Have you hugged an Architect lately? Many are feeling a lot of pain.

Ever since the Internet made it easy to find information (and many thanks to Google for making it oh-so-easy), I’ve made it a habit to visit web-sites of A/E firms and blogs devoted to Architects to find out “what they are saying” about their industry. After all, if one is in the reprographics industry, isn’t one’s business tied to the fortunes (or famines) of our customers? Should we not spend at least some time to understand trends and business conditions that are affecting our customers?

Arup, an international A/E firm. The headline on Arup’s main web-page says this:

“We are an independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists offering a broad range of professional services.” Arup is based in the U.K., has offices in many countries, and has 9 office locations in the U.S.

Recent news article about Arup found on bdonline.co.uk

Arup cuts 670 jobs in UK

18 January 2011 | By David Rogers Both full-time and temporary staff go following review

Arup has got rid of (i.e., has terminated) 670 posts (i.e., staff positions) at its UK operations with nearly half the casualties being full-time employees, following a shake-up at the business. In September, the firm announced it had put 600 staff on a 90-day consultation in the wake of the coalition government’s decision to scrap or put on hold a series of public sector projects including the Building Schools for the Future programme.

Now the engineering-to-architecture business, which employed more than 4,000 people in the UK across 17 offices, has confirmed that 670 roles have gone as a result of the restructure. The company said 280 permanent roles, including five architects, had been axed along with a further 230 temporary and agency contracts while 86 people who have left the firm have not been replaced. New UK boss Robert Care said it had tried to mitigate the final numbers facing the axe by posting at-risk employees overseas. The firm said it had found posts for more than 70 people throughout Arup’s offices across the world.

As to the article about Arup, I found that article when I read another article (the one that appears below). Actually, I found a link to the article about Arup in the “reader comments” section that followed the article below. Here’s that other article, and you read this article, you will see that I’ve posted some comments posted by Architects who chose to comment on that article.

Will We Ever Get Out of This Hole?

December 27, 2010 By C.J. Hughes (from http://www.archrecord.construction.com)

For architects, the Great Recession hasn’t really let up since its official start in December 2007. Countless projects are stalled or canceled, including Santiago Calatrava’s Chicago Spire — now a 110-foot-wide void. We investigate what’s in store for architects in the near future and beyond.

“If the slew of Internet posts, letters to editors, and comments to reporters are to be believed, the economy has put the architecture business in such a deep funk, it’s like a proverbial doornail: dead.

And there’s plenty of long-term statistical evidence — about unemployment, a lack of projects, tight credit markets — to back up that prognosis. Besides, architects who have lived through previous downturns often say that this one feels different in a not-so- good way.

Yet an alternate reading of the tea leaves suggests that what may really be happening is that architecture is not keeling over but molting. Increasingly, it is becoming a multidisciplinary profession that will benefit generalists over experts, however painful that transition might be, according to employed and unemployed designers alike.

“I don’t think it’s dying, but I do think it’s taking a different direction,” says Paul Mendolia, 60, of New York City. The 35-year practitioner was let go from a firm in 2009. He has since been hired back as a freelancer, though at a fraction of his former wage, for tasks like filing paperwork with local building departments.

In Mendolia’s view, the only chance he has to land steady, dignified work again is to become more proficient with modeling software, which seems to be a requirement of the few jobs that are advertised. Though classes can be prohibitively pricey, he says, “if I don’t get up to speed with CAD [computer-aided design] and the rest of it, I think I will be left behind.”

Joblessness persists in the field: Some AIA leaders put the unemployment rate at 20 percent or higher. And more gloom is spelled out by the Architecture Billings Index, compiled by the AIA. Since January 2008, the index has cleared 50 only twice, in September and November of 2010 (anything less than 50 suggests an industry in contraction).

The next generation of architects may be in a better position to weather slowdowns if they act as their own clients by becoming developers, too, says Vishaan Chakrabarti, who runs the real estate development program at Columbia’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation.

