Authoring State vs. Federal RFPs: Different Strokes for Different Folks

At Documentation Strategies, we’re often asked to write a “Request for Proposal” (or RFP as it is commonly called) for a State Agency intent on purchasing a particular service or technology. Recently, we’ve started getting into RFPs for agencies of the Federal Government. We’ve noticed that there are differences in the manner in which RFPs are developed and written on the State and Federal level.

The State is usually focused on acquiring requirements specific to the issuing agency prior to defining the RFP. In other words, they’re usually focused on their existing business process and the procurement effort is driven by its requirements. The State agencies like to manage the design-build strategy for any particular procurement identifying the unique characteristics of their business process and how they believe the prospective contractor should address their expectations. State agencies aren’t too concerned with the size of the competing vendor as much as they are interested in that vendor’s depth of experience specific to their unique business requirements.

The Federal Government operates on a much different scope and scale. Federal Government RFP format and composition is mandated by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). They are typically broken down into sections that are identified by letter. There are 13 categories listed “A” through “M” covering topics from the scope of work to the applicable evaluation process. Federal Agencies are gradually being reorganized under performance-management-driven governance policies and are more focused on finding standard industry-accepted solutions to their business process management problems. Very often RFPs will ask the vendor to suggest a better approach to doing business that conforms to “best practices.” Federal agencies are interested in the capacity and capability of the competing vendor to deliver solutions that are compliant with these best practices and industry standards. On large-scale projects they sometimes conduct a “phase 1 down-select” to determine who will be permitted to compete on the “phase 2 RFP.”

State agencies sometimes issue RFIs (Requests for Information) to help them determine who is really capable of addressing the specific requirements of the RFP under consideration. This approach is somewhat similar to the Federal Government’s “down-select” process. However, RFIs usually are solicited to help the agency subject matter experts bone up on what they can expect from the private sector in the way of solutions. Rarely are vendors excluded because of an RFI.

Another feature we’ve noticed in Federal RFP strategy is an emphasis on oral presentation. The Federal evaluators expect the prospective vendor to have a pronounced and apparent command of the subject matter and applicable expertise. This lets them know how much of a risk the vendor might be in getting the job done should they be selected. Though there is a great deal of emphasis on sharing the pie with small business, it is the large established vendors that normally enjoy success as the winner or “The Prime.” But the Federal Government has a creative and equitable solution to address capacity expectations. On very large RFPs, the Federal Government allows competing vendors and approved small businesses to “partner” with the Prime as a subcontractor. In this fashion, the agency can draw in the best from each vendor and enjoy advantages unique to small business.

======= Marc DiGiuseppe, Senior Consultant, Documentation Strategies