Justice insiders give advice on job competitions

Competing on a team to keep work in-house can be one of the most stressful jobs in a government employee's career, but offers a unique opportunity to experience the proposal process, according to two Justice Department employees who led a winning bid for operations support work.

Earlier this month, Justice announced that an in-house team, known as a "most efficient organization," won a public-private competition for computer facilities management work. The work, competed under the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76 rules, covered the jobs of 127 federal employees and 125 contractors.

In a lessons learned paper developed before the award decision was announced, Nancy Chamberlin and Bob Miller -- co-leaders of the team that developed the employee proposal -- discussed challenges associated with the competition and how cultural and other differences that separate contractors and federal employees affected the process.

Chamberlin and Miller said that in preparing to join an in-house team, a government employee should expect to spend at least a year and likely more on a project that sometimes demands long hours and can require that personal plans be unexpectedly altered.

After the request for proposals comes out, they warned, "the need for working long hours, seven days a week, should not surprise you." The authors reflected how "this cramming approach seems to be the normal process for bidders."

The team leaders also warned about cultural changes: "Realize that the very nature of an A-76 competition generates stress among the affected federal employees … The stress from affected staff tends to bubble up to the MEO team leads."

But the process can be rewarding as well, they said, and "is a wonderful opportunity for federal employees to observe and experience the proposal development process from the point of view of a bidder." It also provides a chance to explore new ways of doing things that could be difficult under normal operations, they said.

Chamberlin and Miller found that at the Justice Department, which had little experience with the process used for large competitions, they often had to push hard to ensure respect for the in-house team.

"Standing up for MEO team rights, especially where little guidance to clarify these rights exists, may be perceived [by management] as being uncooperative," they wrote. Citing agencies' inclination to err on the side of fairness to the contractor, they urged in-house teams to push for appropriate information and access, and to consider options like using the Freedom of Information Act.

The co-leaders urged others in their shoes to carve out early the resources needed to put a bid together. An MEO might need to be located away from the regular office to ensure that confidential bid information is not compromised, they said. The team might also need separate computers, printers, network connections and even e-mail accounts to ensure that proprietary information is not available to affected employees or potential competitors.

Tasks normally performed by those working full-time on the in-house bid might need to be done by others in the office, or even by temporary employees, they said. The Justice Department team included a core group of six people working full-time, as well as an additional two dozen who contributed as needed.

The Justice co-leaders noted that asserting the need for resources can pit the in-house team against managers: "Th[e] struggle for resources, combined with the physical separation of the MEO team, may impede communications with management and result in an 'us versus them' mentality." They suggested that occasional reminders that the team leaders were appointed by management could help keep the peace.

They also urged MEO teams to communicate as much as possible with affected employees, answering general questions about public-private competitions, the procedural aspects of any retirement incentives, hiring freezes or potential layoffs and the competition's status. "We hope this helped employees understand the process," they said, "and, to the extent possible, view it more as an opportunity than a punishment."