by Erin Andrew
One of the biggest mistakes small business owners make is planning their exit strategy too soon. Whether a contractor wants to enter, grow, or exit the market, a small business owner must understand how buying or selling their business can play a large role in their success. Below are some tips for all three phases:
Even skilled graphic designers often struggle with creating effective proposal graphics. While the usual rules of good graphic design still apply, proposal graphics come with their own unique set of challenges and requirements.
In this post, we’ll look at some quick tips that can mean the difference between missed opportunities and winning graphics. But first, let’s dispel two common myths.
Joint ventures can be extremely powerful in helping small businesses capture larger government contracts. Yet, few small businesses know how they work, and even fewer understand the critical timeline and milestones required to have everything in place in time to capture those large opportunities.
In this article, we will discuss why understanding the timeline is so important if you want to leverage your JV for a big win.
According to USASpending.gov, the government spent $472,158,562,285 last year through contracting for services and products with large and small companies nationwide. This was a $34 billion increase over the previous year, and 2017 is anticipating another increase, especially in Department of Defense spending. None of the noted totals include entitlements, grants or non-contract obligations.
The real questions most contractors ask are what does the government really want, and how does it decide who wins what contract?
Having started my journey in the federal contracting community close to 30 years ago, I’ve seen quite a few changes in policy and process that have both improved and degraded the ability of small business concerns to participate as contractors and subcontractors. I’m not referring solely to changes where the language targeted small business, I’m also including those intending to change how business is done based on a specific commodity, contract cost type, procurement method, agency mission or government-wide initiative.
In this, my first contribution to GovCon Voices, I’m taking a look back at recent proposed changes that resulted in lots of conversations with my friend Steve Koprince, a slew of articles and blogs and way too many anxious moments awaiting the outcomes. This is the second of a three part series I’m calling ‘The Good, the Bad and the Just Plain Ugly Changes That Almost Were!’
When we talk about the federal contracting industry, one of the first things that comes to mind is compliance. We are an overly regulated industry with a ton of laws to abide by, FAR changes to keep up with, legislation of which we need to stay on top. None of it is particularly easy or straightforward, and it sometimes takes experts to keep your organization in compliance. In short, no one can claim they are 100% compliant, nor can they claim to know everything with regards to this industry, especially a GovCon CEO. That’s the bad news.
The good news is that no one expects this of the CEO. However, your attitude towards compliance goes a long way within the organization. The example you set at the top will filter throughout the organization and will go a long way towards establishing and maintaining a company culture that follows the rules of this industry. We all talk about making sure that the company is not on the front page of the Washington Post for getting into hot water with the law or for debarment.
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals recently dismissed a government claim that Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. (LMIS), failed to comply with its prime contract terms by not adequately managing its subcontractors and therefore all subcontract costs (more than $100MM) were unallowable.
Although the government claim was directed at a large contractor, some of the amount in question, presumably, included invoiced amounts by small business subcontractors. At least by implication, had the government prevailed, it could have resulted in requirements for prime contractors to become far more demanding and intrusive in terms of subcontractor documentation and/or access to subcontractor records.