The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
  • Home
  • Training & Education
  • Services
  • Contact Us
You are here: Home / Archives for market analysis

August 27, 2018 By AMK

Can training in critical analytic thinking improve job performance?

For the government, making sure analysts do their jobs well is especially important. Agencies want to confirm they don’t miss crucial clues within data or make assumptions that hinder critical analytic thinking.
Click on image above to download report.

Several agencies have developed training programs in critical analytic thinking. But do these training programs work?

Under government sponsorship, MITRE researchers have conducted a first-of-its-kind study on a test that shows promise in evaluating the effectiveness of critical analytic thinking training. The findings indicate that critical analytic thinking skills are a predictor of job performance for positions involving analytical skills. In addition, the findings suggest that although critical analytic thinking skills are closely aligned with general intelligence, they’re not one and the same.

A team of MITRE experts in behavioral sciences originally created the test to help a government sponsor assess its training courses for developing critical analytic thinking skills. MITRE has written a report on its findings recently published in Personnel Assessment and Decisions, a peer-reviewed human resources journal.

Read more here: https://www.mitre.org/publications/project-stories/can-training-in-critical-analytic-thinking-improve-job-performance

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: analytics, critical thinking, market analysis, MITRE, technical analysis

March 19, 2018 By AMK

Market research: To do or not to do?

Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition teams currently struggle to obtain clear and consistent market research documentation on a regular basis.

They also struggle with the question of whether market research should be completed. And many firms or agencies sometimes become confused somewhere between the market research and the solicitation phases. In 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed a review of 28 DoD contracts, at least 50 percent of which had inadequate, inconsistent and unclear market research documentation.

In 2017, the International Journal of Market Research noted that no one possesses a “crystal ball” for obtaining information on a specific market, especially given the regular disruptions or changes in various market sectors over the last 30 years. Does your acquisition team have a crystal ball for obtaining information on a specific business market sector? Are your team’s research methodology and documentation adequate to get clear and concise results?

For an interpreter of public contract law and regulations, many more catechisms will come to mind: Do acquisition teams place any value or importance in completing market research? What are the required elements in market research? What is the proper time to complete market research? Should market research be undertaken at all?

Background

The governance statute of market research comes from Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA). Many sources state that the empirical requirement of market research comes from the Federal Acquisition Streamline Act of 1994, which only clarified the differences between the commercial and noncommercial items. CICA requires research of a market for competition and possible sources for a requirement. The governance regulation for market research is found in Part 10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). According to FAR Part 10, market research documentation needs to entail and describe requirements from the acquisition team.

One source of guidance provided to agencies is found in GAO’s bid decision and case studies. GAO’s publication, Market Research: Better Documentation Needed to Inform Future Procurements at Selected Agencies, GAO-15-8, describes market research as a dynamic process of examining a marketplace or obtaining intelligence about a sector. The publication, issued late in 2014, noted that market research provides the dynamics “used to collect and analyze data about capabilities in the market that could satisfy an agency’s procurement needs.”

Decisions in the federal court system, including the Supreme Court, have clarified the role of market research in procurement processes. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kingdomware Technologies v. the United States that market research is required in order to understand products and services in a particular market sector.

Observations over the last 30 years indicate that many acquisitions teams “put the cart before the horse” when obtaining the outcome of a hypothesis or question about possible sources for a product or service. These thoughts transcend public and private sector acquisition teams and lack value or purpose in market research. From the start, we need to understand what research entails and its importance.

In 2017, the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary noted that research is a planned exploration of materials and sources to establish facts and conclusions. Documentation of research must include methodology, structure and guidance on how to interpret the data. Without a general framework or structure for interpretation, the data collected are worthless to the acquisition teams and customer.

Furthermore, in 1992, The Journal of Marketing Research noted there is a relationship between the source and the customer of market research. All stakeholders need to be able to trust the outcome of the market research. Not just the information, but the sources and interpretation of the whole process.

In 2017, The Balance website (thebalance.com) noted that the purpose of research on business marketplaces is to narrow results to a specific target in a market. Additionally, in 2017, Entrepreneur magazine reported that market research is a dynamic to gather, evaluate, and illuminate market information about a product or service for sale. Also, the term “market intelligence” has popped up in the business world in connection with market research. There is a slight difference between market intelligence and market research. In 2015, Business News Daily defined market intelligence as the information obtained to make a business determination — i.e., acquisition strategy.

And in 2017, the Bureau of Labor Statistics classified market research as the process of evaluating market conditions concerning a probable need for product or services by a customer and obtaining data from various sources. This information provides a clear understanding of vendors’ marketplace positions and their pricing and ability to perform the work required.

