FedSubK Feature: "Buyers Buy From People They Like and Trust"

Updated: Jan 9

After I retired and decided to start doing some knowledge-sharing in this space, the one mantra I saw every consultant use that helps businesses with finding and winning Federal contracts was (paraphrased) -- "Buyers buy from people they like and trust."

While I like this mantra, it has stuck in my craw for a couple of years now because it oversimplifies what really takes place and how the process works in such a way that it can derail businesses who aren't prepared. And it may be part of why you might feel like you are hitting a brick wall trying to make headway in this sector.

Entertain me a bit here while I explain from the Contracting Officer’s perspective what the rub is and why, in my opinion, this mantra isn’t 100% true.

“But it is true!” (I can hear my GovCon peers exclaim.)

Okay, there are “unicorns” – things that occur that are out of the norm as if out of a fairytale. Those "in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time" moments you hear about. But those aren't the norm.

Hear me out.

I admit that building relationships in any industry is important at all levels. But knowing where to build those relationships is what is most important.

It is also important to understand that when you are doing business with the Government, the part about “like and trust” works differently than you may be led to believe.

So…let’s break this common mantra down into pieces by starting with “Buyers buy…”

The “Buyer” Is…

The term “buyers” isn’t used inside Government; that’s an industry term. Inside Government, the term “buyers” encompasses many people who perform different duties as part of the various processes used to purchase products or services. Some do market research, some do the contract paperwork, some do technical or price analysis, and some negotiate with businesses and sign the contracts. It is rarely a singular “buyer” for any acquisition, but instead a team of people knowledgeable in the various aspects of the procurement process that make up the term “buyer”.

Not all “buyers” are equal. Authority to obligate the Government for payment must be granted in some form, typically by use of a warrant or, in the case of use of the Government Purchase Card, commonly by an appointment letter. The “buyer” that holds a warrant is a “Contracting Officer” (CO, or KO in the Department of Defense so as not to confuse them with Commanding Officers). Only a CO/KO or Government Purchase Card Holder can only obligate the Government within the limits of the authority granted to them.

For example, as a Fed, I held a Contracting Officer warrant with authority to sign contracts without any restrictions in the dollar value or type of contract; an Unlimited Warrant. That means I had the signature authority for contracts of any size or type. Most warrants are limited by contract type, total dollar value, types of duties, and/or office / organization. For example, “Ordering Officers” can only order off specific existing contracts called out in their appointments. “Administrative Contracting Officers” can only effect modifications under existing contract terms and conditions of a contract but not change those terms and conditions themselves. Some Contracting Officer's only have authority up to the simplified acquisition threshold, or only for firm-fixed-priced contracts.

Notice that nothing in what I explained above talked to a buyer deciding WHAT to buy and WHO gets the contract. That’s because “buyers” don’t make those decisions in a vaccum. They manage the process of buying and decide HOW to buy. There are a lot of reviews and approvals and people in this process. As I've said before, buying is a team sport. Even the smallest buys require oversight and approval.

The decision on WHAT to buy comes down to the Requiring Activity, which is the agency or activity charged with meeting a mission and delivering requirement to the end-user. The Requiring Activity is the technical subject matter expert that determines the specifications, scope, and budget of a purchase.

But many GovCons have businesses convinced that “buyers” decide what to buy.

They tell you to ask buyers about upcoming opportunities when you should be talking to the Requiring Activities for that purpose -- from the largest buys down to the smallest buys.

If you want to get your product or service the real attention and speak to people that will understand the innovative solutions you offer, start to build a relationship with Requiring Activity personnel. They are your make-or-break relationship in the Federal contracting space, not the “buyer”.

Now that we know who the "buyer" is and what they really do, let’s move on to the rest of the mantra – “…from people they like…”

If the Government LIKES Me, I Will Win Contracts

Bluntly put, no. I’ve liked a lot of contractors that have never won a contract I had available to award. That’s because you don’t win a contract strictly based on rapport with a Contracting Officer (or "buyer", to continue out theme here).

