made it to the short list.
It’s the job of the public sector contracting officer and the private sector procurement department alike to devalue what you do. To reduce your unique qualifications, your incomparable experience and wisdom to a spreadsheet so all are apples – no oranges allowed – and the lowest price wins.
It’s your job to resist like mad. To kick and scream and push back in every way you can. To make your branding and relationship-building so strong that that client can’t wait to see your submittal, no matter what form it’s written on. Write your project descriptions.
http://www.stoneandcompany.net/davids_marketing_blog.html
