FedSubK Feature: Proposal Red Flags
Updated: Dec 1, 2024
I’ve seen a lot of proposals; all sizes and all types of work. There are a few specific "red flags" that can indicate potential risks, issues of compliance, or even fraud when the Government sees them in a quote, offer, proposal, or bid. These flags aren’t always deal-breakers, but they definitely trigger a closer look and add a layer of concern where none may not need to be. Here’s a quick list of some common red flags I've seen over the years, along with practical insights to help you spot these warning signs in your own proposals.
Red Flag 1 -- Non-Compliant Proposal Format (FAR 15.305(a))
FAR encourages a clear evaluation of proposal format and completeness, especially for negotiated procurements. Proposals that fail to follow the required format, exceed page limits, or lack necessary sections can indicate poor attention to detail or an unprepared or inexperienced team. These types of errors leave the Government asking, “If this is what the proposal looks like, what errors will there be during performance?”
A tip from my days as a secretary when I first started as a Fed; proofread your proposal in this order—
- Forwards for formatting.
- Backwards for typos.
- Forwards for grammar, punctuation, and flow.
- Backwards for capitalization, spelling out acronyms, paragraph numbering, etc.
- Check images and/or graphics.
- Complete a page count.
It may seem like a lot, but it works. Nothing will slip through the cracks.
Red Flag 2 -- Vague or Inadequate Technical Descriptions (FAR 15.305(a))
FAR emphasizes the importance of a thorough technical evaluation, highlighting the need to ensure the proposal is specific and realistic. Proposals that provide generic or unclear descriptions of how the Contractor will accomplish the work, or simply parrot the Government's requirements back to them as a response, suggest a lack of the necessary expertise or resources. Make sure your technical descriptions are clear, specific, and directly tied to the requirements. Avoid vague language without specific outcomes and remember that while not every detail is necessary, your proposal will be reviewed by a team with expertise in the subject matter and some who aren't experts . The latter requires the need to baseline your approach with information to provide a necessary level of detail to ensure evaluators can see how what you provide meets the contract requirements. "The Devil is in the Details," as they say. It is very true with an offer / proposal from both a pricing and technical perspective (however, never mix technical and price info...read more about that below).
Red Flag 3 -- Frequent Personnel Changes or Lack of Key Personnel (FAR 15.304(c)(3))
FAR allows for evaluation of individual personnel qualifications as part of the technical approach when key personnel are essential to performance. Proposals that don’t identify key personnel or suggest frequent personnel changes (such as short times in an assigned position or role) are a red flag. Rapid turnover or a lack of named experts signal potential performance risks. Stable teams generally indicate better chances of contract success. What does a stable team look like? It’s a team of individuals within a company or a team of companies (primes, subs, suppliers) that have worked together on similar projects in the past. Ensure key personnel, particularly for complex projects, are identified by name and role and that resumes and qualifications match the contract's scope. It is always helpful, but not always required (depending on solicitation instructions) that resumes match in terms of format. The easier it is for the evaluation board to find the information, the better you will be rated. (Hint, Hint, HINT!!!!)
Red Flag 4 -- Overly Aggressive or Unsubstantiated Promises (FAR 9.104)
FAR outlines contractor responsibility, emphasizing the need to assess whether an offeror can realistically meet their proposed terms. Proposals with promises of quick turnarounds, guarantees of substantial savings, or ambitious technical claims indicate the contractor is overpromising. The Government will verify whether the proposal’s claims are substantiated with past performance evidence or technical data, especially when a contractor claims outcomes which are not easily achievable. Be sure that your proposal has a balance of realistic expectations, no pie-in-the-ski promises you cannot deliver on, and it is believable. It's always better to under promise and over-deliver but there is a balance in that which comes into play as part of your risk / reward decision with how competitive and aggressive you want to be. Play to win but don't be stupid about it.
Red Flag 5 -- Unverified Past Performance Claims (FAR 15.305(a)(2))
FAR requires the assessment of past performance, requiring agencies to review the relevance and quality of previous work. Questionable past performance references or lack of verifiable past performance on similar contracts can be a sign of inexperience or poor reliability. Yes, the Government isn't good at always getting that past performance recorded timely either, but follow up WELL BEFORE you need that past performance and tap your Contracting Officer on the shoulder with a friendly reminder.
When writing your proposal, be sure to use SPECIFIC examples of past performance, tied to an easily identifiable project in your experience (either as an entity or individually), and provide valid current references. Lack of relevant or verifiable past performance indicates higher risk to the government, meaning a less desirable rating, particularly for complex requirements. However remember that Government employees retire and move on to different agencies, going back to why getting that past performance memorialized in CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) is SO IMPORTANT.