Now before my GovCon peers’ heads explode, hear me out again…

It helps to have that rapport in some instances where buys do not require competition (i.e., micro-purchases) or when your company is part of a program like the 8(a) Business Development Program (because of the ease of negotiating and awarding 8(a) sole source actions). Positive name recognition is also helpful in the case of a competed action where the selection of sources occurs. But it doesn’t get you the contract.

What does?

A compliant QUOTE, OFFER, or PROPOSAL with a high-quality innovative solution at a great price. That will get you liked!

You can be the best contractor with great customer service, reasonable prices, on-time delivery, and quality products and services, but all it takes is for the proposal not to follow instructions, fail to address the Government’s concerns in detail, or have a price higher than your competitors and you won’t win no matter how much anyone likes you.

Some GovCons will tell you that the positive name recognition helps to elevate a company in the source selection process (see FAR Subpart 15.3 Source Selection to learn more about the formal source selection process, FAR Subpart 8.4 for GSA Schedules, and FAR Subpart 13.1 for simplified acquisitions).

How much an agency likes you only comes into play in the evaluation of the company’s past performance for a contract. That's because it is documented on past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and/or in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). It cannot come from the reviewer's knowledge of your company, unless they were a past customer and provided either a PPQ for this specific solicitation or were part of the team providing performance feedback in a formal CPARS report. And remember that past performance is only one of the many criteria that may be included as a factor considered in the technical review of your quote, offer, proposal.

In formal source selection (used for the highest dollar value contracts -- the ultimate goal) is covered under FAR Subpart 15.3. You’ll find that the source selection decision (as outlined in FAR 15.308) “…shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.”

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) makes that final decision and that person may also have knowledge of your company or a relationship, especially if you are an incumbent. But their rapport and knowledge of your company can only come into play if –

• the rationale for the use of that knowledge is fully documented as to how it factored into the decision to ensure fairness and accountability,
• the knowledge directly relates to the requirements of the solicitation and evaluation criteria in the solicitation, and
• the knowledge supplements the evaluation process findings, not replaces them.

The SSA’s decision, while independent in nature, cannot solely be based on their own personal knowledge of a company or replace the findings of the Source Selection Evaluation Board(s). No matter how much they like you, it cannot be the deciding factor in granting you an award.

A real life example is a 45-page protest I reviewed for my supervisor of a GSA contract where an SSA in her office used his personal knowledge of a company to displace other companies from a contract award. The SSA failed to document what knowledge was used or how it directly related to the requirements of the solicitation and evaluation criteria. GSA lost the protest, another award was made to the displaced company, and it was suggested to this SSA that he might want to find another job (he left the acquisition career field).

That process is what keeps the playing field level. It prevents personal knowledge to impact or prejudice an award. I’ve told contractors I liked and that had great past performance that they didn’t win a contract. It's part of the job. But it was never because I liked or didn't like them. It was always a proposal red flag that was the culprit (see my FedSubK Feature: Proposal Red Flags for more info).

Now let’s talk about the last part of the mantra – “…and trust.”

If The Government TRUSTS Me, I Will Win Contracts

This part of the mantra is often used to imply that if the CO/KO trusts you that you can win a contract. But it’s really a “trust, but verify” situation with the Government, not a “I like you, therefore I trust you” deal.

Sure, if you’ve done work for the agency before or many other agencies, there is an implied trust factor simply because you've received other awards. That trust factor goes up the more awards you've received. But it is never blind trust. Trust always comes down to -- Are you considered a responsive and responsible contractor for the purposes of receiving an award?

Responsiveness is determined by the evaluation of the quote, offer, or proposal. Contractor identified as the selected source, regardless of the acquisition procedure used, are often called the “otherwise responsive” contractor until such time a responsibility determination is made prior to award.

FAR Subpart 9.103 states three distinct requirements related to contractor responsibility:

(a) “Purchases shall be made from, and all contracts shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.”

(b) “No purchase are award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility.”

