Hope Is Not an Outcome
The difference between proactive and reactive is not intent, it is structure.
Proactive and reactive are buzzwords, things consultants say, but rarely do these words come in a context that makes sense. They are often discussed as abstract concepts, with no real conflict or gain fully described. And delivered as a critique that asks organizations to change for the sake of change, without understanding the return on that investment or the inherent risk.
Though in the Federal contracting market there is a very real context, one that is great for a few and less advantageous to most. The persistent imbalance in outcomes on contracting vehicles. This is not a slightly skewed outcome, rather it is a painfully honest reflection of how proactive and reactive organizations actually operate. The reason we consistently see some contractors seemingly overachieve while most barely break even on their pursuit investment is straightforward. It is an objective reflection of proactive versus reactive behavior, backed by two decades of trends.
Why do the top ten percent constantly represent well over 50% of all spending under a contract vehicle? Often that percentage reaches beyond 60 and 70%. Many dismiss this by saying those companies are simply bigger or lucky, but that is honestly an easy way to deflect from an uncomfortable self-assessment.
Successful contractors, or the top ten percent, share another trend in common. They rarely succeed on a single contract vehicle, often they are successful on nearly every vehicle in their portfolio. The majority of them are active on some combination of GWACs, IDIQs and MAS. That prevents this from being a fortunate, unforeseen outcome. This level of consistency points to a cultural and strategic shift to prioritizing vehicles. This goes beyond just chasing RFPs, it is directly shaping work onto vehicles.
These contractors also enact pipeline management principles that intentionally guard the pipeline and prevent resources from being overwhelmed and unavailable to pursue task orders. Undoubtedly, they care about revenue, and this is not to say their pipeline management and results are objectively healthy, but they actively manage the pipeline in preparation for the unknown release date and quick turnaround of task orders.
The simple description of a reactive contractor is one that plans to react to new RFPs and does little to protect resources in advance of that release. These companies prioritize revenue generation over substance and long-term enterprise value. This results in a swollen pipeline that consumes resources and actively prevents them from effectively responding to task orders.
Responding here has a lot of nuance. Do they have time to even see what is new, do they have the support to rapidly respond, and can they invest the time and have the resources to arrive at a competitive proposal? It is an important distinction that lack of success is not a direct result of not bidding enough, it is very much a result of not responding with a competitive proposal, rather than adding another rushed proposal onto an already overwhelmed team.
When it comes to proactive vs reactive on contract vehicles it shows up long before the first task order is released. It appears in teaming arrangements, in priorities from the top down and in how resources are managed which is often one of the most impactful strategies when it comes to task order success. Too many contractors limit bandwidth to BD teams, but there is no such thing as a pipeline that is only dependent on BD. Proactive resource management extends to the capture, proposal, operational and technical teams as well, if they have no bandwidth, it does not matter how well BD resources are managed.
For more information, download our eBook below: The Ten Percent Problem