Methodology and the Right Question

Now that there is an understanding the purpose and value of researching a market sector for products and services, your team needs the right tools for acquiring this knowledge. In July 2015, Raconteur’s Future of Market Research publication noted the five critical steps to obtaining the best outcome of researching a market sector: compute a meaningful topic; compile new or old results; have questions in any survey seek more information than the price; and enable effortless communication of the results.

In 2017, Entrepreneur magazine noted that an acquisition professional’s research of a business sector would acquire primary and secondary information or data. Primary data is directly received from the source. This information typically derives from a Request for Information (RFI) or Sources Sought (SS), industry days or questioning vendors. Secondary data research assembles information from governmental organizations — e.g., agencies, trade associations and local chambers of commerce.

In developing the requirement, RFI or SS can be complicated and a challenge for most teams. As stated earlier, GAO’s case study of DoD’s contracting of market research was inadequate in many ways, including its determination of price reasonableness. The typical technique for finding price reasonableness is to look at a vendor’s published pricing, historical data or industry surveys. For example, a government survey can ask, “What have you charged for this product or service in the past?”

At times, the acquisition teams forget to ask the right questions. Initially, asking the right questions in developing the market intelligence is very important. The topics should include cost, historical experience information, technical information, and management information.

The following additional questions should get your team thinking:

  • To what agency have you provided the product or service?
  • After reviewing the RFI, SS or draft Performance Work Statement or Statement of Work, is your firm interested in submitting a proposal to the following Request for Proposal [RFP], Request for Quote [RFQ], or Broad Agency Announcement?
  • Is your firm interested in Prime or Subcontractor work?
Responsiveness Versus Responsibility

From my experience, acquisition professionals use the market research process as a “Down Select” or Pre-Source Selection instead of obtaining market intelligence. Businessdictionary. com defines a “Down Select” as a reduction in sources as the acquisition team proceeds through the process. Acquisition professionals use methodology for determination of responsibility to eliminate a possible source of a product or service that is felt to lack sufficient responsibility. Procurement dynamics of responsibility determination or FAR Part 9 requirements need to be completed by the contracting officer and acquisition team later in the process. This step usually is completed after proposals from an RFP or RFQ are obtained, which makes responsibility determination a part of source selection.

In 2011, GAO stated that the contracting officer only needs to make a determination of responsiveness from the market research tools — e.g., RFI, Industry Days. Additionally, the market intelligence will assist in deciding acquisition strategies — e.g., Small Business Set-Asides (SBSA) or Full and Open Competition. For example, the respondent to a RFI or SS need only answer the intent of a question to its fullest, then the vendor’s information should go toward an acquisition strategy, such as SBSA. The Cambridge Dictionary defines responsiveness by an organization or individual to a communication or request as one that is made in a satisfactory speedy manner. For this discussion, ‘respondent’ is typically a business or vendor that provides a service or product in a certain market. In 2010, the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing noted that responsiveness consists of a vendor’s response to a customer’s need that can affect or improve performance.

Results

Acquisition professionals can use market research results or market intelligence in various ways to arrive at a business decision for the federal government. The data outcome should represent a cross-section of a market sector. The market research processes should have built-in validity and reliability methods to make sure the data represents a particular market sector. The acquisition team should look at each data point. The market research also needs to address limitations and delimitations. A data point could be anomalous and not genuinely represent a market sector or be generated within a constantly changing industry, such as that of information technology.

Another example of understanding the market intelligence would be the following: The results or market intelligence from an RFI or SS show no responses or interest to provide a service or product. In such a case, an acquisition team typically would go to a different route or source. First, the acquisition team should re-evaluate the requirements package and research methodology for shortcomings, inconsistencies and clarifications. The more information provided to a market sector in market research the better will be the market intelligence that a team acquires.

Conclusion

As public servants, we need to ensure that research and intelligence of the market sector are done completely and thoroughly as outlined in CICA and FAR 10. Also, acquisition professionals need to ask the right questions and provide correct information to the market sector in order to obtain precise results. Furthermore, the market research documentation should always include a robust method, timeframe, analysis of the data, and a recommended procurement strategy. Passing on a little knowledge provides us with purpose and direction.


This article appears in the March-April 2018 edition of Defense AT&L Magazine.  The article was written by Claude L. Cable, a freelance author, teacher and acquisition professional. He holds a doctorate of Business Administration and is a Certified National Contract Manager (National Contract Management Association). The author can be contacted at clcable12@gmail.com

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition strategy, acquisition workforce, AT&L, CICA, competition, DoD, FAR, GAO, industry days, Kingdomware, market analysis, market conditions, market intelligence, market research, PWS, responsibility, responsiveness, RFI, set-aside, small business, sources sought, work statement

October 13, 2017 By AMK

The federal market: Is competition in the eye of the beholder?