“Architecture is by no means dead,” says Chakrabarti, 44, who once worked for Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), though being successful now requires more than just making sure a structure doesn’t leak or fall down. Business savvy is key, which might explain why 55 of his 103 students, a recent spike, have architecture degrees or are pursuing them. When Chakrabarti was a student, he says, “it was sort of a badge of honor to be stupid about money, but no longer.”

That holistic spirit can be realized on the professional level as well, according to Bill Sharples, 47, a founding partner of the 14-year- old New York firm SHoP Architects, which recently created three other stand-alone businesses. These include a two-year-old construction arm that is hired by other architectural firms as a subcontractor.“Before, we were doing [pattern-design work] in-house, and we weren’t getting any fees. So we decided to get paid for it,” says Sharples about SHoP Construction, which was profitable this year and will be handing out holiday bonuses.

In fact, Sharples credits his diversified revenue stream — he also has green technology and design software businesses — with helping SHoP bounce back quickly from layoffs that cost them 30 employees in 2008. Today, the firm employs 67 people, he says.

Some sectors, such as housing, may still be R.I.P. for a while, especially in certain U.S. markets — Nevada, Florida, California — that have too much “overhang,” says Bradford Perkins, chairman of Perkins Eastman. Those woes contributed to his firm’s axing of 20 percent of its staff in late 2008, says Perkins, adding that this recession dwarfs the previous three he has worked through since the mid-1970s.

But Perkins Eastman will be hiring again in 2011, fueled largely by overseas demand, says Perkins. He predicts that other major firms like SOM, Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, and Gensler will begin to boost their staffs, too.

The foreign projects that Perkins is most focused on now are senior centers in China, which by 2050 will have 300 million people over the age of 65, he says. Also, his firm, which has six offices overseas, has been busy designing schools for expatriates in Hanoi, Shanghai, and Beijing.

“It is a cyclical business, but people didn’t see this [recession] coming,” Perkins says. Studies in the mid-’00s showed there was an undersupply of architects. “Unless all the research prior to the recession is completely erroneous,” Perkins says, “I remain cautiously optimistic about a recovery.””

The article above prompted 8 pages of reader comments. One thing’s for sure, Architects are not apathetic about sharing their views when something they read in an article strikes a chord. Here are just some of the comments posted by architects who read the article

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve worked as a design engineer for almost twenty years, so I apologize if these comments seem naive, but I see many parallels to my industry.

I tend to think both sides are correct. The best architects are probably those who are experts at producing physical models and experts at using BIM software. The experience building physical models probably trains the mind to think better in a three dimensional world. Additionally, the ability to use BIM definitely makes designing much more efficient, allowing for more through, efficient, and better designs.

I sense many of the older professionals have a negative perception of BIM because the learning curve is steep. Furthermore, many architects who have moved up to program management or principal positions are not adept at using this technology and believe learning it is below their “pay grade”. They love the technology when they are employed managers or owners because it increases productivity, thereby increasing profits. Once the downturn hit and they found themselves out of work, they hate it because they realize that experts in this technology have an advantage over them when it comes to finding new work. As a result, they feel as if they are being left behind in a profession for which they have given so much.

I have had job opportunities to move into higher management, but have made the decision to always stay technical and become expert in the newest software applications. In my field someone who is very good technically is compensated nearly as much as managers, but will always have many more career opportunities even during industry downturns.

Anonymous wrote:

The only thing that will get this profession growing again is real sustainable demand. The current state of the profession is not the fault of politicians or bankers. Politicians have never created sustainable demand for anything useful, and bankers will not loan capital unless they believe they will get a return on investment. Everything is driven by demand, and there is obviously no demand for more buildings in our society (at least in the US), at least for probably the next five years. Vacancy rates are too high. Would you loan your own capital so a developer can put up another project which will sit empty, then default on the loan? I’m sitting in Silicon Valley and there are brand new buildings everywhere, which have never been occupied for years.

I’m also curious as to why architect always feel like they deserve the same salaries or respect as other occupations such as law and medicine? No one forces anyone to become an architect. Compensation is based on the value added to society. Any occupation which deals with ones personal freedom (law) and health (medicine) will always be compensated more than design related occupations. It’s just a simple fact of economics.

Anonymous wrote:

I am an Architect and have been since 1982. That said, by the standards expressed in these comments, I’ve never been much of an Architect. I do basic work… nothing that would ever get into a magazine, nothing that could ever be nominated for an award… let alone win one. My designs, such as they are, are best described as ‘competent’ and ‘workman like’ Yet I’ve managed to have a career and make a living in this profession and hope to continue to do so for a few years yet.

All through 2009, and 2010 I did so (As I have detailed in these ‘pages’ before) by finding two clients that are by and large feeding off the general misfortune and malaise in the economy. This was repeat work and I have done very well with them and they with me. Now a bit of advice and a bit of good news:

If you have a license, and have not found a way to make a living… no matter how small of one, I suggest that you are not trying. Always seems to be some work out there. You won’t like it much… at this level you have but two choices for clients: those that buy Architectural services every day, and know just how much they will pay… and not a penny more. Or ‘civilians’ that have never ever done this before and have not a clue. Enjoy.

Now the good news: in just the last 45 days… since Thanksgiving, the work and the inquiries have picked up here on the very bottom of the market. The little guys, seemingly… are getting back into the game. Small Mom-n-Pop businesses, 2,000 sf 4,000 sf strip center stuff. This is noteworthy for two reasons: we have not seen this type of client since mid-2008. They have been gone, out of the market. Second, to come out and get moving during the holiday season is unheard of, even in the best of economies. That’s telling… everyone wants to get moving on things.

spratt wrote:

I am 60, thankfully still actively employed , know all the 2D, 3D, and illustration software and use it profusely. Not all older architects are computer illerate. I can't think anyone still moving ever used a t-square- I know I certainly didn't.

The only firms that seem to be doing o.k. are those with international ability. The small firm with only local work in architecture or engineeringing is in the deepest trouble and likely can't hang on until things turn around. Even for firms with foreign presence, things have changed. After the Dubai crisis, fees are not fortunes in the Middle East that they once were. I feel sorry for the people graduating now- we had a bad recession in the early 90;s and many young people left the profession. The one person every firm that has work is looking for is the 10-15 years of experience person. They are in very short supply because so many left the profession back then.

Anonymous wrote:

The problem with BIM is getting paid to do it. We have been using Autocad in our small office for 16+ years, and some form of Cad for 20 years. We haven't found that BIM- Revit saves any time , it takes us more time and my engineers want to charge more. Same for "green" architecture. I am afraid that all this just ends up being more work for no more fee. Something that has been going on for a while where we have to provide ever increasing documentation, details,Energy studies, cost comparisons, code information,ADA provisions, fire studies for the same fee structure.

Here in Atlanta the unemployment rate for architects is 60%.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, "the times, they are a'changin".

Architecture has changed in the past 30 years with the onset of AutoCad, and "program/construction project managers". Architects were respected, and Contractors usually felt like second-class citizens. Somehow, that all reversed, and the good old days are past us now.

Building Information Technology (BIM) is the wave of the future, which requires actual knowledge of systems and structures. The Architects who incorporate this new technology will be the survivors.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the entire world as we know it is changing. Imagine how fast the new technology will take us in the next decade or two. Keep yourselves educated and learn as much as you can now.

Just a point: The Architect was paid 9%(of construction costs) for a $1,000,000.00 project that the Realtor sold the following year for $2,000,000.00 with a 6% commission. The Architect received $90,000.00 for services, while the Realtor received $120,000.00. And the Realtor has no Liability... Do what you love to do, not just for the money.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sitting in Japan as I write this, and can report that things look similarly daunting here--maybe more so. There is a schism which has been growing for more than a decade, with plenty of tall buildings going up in Tokyo, benefiting contractors and developers, but with very little involvement of the traditional architect. (Detailing is being handled by the contractor and major planning and massing decisions by the developer.) The firms that have awards, fame and media exposure are hungry, and much of their staff poorly paid (if paid at all). The youngest have almost nothing we might call architecture to point to: a house, a table, a balloon. The "successful" ones are working for cultural capital in a world where that is an increasingly fickle and feckless reward system.

As long as we ignore the technical and economic demands on architects, that is not going to change--at home or abroad.

Anonymous wrote:

Telling young architects to be their own client and developer too...jeeze. Gensler has been running hire adds here but I wonder how many people out of the 1/3 total staff they laid off from 2008-2010 got called back? I think we, who are bound as employees in architecture offices, have realized there is no loyalty left in this profession.

Anonymous wrote:

To the contrary of what Bradford Perkins said, how could you not see the big recession coming? Every asset bubble has been followed by a bursting; that being a housing bubble, what group was most likely to suffer, than construction-related professions? It wouldn't take but a few minutes to stare and chart the Case-Shiller housing prices to know that things were really crazy...internet bubble crazy.

And to the notion that SHoP and Vishaan Chakrabarti have the positive idea of diversification, the fact remains that there are few winners and mostly losers in a large-scale recession. In part, their ideas make a whole lot of sense, but in a broader perspective, one should not discount equal parts luck and well-connectedness that results from strong marketing strategies.

As demand and supply goes, there is a wide supply of low-cost outsourced CAD monkeys and self-taught designers around the world, willing to undercut American professionals and young workers. As I look today on the list of torrents, I can see clearly as anyone else, that there is no shortage of "free" information about drafting, building typology, detailing, CAD, 3D and design guideline books, as well as accompanying "free" software. Combine "free" information and "free" software with inadequate trade balance or inequitable monetary valuation controls (price controls), you can see the future on sites like Guru.com.

The economy will recover, but in the process, beware, for the paradigm may have shifted.

earlmiranda wrote:

Try 40%-50% here in Charlotte, North Carolina. I agree with the gentleman's comments about low-cost outsourced CAD monkeys and self-taught designers. I personally have all the 3D and CAD skills, but I had to write a book on it to get compensated for my skills. Like one of the gentlemen before me, I now file paperwork for building departments. It's not bad work, but it is more demanding if you don't work for an architectural firm. Yes, I saw the real estate bubble coming and I jumped ship six months ahead of the bust. On the other hand, I am also licensed as a real estate broker. As the gentleman in the article has said, I'm still diversifying my employment opportunities. Truth be told though, architectural education needs to change. Architecture is the only profession taught by primarily non-licensed staff. Recent graduates may know how to design, but they are poorly trained to be useful to licensed professionals. They may know how to rock an I-Phone, but they don't have a clue how to find clients, meet client's needs, or manage client projects. Until this changes, the architectural profession will eventually die out.

Anonymous wrote:

20 % unemployment? Where? Not in this country. The true unemployment rate among architects is not a statistic that is kept anywhere but the anecdotal evidence suggests much higher unemployment. Most firms never tell the truth about how many employees they have on staff due to fear it will scare clients away. The truth? Most firms are a shadow of their 2005 selves. Principals working for 30% of former earnings are the lucky ones. Best employees working for a fraction of former earnings is truth. Less essential employees now working in other unrelated fields, out of architecture probably permanently. Only Good news is that the remaining architects will have less competition for awhile.

Anonymous wrote:

The profession has been rotting from the bottom up for a while now. Glad you guys finally noticed. There's only so many museums, campus buildings, and transit centers to go around. When the final hospital bubble bursts then what? The profession stuck it's nose up at everything else and now everything else is gone. When 9 out of 10 homeowners call a contractor to add on to there house or build one anew, it is he who hires the architect now. I would love to see the statistics on retail and commercial as well

Anonymous wrote:

Undersupply of architects? I always thought the mid nineties to 2008 was the age of stupidity but this just proves it. When the next crash comes (and it will) the architects that still have jobs in traditional firms will be goners. If BIM business savy green design builder developer decorators that also design logos, teakettles, and end tables are the future of architecture we will truly be in unchartered territory. Hell, why don't we all work nights at supercuts and design clothing on the weekends while we are at it? We are witnessing the swan song of traditional architecture and the shift to something new.

Are your “hunter” sales reps generating the amount of “new business” you expect?

This particular post is directed at Owners of Reprographics companies and Sales Managers (or Sales VP’s) of Reprographics companies.

