When we last checked in I had drawn the parallels between Levitt's whole product model and the government strata for articulating requirements in a capabilities description document - the source document for weaving requirements into a DoD request for proposals (RFP). I made note that the outer ring in Levitt's model is called potential product and that it has a definite crosswalk to the government's frequent need to be able to support growth in the form of expanding capabilities to meet future requirements, or to allow fielding a system with some capability early and provide a pathway for expanding to meet full requirements as time and budgets permit. Specific requirements for growth potential are sometimes stated and sometimes not. A clear vector of discrimination is one that provides for seamless adaptation and integration of additional capability while meeting the current requirements. Such a system is seen as providing perhaps intangible "value" to an offering and while the common belief is that government contracts go to the lowest bidder, the fact is that most sophisticated weapons systems procurements are awarded on a "best value" basis. The best value may of course also be the lowest bid, so they are not necessarily mutually exclusive!
If the government does not specify the growth requirements in the RFP, this represents an opportunity for a bidder to differentiate their proposal from the competition by incorporating unique company discriminators - to the extent that they are considered valuable by the customer! This assumes such innovation is invited by the government, which is usually the case. If the RFP sets the basis of award on best value, then the door is open. Frequent and repetitive dialog with the end user of the product - in this case, the war fighter - is the tactic of choice for developing full understanding of not only the basis and subtleties of the stated requirements, but more importantly, the capabilities that are of value to the end user, but for any variety of reasons may not have been included as explicit requirements.
A distinction is worth making here. A compelling case exists for communicating unique capabilities to a customer with the goal of having these incorporated as requirements. Company discriminators featured as requirements in an RFP have the effect of creating significant competitive advantage and this is certainly an effective and commonly used strategy. Once adopted and published by the government as a requirement, however, the capability is no longer in the category of "potential product" or growth potential. All competitors will see it and be expected to design to it. The subtle difference here is seen in a proposal that meets the specified requirement (KPPs, KSAs, AAs) and yet offers additional value that will resonate with the source selection board and technical review committee in a way that makes it clear your company understands the real needs of the mission and the operational environment. To the extent that a proposal provides mission enhancements while meeting the basic requirements, an offering will be in a very strong position, even though it may not be the lowest cost.
Comments