Conundrum is defined by Merriam-Webster as “an intricate and difficult problem,” a phrase that is a massive understatement when the “problem” being discussed is federal agency market research. Specifically, I’m talking about the Request for Information, or RFI, and the ranging opinions about the efficacy of this decision-support activity. Having been on the receiving end of agency market research, and currently supporting those who still are, I believe there is merit to many, maybe all of these different beliefs.

Yikes! If everyone is right, that’s a conundrum.

Here are some examples:

• There are folks in Government and Industry who believe an RFI is the starting point of activity for agencies, and initial access point for vendors, to any and all prospective purchases coming from civilian, defense, and intelligence agencies. I know many in Government who don’t believe this, and even more in Industry who don’t see this as truth for them. I am one of those Industry folks.

• Then there are folks who encourage responding to every RFI opportunity you can, and others who take a very thoughtful and process-driven approach to determining if, when, and to who they should respond.

• Still, there are some I know who believe RFIs are a complete waste of energy. I also know several who can directly attribute winning contracts to RFI responses.

Recently, my friend Theresa Terry, a Services Acquisition Team Lead for the Air Force, posted a LinkedIn poll about RFIs. She asked the question, “Responding to RFIs: What makes a company not want to respond?” She provided four choices to include:

1. Too many questions

2. Seems baked

3. Not enough time

4. Too expensive

Good choices! At the time of this writing the poll is still open, so the results are not in, yet. However, the ensuing discussion in the comments (and a few direct messages I received) is where some lively and thoughtful exchange is taking place. I and several other poll respondents have made contributions raising other potential reasons for not responding to RFIs, including:

• Lack of clarity of the RFI information

• Level of effort to respond; added costs of doing business

• No protections for submitted information

• Short turnaround time; seems as if input not really desired

• Pricing in an RFI? Isn’t that what the RFP/RFQ is for?

• Government not providing feedback, disposition outcomes

• And more as the comments continue to come in.

In addition to hearing feedback from many Industry and Government stakeholders on this topic with the intent of sharing it widely, I want to pose two questions. In FAR Part 10, it is advised that:

(b) When conducting market research, agencies should not request potential sources to submit more than the minimum information necessary

First question. What exactly is “the minimum information necessary?” And in the spirit of what “the minimum information necessary” could be, what if a new(er) approach to capturing “the minimum information necessary” in RFIs was established to reduce the administrative burden for Government and Industry? With a more specific and clear “ask” delivered in context, more viable industry partners might be encouraged to participate. Greater participation by Industry would resolve a chief concern and complaint echoed by many in Government.

Considering the levels of effort I see companies putting forth in responding to RFIs, two lingering questions remain:

1. Is all of the information requested during market research reflective of the/an immediate need for the acquisition strategy?

2. How much of the information collected during market research will vendors have to repeat in the RFP/RFQ response?

I think there is much common ground that exists that will allow Government and Industry to achieve short-term wins, and long-term value, once discovered. In the meantime, industry partners should observe thoughtful diligence and apply methodical scrutiny before allocating time and money to RFIs. Specifically, taking note of the:

• timing;

• content;

• level of effort;

• sources, and;

• prior outcomes associated with RFI activities.

Responding to government market research should be based on planning versus reaction. Consider building a business case for how you will spend your precious time, and hard-earned dollars, just as you already do for RFPs and RFQs.

Peace, Health, and Victories,

Go-To-Guy Timberlake

For a PDF of the blog, click here.