Two weeks ago, the Coalition for Government Procurement was privileged to participate in the Section 809 Panel’s September stakeholder meeting, an opportunity, for which, the Coalition is grateful, as it provided for a wide-ranging conversation on current challenges and opportunities facing the federal procurement system.

The Coalition also appreciates the opportunity to provide our 29 “common sense” recommendations to improve and streamline federal procurement.

Chief among the issues discussed was the role of Multiple Award IDIQ (MAIDIQ) contracts in supporting agency missions.  With regard to MAIDIQs, the conversation quickly turned to the degree, manner, and role of competition in the federal market.  It was an interesting and dynamic discussion.

The Coalition highlighted a measure of market concentration which is used by both economists and the Justice Department when evaluating anti-trust issues, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI).  The HHI scale for measuring market concentration ranges from 0 to 10,000, with 0 representing “perfect competition,” and 10,000 representing a pure monopoly.  Based on various market concentration criteria, a market is scored along this scale.  Basically, the lower a market’s HHI score, the higher that market’s level of competition and vice-versa.  When considering the HHI, we find some interesting results.

Keep reading this article at: https://federalnewsradio.com/commentary/2017/10/the-federal-market-is-competition-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition reform, CICA, Coalition for Government Procurement, commercial sales, competition, full and open competition, IDIQ, market analysis, multiple award contract, NDAA, procurement reform, Section 809 Panel

October 11, 2016 By AMK

Contract consolidation effort saves $2 billion and counting

Two years after the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) embraced the consolidation-of-contracts strategy known as category management, the White House recently announced that the effort to “transform the federal marketplace” has delivered $2 billion in savings.

OFPPChief Acquisition Officer Anne Rung, in a blog post, said the Obama administration’s effort to modernize government and incorporate private-sector best practices through bulk purchasing is “on track” to save $3.5 billion by the end of next year. “We’ve seen prices drop by as much as 50 percent of personal computers since the release of the workstation policy,” Rung said. “By the end of 2016, 45 percent of the $1.1 billion spent in annual purchases for desktops and laptops will be consolidated into three governmentwide contracts.”

Small business goals were exceeded, Rung said, and 700 duplicative contracts were eliminated.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2016/10/contract-consolidation-effort-saves-2-billion-and-counting/132059

category-management-savings-as-of-oct-2016

More details on Anne Rung’s blog post entitled “Transforming the Federal Marketplace, Two Years In” at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/09/30/transforming-federal-marketplace-two-years

 

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition reform, acquisition workforce, category management, market analysis, OFPP, procurement reform, supply chain, supply chain management

August 26, 2016 By AMK

DoD’s new proposed guidance on commercial item pricing no longer includes ‘market based pricing’

The Department of Defense (DoD) has reversed course on its proposed preference for “market-based pricing” and is instead now proposing rules under which it would use “market pricing” to determine whether prices are fair and reasonable. 

US DoD logoWhile the terminology is similar, the legal difference is significant.

Last year, we reported on DoD’s proposed guidance on commercial item pricing.  The August 2015 proposed guidance implemented section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013, which required DoD to establish standards for determining the adequacy of pricing information and when uncertified cost data is required.  Among other things, this 2015 proposed rule introduced “market-based pricing” as the preferred method for determining a fair and reasonable price for commercial items in the absence of adequate competition.  It defined market-based pricing as the pricing that non-governmental buyers in the commercial marketplace pay for an item.  Contracting officers could presume that an offeror’s price for a particular item was “market‑based” if non-government buyers purchased 50% or more of the item’s sales volume.

The proposed rule proved controversial, however.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=520638

Filed Under: Government Contracting News Tagged With: acquisition workforce, certified cost, commercial item, commercial products, contracting officers, DoD, fair and reasonable, fair and reasonable price, market analysis, market research, market-based pricing, NDAA

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Popular Topics

abuse acquisition reform acquisition strategy acquisition training acquisition workforce Air Force Army AT&L bid protest budget budget cuts competition cybersecurity DAU DFARS DHS DoD DOJ FAR fraud GAO Georgia Tech GSA GSA Schedule GSA Schedules IG industrial base information technology innovation IT Justice Dept. Navy NDAA OFPP OMB OTA Pentagon procurement reform protest SBA sequestration small business spending technology VA
Contracting Academy Logo
75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
info@ContractingAcademy.gatech.edu
Phone: 404-894-6109
Fax: 404-410-6885

RSS Twitter

Search this Website

Copyright © 2023 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute