Top 4 things that can go wrong with getting a state government contract….
…a guide to the inner workings that you can’t control and how to successfully navigate the process.
Working in a high-level government position, I often was challenged to create game changing policies or projects to serve the needs of the public. This was one of the most interesting and rewarding parts of my job, but also the most frustrating. It is a central tenant of government that agencies will rarely have enough time, staff or money to introduce the best programs or policies to maximize benefits for the people they serve. Occasionally, government officials can convince the right people to fund the best approach, but sadly, this is the exception. The unfortunate reality is that staffing levels in most state governments are so low that simply adding another project to current workloads would break some agencies. That is why contracting with external vendors is so important for supporting public services.
Contracting with outside for-profit or non-profit organizations is a smart way to move a project forward without overburdening existing staff. In fact, sometimes it’s the only way government agencies can implement new programs. So then why is it so hard to get through the government contracting process? From my experience, here are four of the main reasons that make contracting hard – to the frustration and detriment of both parties. Hopefully this will help you understand why things can go wrong.
1. “Who is in charge of the process?” Government contracting requires multiple and varying levels of permissions depending on the size and scope of the project, and the source of the funds (among other things). Allocating public funds comes, rightly, with a significant amount of responsibility and multiple levels of oversight. However, those safeguards often lead to a lengthy approval process, which can feel like it's filled with endless roadblocks. Often permissions must be received from the agency doing the work (possibly including differing levels of management), the executive budgeting office, the executive purchasing office, the legislative budgeting office, subject matter committees, and, finally, the legislators themselves. All these offices have internal politics, policies, staffing constraints, staff training issues, and timelines that must be met. Additionally, as projects inevitably develop and change in the contracting process, sometimes multiple signoffs from the same office can be required. It is not surprising that so many projects are delayed or just never see the light of day.
2. “They have more questions?” While the subject matter experts at the agency usually have a good understanding of project specifics, that does not extend to all involved. Decision makers that are in place to enforce procurement policies often have little subject matter expertise. For instance, because of staff shortages, the same people that approve water diversion projects are the same people that approve mental health counseling services. It is impossible for these process experts to understand a broad range of projects and if they do not immediately see the public benefit, then you can kiss your idea goodbye. A narrative can be highly informed, substantiated by relevant and recent data, but my experience is that decision makers are often overwhelmed and questions are routed back to the proposer even if the answers already appear in the narrative.
3. “This doesn’t make any sense.” On the flip side, some decision makers are considered subject matter experts in too many areas. In some offices, project approvals will be routed to the people that are perceived to have knowledge or interest in the subject matter area. However, this usually results in a person believing that they are the gatekeeper for all subject matter knowledge even though their knowledge might be outdated, lack detail, or frankly, the gatekeeper might not be comfortable in making the decision. I once had an executive officer decline a fully funded project for food distribution because they “volunteered at a food bank a couple times” and didn’t see the need for further distribution. They had the information and data at their fingertips detailing the need, the solution, and secured funds yet at the final stage it was declined. I had an extra glass of wine that day.
4. “But that isn’t what the RFP said.” Incomprehensible budget rules exist. There are budget guidelines on top of more budget guidelines. Even if you read and familiarize yourself with all the published budget rules of a state government, an issue will nearly always arise. This is mostly due to poor training and/or interpretation of a published rule, but there are also a lot of rules and sometimes well-intentioned people trying to follow them all just get confused. Issues happen, it’s best to expect them, and be prepared to justify any budget projections to the last penny with back-up documentation at a moment’s notice even if you feel you have already provided the relevant information.
In saying all of this, projects DO move forward, but it is important to be strategic. This was not meant to dissuade you from bidding on state government contracts, on the contrary, there are many advantages to state projects. However, it is important to recognize that the same factors that cause a state government to need help from contractors can also cause the bidding and contracting processes to move slower and in confusing directions. Contractors who understand the internal challenges are more likely to be successful. We hope this will help you understand what is happening behind closed doors and how to endure the frustration and radio silence.
Advice: Be patient. Ask about the process. Start your customer service early and find out if there is any information you can provide, even if you feel like you have already covered it. Don’t be too technical in your narratives and focus on the public benefit. And finally, be patient.