According to the results of the Survey I recently conducted, Shaun Meany’s blog, “Point of View”, is well visited by people who also visit “Reprographics 101”. (“Point of View ranked second, tied with ARC’s web-site.) (As I’m sure everyone who reads this blog knows, Shaun is the President The PEiR Group. Shaun is a veteran reprographer.)

Two weeks ago, Shaun did a post that consisted of a couple of statements, “Say something. We want to know what you think about the reprographics industry.”

So far, no one has responded to Shaun’s post. Apathy?

I only point that out because I’m now going to explain a scenario and ask one question. But, based on the response that Shaun got (or, I guess I should say, lack of response that Shaun got), I’m going to assume that no one will respond to the one question I’m going to ask. But, I’m going to ask it anyway.

My question pertains to “productivity of a sales rep.” Let me first explain what I mean by that and then ask the question: If you hire (or have) a “hunter” type sales rep and if his/her main priority is to generate business from “new” customers [you’ve explained to your sales rep that you expect him/her to spend at least 85% of his/her time signing up “new” customers (and, of course, that activity requires and includes - prospecting, cold calling, setting up appointments, making in-person sales calls, presenting your company’s products and services, asking questions, generating proposals, submitting proposals, asking for the business and, yes, closing deals and generating new revenues)], how much “new business” do you expect that sales rep to generate each year? (i.e., “annual” new business sales?)

(Note: do not include “penetration sales” to customers who were already existing customers.)

What would be your answer to that question? $1,000,000 in new business per year? $500,000 in new business per year? $250,000 in new business per year? What’s the number that would “meet” your expectation for a good hunter sales rep?

And, okay, there’s a second question I'd like to ask. At what level of “new business” sales achievement would you consider your sales rep to be not worthy of continuing employment with your company?

Very recently, one of my reprographics industry friends said that, “a) I expect a hunter sales rep to generate at least $250,000 in “new” business from “new” customers, each year, and b) if a hunter sales rep does not generate at least $150,000 in “new business” each year, then he/she isn’t cutting it and won’t be allowed to stay on our team.”

Well, that was my friend’s response. What’s your response, what are your two numbers?

What do “Customers” and, yes, “Competitors”, see when they arrive at your storefront and look in the windows?

I live in sunny (well, mostly sunny) St Petersburg, FL. The closest Starbucks to my house is only about 16 blocks away. Two doors down from Starbucks you’ll find a new location of one of the reprographics companies operating in the Tampa Bay Area marketplace.

I’ve always counseled my business associates and friends (and, when I was active in the reprographics business, I, myself, always took this into consideration) that “appearance” is important. What “customers” see (or don’t see) when they first arrive at your store does, more often than not, influence their “perception” of your company.

If your store is “perceived to be” neat and clean and not “cluttered up” or “disorderly”, then a visitor, I think, is going to get the impression that the service that your team gives is going to be organized, responsive, timely, blah, blah blah. Just to the opposite, if your store is “perceived to be” cluttered and disorganized, that could easily create the perception that the service your team gives is not going to be great. What I’m basically saying is that, even if your team is capable of giving (and later does give) great service, a customer who arrives at your store for the very first time is not going to know that, until he’s greeted and his order is completed. So, with all of the investments you make in people, equipment, SOP’s, work-flow process, etc., why let “appearance” cause the possibility of a negative impression, when it is so simple to solve that sort of thing?

I looked in the store window of this shop yesterday morning, and, right inside the door window, I could see a completed order (three large rolls of prints) and the invoice for that order. Since this company provides “POS” (point-of-sale) invoicing, the invoice contained descriptions of the services offered, units of measure for each service, unit prices for each service, and the extended totals for the order. I could also easily read the name of the customer to whom the work was invoiced. I’m retired and not a competitor, but, if I was not retired and was a competitor, is that the type of information that my competitor wants to hand me on a silver platter? I don’t think so. Perhaps what we “older” veterans of the reprographics wars need to do is to not fail to remember to tutor our younger team members on the “confidentiality” that’s important to, and necessary for, our businesses?