(c) “The award of a contract to a supplier based on lowest evaluated price alone can be false economy if there is subsequent default, late deliveries, or other unsatisfactory performance resulting in additional contractual or administrative costs. While it is important that Government purchases be made at the lowest price, this does not require an award toa supplier solely because that supplier submits the lowest offer. A prospective contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility, including, when necessary, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors.”

FAR 9.104-1 outlines the general standards that a prospective contractor must meet. They are:

• Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.
• Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).
• Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

FAR states, “The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s ability to obtain required resources outlined above. Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement, that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel.”

A prospective contractor must also--

• Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.
• Have a satisfactory performance record. A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely based on a lack of relevant performance history, except when special standards are established and stated in the solicitation, as is allowable for specific acquisitions or certain classes of acquisitions under FAR Subpart 9.104-2.

FAR also states, “A prospective contractor that is or recently has been seriously deficient in contract performance shall be presumed to be nonresponsible, unless the Contracting Officer determines that the circumstances were properly beyond the contractor’s control, or that the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action. Past failure to apply sufficient tenacity and perseverance to perform acceptably is strong evidence of nonresponsibility. Failure to meet the quality requirements of the contract is a significant factor to consider in determining satisfactory performance. The Contracting Officer shall consider the number of contracts involved and the extent of deficient performance in each contract when making this determination.”

Lastly, a prospective contractor shall--

• Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.
• Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

Determination of subcontractor responsibility is the duty of the prime contractor, except regarding debarred, ineligible, or suspended firms. Primes may be required to provide written evidence of their determination of a proposed subcontractor’s responsibility. Also, determinations of prospective subcontractor responsibility can affect the Government’s determination of the prospective prime contractor’s responsibility. The Government, using the same standards applied to the prime contractor, may directly determine the responsibility of a proposed subcontractor in urgent requirements or contracts for medical supplies, contracts with substantial subcontracting, and others.

Then there is more...

Remember all those answers to that long list of questions in SAM.gov that populated your formal representations and certifications in SAM.gov? Or any that were included in the solicitation that you had to complete?

Well, guess what? Those are also part of the determination of responsibility for prospective contractors! Misrepresent on a provision and it could result in some additional questions from the Government.

Same goes for any Exclusions and the Responsibility / Qualification section of your SAM entity record (formerly FAPIIS.gov). Depending on the type of issue, you could be found nonresponsible.

If you can get through the gauntlet, then your company is considered a responsible contractor for award.

Now, let’s sum it all up!

The mantra “Buyers buy from people they like and trust” really means…

“Contracting Officers or other Federal personnel with authority to obligate the Government buy from companies that propose compliant products and/or services that meet the Government’s needs and which are offered at a fair and reasonable price, who are then determined to be the most responsive and a responsible source for purposes of contract award.”

Not as simple as you might have thought, huh?

Does that mean you don’t need to build relationships? Not at all!

Does it mean that you won't win contracts? No. But this shows you how claims of "Buyer buys from people they like and trust" are a tad overblown when it comes to the ease at which a relationship can result in a large award. A purchase card buy, yes. But not any contract over the micro-purchase threshold (presently $10,000 and increasing to $15,000 on 10/1/2025).

Relationships should be targeted and strategic, not sending off an email to every Fed whose email address you can get your hands on.

Getting to know Feds will create rapport. But understanding how far that rapport can get you toward a win in your industry, given your specific business situation and the specifics of the acquisition, is very important.

This is where reviewing historical data and procurement forecasts comes into play. For more on that, check out fedsubk.com/fedsubk-in-action for webinars that teach you how to do that or check out my trusted support provider network at fedsubk.com/support-provider-network for people who can assist you.

The Federal space takes patience and persistence. There are opportunities for some quick wins using avenues like micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions.

Did this burst a bubble? Don't let it. Use it as motivation to dig in, learn more, and put your resources in the right places; PLAN. Target the right people for that important conversation, put your effort into that proposal you know is a winner, and be prepared for all the post award stuff that comes with being a prime Federal contractor. That's what will help your company be one the Government likes and trusts.

Check out our website to learn more and watch for an exciting announcement we have coming this spring related to expanding your Federal Contracting knowledge!

• FedSubK Features