Proposal Land – Page 45 – Better RFP Responses & Management

Sole-Source Contracting in Canada

16 July 2020 16 July 2020

Who knew it was wrong
to award a billion-dollar no-bid public contract
to the organization that hired your mom?
– Andrew Coyne, Globe and Mail (paywalled)

The current hoo-haa in Canada over a (now withdrawn) sole-source contract awarded to WE charity has hit even American papers. And BBC News.

Andrew Coyne (quoted above) is one of Canada’s least-partisan journalists, IMHO. I would just point out that there are two values for the contract:

$19.5 million for the management fee (the actual contract awarded to WE, although it now seems this might have been the minimum, with $43 million the maximum possible)
$912 million for the grants to be administered (a flow-through value)

If I were using this contract in an experience section, I would state both values really (really) clearly and I wouldn’t round-up the “funds administered” value to $1 billion.

This is not a restraint-in-headline-writing or an ethics-in-governance blog, so I’m just offering two links to the official rules governing sole-source contracting in Canada, for those who want to know.

The Rules

Supply Manual, article 3.15 Non-competitive contracting process

Note this clause:

However, contracts may be entered into without soliciting bids when:

The need is one of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest (GCRs 6.(a));
Note: A pressing emergency may be an actual or imminent life-threatening situation, a disaster which endangers the quality of life or has resulted in the loss of life, or one that may result in significant loss or damage to Crown property.

And this clause:

The exception should only be invoked where patents, copyright requirements, or technical compatibility factors and technological expertise suggest that only one contractor exists.

The Best Practices

And here’s an excellent post on best practices in issuing sole-source contracts in the federal government.

Canadian Government Executive: Considering a sole-source contract?

One Other Thing

While the opposition refers to a “sole-source contract”, this was a contribution agreement, governed by the rules on transfer payments, not a procurement that required a tendering process. There was nothing inherently wrong in striking a deal with WE without calling for bids.
– John Ivison, National Post

I’d never heard of contribution agreements, maybe because no company I worked for was ever trying to get one. Live and learn, I guess, although it will take someone with more patience or time on their hands to sort through the Treasury Board Directive on Transfer Payments or their 131-page document with guidelines governing transfer payments.

And we learn again, if we needed to, that even if you read it in the papers it ain’t necessarily so. Maybe especially when it comes to contracting.

A 40-Second Read

15 July 2020 15 July 2020

This report can be read
in 12 minutes.

In 1935, Morris Llewellyn Cooke submitted a proposal to President Roosevelt and his Cabinet.

The subject? Farm electrification.

The proposed method? Farmer cooperatives (pay $5 to join) plus some government help.

The results? Proposal accepted. Within 7 years, 5 out of 10 American farms were connected to the grid, compared to 1 out of 10 in 1935.

So what’s with the quote?

[Cooke] prepared a formal proposal, now renowned in bureaucratic history for being boldly bound in black-and-white zebra stripes and illustrated with attractive watercolors of bright red barns, with a note on the cover stating, “This report can be read in 12 minutes.”
– The Men Who United the States (pg 380), Simon Winchester

When you know what you want to say, it doesn’t take long to say it. Or write it. Or read it.

Blessings upon you.
– Evaluators, then as now

We don’t usually time how long it takes to read our proposals. Maybe we should. The black-and-white zebra stripes are optional.

Term: Scope of Work

13 July 2020 17 June 2020

At one level, a summary description of the Work and what it comprises: the contractor’s responsibilities.

At another level, the line-by-line specification of the Work that governs exactly what the contractor is obligated to provide.

Not acronymized as SOW, although it obviously could have been. SOW always refers to the Statement of Work.

Getting Better Results from Reviews

11 July 2020 11 July 2020 2

People contribute what they can.

This is something I’ve heard more than once, usually when ranting about getting spell-checkers and typo-alerters and colour-pallete-criticizers when what I wanted was compliance-confirmers or solution-improvers or presentation-enhancers.

People contribute what they can.

It’s true: They do, and I do, and not a mite more.

Continue reading“Getting Better Results from Reviews”

Advice to Proposal Professionals: Ask if It isn’t Clear

08 July 2020 07 July 2020 4

The technical plan shall explain
how it will address each element of the SOW.

Does this submission requirement mean that writers have to respond (in some way) to every SOW line item?

Who knows?

A SOW “element” is not a defined term in Proposal Land.

An “element” could be one of the distinct service areas being contracted out – usually countable on no more than two hands. For example:

In site services the “elements” might be facilities maintenance, fleet maintenance, O&M of utility plants, waste management, roads & grounds maintenance, and aerodrome maintenance.
In administrative services for benefits programs for client employees the “elements” might be website development, individual counselling, group presentations, financial controls, and reporting.

An “element” could be one of the four to seven major activities within each service area – often countable on one hand. For example:

In aerodrome maintenance the “elements” might be electrical/electronic maintenance (navaids, radar, weather observation equipment), snow removal in winter, wildlife management, prevention of foreign-object damage.
In reporting the “elements” might be financial reporting, performance reporting, and customer-satisfaction reporting.

And “elements” could, indeed, be every last numbered line item in the SOW – always too high a number to count.

There are likely other possibilities, but that doesn’t change the point. If the level of the requirement is not stated clearly, you should ask for clarification. Early. Clients aren’t trying to trick you: They just don’t know that such language is unclear.

Short of asking, the only safe alternative is to assume they mean every numbered line item, and to write a response to every line item. That’s a lot of work for something the client might not even want. Might, even, actively not want.

So while contracts experts read the draft contract looking for unclear or unacceptable business terms, and technical experts read the SOW looking for unclear or impossible-to-meet work requirements, assign some proposal experts to read the response instructions looking for unclear submission requirements, especially potentially onerous ones. Assign people who understand the implications of vague instructions and who know a vague term when they see one.

And. Then. Ask.

Early.