Suggestions for how to deal with RFP and ITB procurements issued by Government-Agency Procurement (Purchasing) Departments

(Disclaimer: I’ve not proofread this post. Please excuse the typos and spelling errors you find in this post.)

Here’s a link to the RFP document I’m later going to be referring to:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B81al4kFAU9JYjM5ZDllZGYtNTAyMy00NjMwLTkyZWEtZTYwYjlkMjdhZGNj&hl=en&authkey=CJaJpIIG

Very early this morning (in the wee-hours of the morning), I received an interesting e-mail from one of the officers of a reprographics company located in one of the Mid-Western states that’s now completely covered in a couple of feet of snow (if not more than that.) But, actually, he let me know that he was currently in Bonita Springs (near Naples), Florida, so he managed to avoid all that snow (at least until he has to fly home.) That e-mail prompted this post.

Okay, let me get directly to the subject of this particular post.

Some reprographers pursue business in the Government sector (Fed, State, County, City). But, some don’t. When I was active in the reprographics business, I was one of the reprographers that did pursue government-sector business. Although pursing business in the government-sector can be totally aggravating and frustrating (and I personally know that that statement is fact, not just opinion), government-sector customers a) pay their invoices, b) don’t go bankrupt, c) pay their bills on time, provided that you invoice them in strict accordance with their invoicing requirements, and d) offer reprographers the opportunity to generate sales and, yes, even profits. Whenever in the past I heard a reprographer say that he/she does not go after government-sector business because ….. “they don’t pay their bills and the work is never profitable, so why bother,” I always “rolled my eyes.” I absolutely loved it when my direct competitors ignored government-sector business!

To “properly” pursue government-sector business, one must be keenly aware of a variety of issues that bidders/proposers have to deal with. Understanding those “issues” ….. and how to deal with those issues ….. can either “make or break” your attempts to successfully reap benefits from your foray(s) into government-sector business.

Issue #1 – Fairness. Since the U.S. is a nation where “government is of the people, by the people and for the people,” government-sector procurement agencies are required to hold procurements that a) promote competition, and b) promote competition in such a manner where no one vendor has an advantage over another, in other words, create a “level playing field”, where all vendors have an “equal opportunity” to win business (subject, of course, to “affirmative action” initiatives, which, I think, should be done away with, simply because they allow firms to “scam” the system. But I’m not going to get into that issue in this post, because that issue is worthy of its own post.) Also, c), government-sector purchasing departments (and all of their personnel) are supposed to go about RFPs/bids in a completely “unbiased” manner. But, be aware that that does not always happen. When it does not happen, you have to, you must, speak up! There are two parts to “fairness”, a) fairness to all who choose to enter an RFP/bid competition, and b) fairness to the taxpayers!

Points related to Issue #1:

a) when you find a procurement that creates an advantage for one particular vendor, you must voice your concern to the agency holding the procurement. If you remain silent, that unfair advantage will not go away, and you will be at a disadvantage. Voicing your concern is your right! Some view voicing concerns as being politically incorrect. (“They may not like us if we criticize their bid/RFP document.” “They might ‘blackball’ us if we criticize their bid/RFP document or the bid/RFP process.”) And, while I do agree that “they might say that” if you voice your concerns, if you really want to do your job (as a citizen taxpayer in your community, you MUST be willing to speak up and voice your concerns. There are times when having a “third party” be your spokesperson is a good idea (doing that would allow you to remain anonymous.) E.G., years ago, there was a government-sector RFP procurement in our Tampa, FL market and, in the procurement document, they “basically’ spec’d the equipment requirements in such a manner that limited proposers to include only “Xerox” (brand) equipment. That, of course, gave an unfair advantage to Xerox Corp. We voiced our concern (we cried, “foul ball”), and they subsequently revised the “specs” to eliminate that unfair advantage.

