Since our founding in 2009, RWCO has already taken a data-driven approach to our delivery of business development, capture, and proposal support services. This orientation to data has been one of the critical components of RWCO’s consistent “win-rate” improvement. Case in point, in 2009, RWCO maintained a win-rate of ~62%. By 2020, our independently-audited win rate tipped the scales at just over 74%. The reason being: data and supporting performing metrics, when looked at objectively and consistently over time, provides an honest feedback loop on performance. This feedback has allowed RWCO to create and refine business processes around all service areas, even in the development of mission-critical infographics. The reason for the prior paragraph regarding data, win rates, and processes, is so that a leap-of-faith may be taken by our existing and potential clients. Knowing that our guidance is rooted in lessons learned, data, and performance metrics provide a proven, stable foundation for building our client support services. Data, both the collection of and the use of for performance assessment and optimization, speaks loudly and clearly. All that we have to do is listen to what it is trying to tell us.
In January 2017, RWCO conducted a comprehensive survey research effort to assess the fundamental levers that directly influence win probability and win rates. In addition, we asked survey respondents about their experience and success with bids involving a self-scoring methodology implemented by a Federal customer. The feedback from industry was clear: in any given competitive bid situation in which a self-scoring worksheet was deployed as a component of the offeror’s bid response, bidding organizations needed to obtain at least 80% of the total allotment of points to be in the competitive peer group for award consideration. In simple terms, if an organization anticipates bidding on a program that utilizes a self- scoring methodology, that firm should set a competitive threshold to collect at least 80% of the total evaluated points. Otherwise, the firm should consider the opportunity a no-bid.
Self-Scoring and the Competitive Threshold
Using a real-world example, CIO-SP4, as the example, the scoring worksheet provides a total point allotment of 11,500 points. Using the 80% threshold as an objective go/no go performance metric, the line in the sand for bidding would equal 9,200 points. Another way of looking at the self-scoring point totals is that of a letter grade based on a percentage of the total. In academics, it is quite common that percentages map directly to a letter grade per subject. Using the College Board as the standard authority for a 4.0 grading scale, the percentage threshold for an A is 90%, for a B is 80%, and a C is 70%. It is widely understood that a “C” is considered average and thus at the center of a traditional bell curve.
Therefore, for an offeror to have a high confidence level of the scoring of past performance and capabilities within a self-scoring dynamic will carry enough points to ensure success in the evaluation, the offeror should seek no-less- than a B (80% of total points) to have a fighting chance within the evaluated peer group.
This metric is provided for strategic discussion and is not intended to provide objective guidance of a bid/no bid determination. The evaluating firm should consider the nature and scope of its past performance and the total point allotment relevant to the potential offer’s socioeconomic cohort, the requirements functional area response requirements of that cohort, and the total self-scoring points within that specific peer group.
PUBLIC SECTOR PROCUREMENT BAROMETER SURVEY RESULTS
RWCO conducts an annual research survey of comprehensive market trends across the Federal contractor community. The research survey, entitled “Public Sector Procurement Barometer”, is fielded via an online research portal. Respondents are invited to participate in the survey through an email outreach campaign that is conducted throughout the month December. The survey is released from January 2-January 31 every calendar year.
SITE III WHITE PAPER
The DIA will combine two information technology contracting vehicles worth potentially $5.1B as a follow-on to the Enhanced Solutions for the IT Enterprise contract (E-SITE). The DIA plans to merge the $3B Infrastructure Sustainment and Development 2 program with the $2.1B Application DS2 solicitation to form a SITE III multiple-award contract. IDS2 covers cloud services and data center support work, while ADS2 seeks data integration, software engineering and other technical support services.
LTASC SCOPE OF SUPPORT
RWCO has assembled a complete review of the LTASC III program in the form of a project plan and we are providing you access to that project plan with no strings attached. Consider it our way of providing value in the form of market intelligence and LTASC guidance while demonstrating our capability of support on LTASC responses in the future.
Leave a Comment