Red Flag 6 -- Inconsistent Pricing or Unrealistic Costs (FAR 15.404-1(b))
FAR governs price analysis and outlines the necessity of fair and reasonable pricing. A few red flags are:
- Significant price variations between similar line items or services is always questionable.
- Overly low bids suggest inexperience or an attempt to win the bid at any cost (i.e., “buying in”), possibly leading to performance or financial issues during performance.
- Unbalanced offers where costs are "front loaded" (priced) in contract line items (CLINs) or tasks that are paid earlier in contracting performance.
- Prices near, similar, or the same as a competitor’s price can indicate collusion (i.e., price fixing), which is also a red flag and will invite more in-depth review.
- Unrealistic or unsubstantiated proposals prompt Government questions about how the offeror plans to deliver within the price proposed.
Ensure all pricing is consistent and justified by clear calculations when required to be provided. And if calculation details are not required to be submitted, ensure your proposal can withstand audit scrutiny should it be required, as is the case for larger contracts.
The Government views red flags as indicators of potential issues and may, at best, be investigated by the Government before making a final award decision, or at worst be grounds for low evaluation ratings that express that risk or even elimination of your proposal from further consideration. Red flags also leave a not-so-great impression with Contracting Officers and technical personnel involved in the evaluation. Rigorous evaluation and due diligence are part of the Government’s charge to ensure that any concerns are substantiated or resolved before award and do not hinder performance later.
Clearing red flags should be an important part of your proposal writing and submission process. Look at the proposal with a critical. Better yet, hire someone to do it for you (I can recommend a detailed-oriented former Contracting Officer...lol). However, it is accomplished, you won't regret taking the time to assess your proposal objectively from the Government’s lens. You're giving your team and your proposal the best chance of success. And isn't that the whole point anyway?
.webp)
View related posts
DoD Reduction In Force (RIF) Guidance
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more confusing, some agencies also have their own RIF guidance separate from the OPM guidance that is what we've heard the most about. DoD is one of those agencies.
A copy of the current DoD RIF guidance, DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 351, is found at: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/140025/140025_V351.PDF?ver=DgEFMmb9dLDV7OV-PLb7VQ%3D%3D
This guide establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for reduction in force (RIF) actions taken under Part 351 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as modified by Section 1597(f) of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.).
This guidance does not, in full, apply to DoD employees covered by an alternative personnel system (e.g., the Acquisition Demonstration; Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories; and the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System). Those systems will develop their own policies and procedures for RIF that comply with the law, as approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)). This guide also does not apply to Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.
The policy statement in 1.2 states that, "For any RIF of civilians in the competitive and excepted services in the DoD, the determination as to which employees will be separated from employment must be made primarily on the basis of performance."
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1597, DoD must report to Congress 45 days prior to implementing an approved RIF.
DoD will comply with 5 CFR 351.402 and 351.403 when establishing competitive areas and competitive levels, respectively. Competitive service employees and excepted service employees are placed on separate retention registers established in accordance with 5 CFR 351.404 and 351.405.
For purposes of DoD RIF, employees are placed in one of two categories:
- employees with a period of assessed performance of less than 12 months, and
- employees with a period of assessed performance of 12 months or more.
An employee’s period of assessed performance for purposes of RIF will be the sum of the months of assessed performance associated with the employee’s performance appraisals within the most recent 4-year period preceding the cutoff date established for the RIF. However, periods of time in a rating cycle for which an employee’s performance was not assessed are not included in the employee’s period of assessed performance.
For example, if an employee receives a rating after serving 10 months of the 12-month cycle, the employee’s period of assessed performance is 10 months for that rating cycle.
For employees absent for military service, periods of time during the rating period may be treated as periods of assessed performance if they meet the requirements of Paragraph 3.3.c.(1) under Paragraph 3.3.b.(2) of the DoD guide.
Retention Factors
Competing employees are listed on a retention register based on--
- Rating of Record. See Section 3.3.c. for rating of record examples based on cutoff dates, military service, time frames for ratings to be used, and ratings from a system other and the Defense Performance Management Program (DPMAP).
- Tenure Group. This follows the definitions found in 5 CFR 351.501(b) for competitive service and 5 CFR 351.502(b) for excepted service.
- Average Score. In general, an employee’s average score for one performance appraisal is derived by dividing the sum of the employee’s performance element ratings by the number of performance elements. The average of the average scores drawn from the two most recent performance appraisals received by the employee, except when the performance appraisal reflects an “unacceptable” rating of record will be reviewed. When the most recent performance appraisal reflects an “unacceptable” rating of record, only that performance appraisal will be considered for purposes of the employee’s average score.
