Federal end users often assume that whatever solutions they buy, especially from existing contract methods like the GSA Schedule, have the standards and functional requirements they want baked in.  Users should not assume that.  In discussions with multiple federal IT contracting agencies (the buyers), for example, this community believes that security and other specific requirements must be part of the acquisition planning process.  In other words, if users want specific capabilities or performance features, they need to be the ones asking for them.

While this disconnect is not new, it is terribly frustrating.  Each camp believes that certain steps are the responsibility of the other.  This places contractors squarely in the middle, and a pretty uncomfortable middle at that.  While a contractor can certainly advise a client on the latest popular features and functionality traits, procurement officials bent on using LPTA solutions may dismiss those needs or give substantial leeway to lower-priced firms who insist their proposal meets whatever standards did make into an RFP or RFQ when they likely do not.

Ironically, contractors can most often be effective by bringing people from buyer and user groups together.  Smart procurements that result in good outcomes probably don’t happen without contractor participation, even if it’s bringing together people from the same agency.  It’s a lot of work to get business, but essential if you’re going to be able to provide solutions your customers really do need.