- Veterans’ Preference. This follows the procedures in 5 CFR 351.501(c) with three veterans' preference subgroups:
- AD - 30% or more disabled veteran
- A - eligible for veterans' preference for the purpose of RIF but not for placement in the AD category (i.e., less than 30% disabled veteran determination)
- B - not eligible for veterans' preference for purpose of RIF
- DoD Service Computation Date-Reduction in Force (DoD SCD-RIF). Follows rules of credible service as found in 5 CFR 351.503(a) and (b). DoD does not follow 5 CFR 351.504, which grants additional retention service credit in RIF based on an employee's ratings of record.
Rounds in Reduction in Force (RIF)
Two rounds of RIF will be conducted. Round One, Release from Competitive Level, and Round Two, Assignment Rights, are explained in the document in detail related to types of appointments, order of release from the competitive level, and exceptions that may apply. They are found in sections 3.5 and 3.6, respectively.
Displacement may occur during Round Two. Displacement is the assignment of an employee to a continuing position in a different competitive level that is held by another employee with a lower retention standing (i.e., “bumping” another employee). Displacement may be at the same grade or at a grade up to three grades or grade intervals (or equivalent) below the position of the released employee.
Right of Only One Offer
Employees released from a retention register are only eligible for one offer of assignment (similar to OPM rules), with some exceptions. If the employee accepts and offer, rejects an offer, or fails to reply to an offer in a timely manner, they are not entitled to further offers. However, the DoD Component must make a better offer of assignment to a released employee (i.e., to a position with a higher representative rate) if a position becomes available before, or on, the RIF effective date.
Sample retention registers and scenarios are found in the guide in Appendix 3A. Employees have the right to request a review of retention registers and have representation also be allowed to review the registers, as requested by the employee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Info is provided for awareness. I am NOT an HR professional but an HR enthusiast having started in HR and being a Federal supervisor and hiring manager. Before taking any action that changes your status, please seek the advice of an attorney knowledgeable in Federal employment law.
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP)
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) allows agencies that are downsizing or restructuring to offer employees lump-sum payments up to $25,000 as an incentive to voluntarily separate. The amount received is reduced by Fed and state taxes, social security, and Medicare, as applicable.
The full guide on the program is found at the OPM website https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-separation-incentive-payments/guide.pdf
Eligibility for VSIP requires an employee be employed by an Executive Branch agency for at least three (3) continous years without a time limit and not be--
▶️ a reemployed annuitant;
▶️ otherwise be eligible for disability retirement;
▶️ recipient of a notice of involuntary separation for misconduct or poor performance;
▶️ recipient of any previous VSIP from the Federal Government;
▶️ on a service agreement for which--
➡️ a student loan repayment benefit was paid, or is to be paid, during the 36-months preceding the date of separation;
➡️ a recruitment or relocation incentive was paid, or is to be paid, during the 24-months preceding the date of separation; and
➡️ a retention incentive was paid, or is to be paid, during the 12-months preceding the date of separation.
If you receive a VSIP and later come back to Federal Service within 5 years of the date of the separation on which the VSIP is based, you must repay the entire amount before your first day of reemployment. This includes working under a personal services contract or other direct contract with the Government.
The top 10 questions related to VSIP can be found at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-early-retirement-authority/top-10-frequently-asked-questions-about-vera-and-vsip.pdf
OPM's page on VSIP is at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-separation-incentive-payments/
DISCLAIMER: Information is provided for situational awareness. I am not an HR professional but an HR enthusiast having been a Chief of Contracting and Federal supervisor. Please consult with an attorney knowledgeable in Federal employment law before making any decisions that impact your Federal employment status.
Separate Your Government and Personal Communications
Feds...if you haven't separated your Government communications from your personal communications yet, now is the time to do it.
There has never been an expectation of privacy while using Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). But GFE has been allowed to be used for quick personal calls or emails to check in with children or with family members during the work day. And over time, you may have blended your Government and personal communications more than you realize.
Now, however, it appears your every digital and possibly physical move may be tracked, recorded, and stored. Software and hardware that tracks employee activity, digital behavior, and even movements within Government office space should be expected. Tracking software has (allegedly) already been pushed at some agencies or is (allegedly) expected to be pushed soon.
Computer monitoring programs are expected to track:
🔸️Key stroke loggers to record what is typed or edited
🔸️Analyze chats for flagged words
🔸️Network activity, file access, login, and online behaviors
🔸️Application usage and websites visited and what was searched
Expect software applications to be employed that will analyze this information and generate behavior risk scores by employee. Also expect that all online meetings and chats will be recorded, transcribed, and stored / archived for review without the choice to turn those features off.
Several employees at one prominent agency are reporting their GFE laptop cameras and possibly mics are being turned on during their work day without their consent and outside of active video meetings.
Highly suggest --
▶️ using a privacy cover for your webcam.
▶️ monitoring the activation light.
▶️ taking all personal calls away from your work space on a personal device.
▶️ taking other precautions to protect sensitive conversations, business and personal such as only using a personal device.