b) Some bids/RFP’s are “evaluated” (for vendor-selection purposes) by “price” only, meaning that the awarded vendor will be the one vendor who proposed/bid the “lowest” price. But, as our government-sector found ways to waste our taxpayer dollars, more and more RFP’s, over the years, have been “structured” to be more “subjective” and less “objective.” When you find RFP’s that are structured in a more “subjective” manner, this basically makes “price” (which is a purely “objective” evaluation factor) of less importance. This enables a government-sector procurement agency to “select” a vendor who offers a higher price than the other vendors (sometimes, even the vendor with the highest price), and, in these cases, be very aware that cronyism and favoritism can render a procurement completely unfair to all proposers except for the one proposer who has “connections” inside (or, even retired from) the government agency that’s holding the RFP procurement. In the RFP document I’ve posted on Google Docs (related to this post), you will notice that “price” is only 25% of the “evaluation criteria”! For a procurement related to ‘planroom’ and ‘printing’ services, that is flat-out ridiculous. 60% of the valuation criteria is allocated to “subjective” criteria (“vendor capability to provide the services requested” and “vendor qualifications”). If I had a friend or relative inside the government (or retired from the government, but who maintained his/her connections within the government), I’d be very comfortable that “my” proposal would be “graded” the highest for those 60 points. Even though government-agency procurement personnel are “supposed to” evaluate subjective points (subjective evaluation criteria) “equally and with all due fairness to each and every proposer”, don’t, even for a minute, think that that’s always the case. And, if you’ve criticized the procurement (document or process) or simply made “suggestions” to improve the procurement, be aware that the points you earn for the (subjective) evaluation criteria will probably get hammered, even thought that’s not supposed to happen. Government-sector procurement departments and people do “take offense” to anything you say about their procurements! (The latter is often why using a “third party” is a good idea.) In any event, if I were a proposer for the RFP I posted on Google Docs, I’d cry “foul ball” about “price” being only 25% of the proposal evaluation. To do that, you must be capable of ranting about “the interest of taxpayers.” In the case of the City procurement I posed in Google Docs, I would have voiced my opinion (and backed it up with comments about the “interest of taxpayers”) that price should be 85% of the evaluation criteria.

Issue #2 – Knowledge and Transparency. Since in the U.S. (and because were are a true democracy) we have something called “Freedom of Information”. Because of that, all government agencies (whether Fed, State, County or City) are required to have laws, rules and regulations that obligate government agencies to be “transparent.” In Florida, laws, rules and regulations (referred to as the Florida Statutes) are put into place by our legislators and all administrators (of State, County and City government agencies) are required to adhere to the law. In Florida, we refer to these laws, rules and regulations that cover “transparency” as the “Florida Sunshine Law”. (meaning, “let light shine on all documents and matters in the public domain”.) Citizens have the right to request and the right to receive documents that are “in the public domain” and government agencies have the obligation to provide what’s requested. (That doesn’t mean that you can obtain documents for free. Most government agencies have pre-established prices for copies of documents.) (Also, not all government documents are covered by transparency law; for example, and these are just two of many exceptions, the government does not have to disclose government employee pay records and the government does not have to disclose documents that would imperil our safety.) But as to exceptions, I have yet to find any documents, related to a reprographics-industry RFP or Bid, where an exception applied. Meaning that, over the years, I’ve requested a TON of documents, and not once was any request not honored. You will note in the City RFP document I posted, that the RFP document mentions Indiana’s public disclosure law. It also says in the RFP that, if a proposer wants to, he/she can mark as “trade secrets” his/her response (proposal). Wait a minute. Instead of typing all this from scratch, I’ve placed, below, a few paragraphs from the RFP document:

The information supplied by a vendor as part of an RFP response will become the property of the City. Proposals will be available to interested parties in accordance with the Indiana Access to Public Records Act (IC 5-14-3). None of the proposal responses will be made available to the public until after negotiation and award of a contract or cancellation of the procurement.

To the extent requested by a vendor and allowed by law, the City will treat trade secrets and confidential financial information as confidential (if designated as confidential and submitted separately in a sealed envelope). The vendor must request confidential status before the proposals are opened.

If the City believes that information designated as confidential should not be treated as such, the vendor will be notified and afforded reasonable time to present objections prior to any release of the information. The City will take into consideration the possibility of harm resulting from any disclosure, but reserves the right to make the final determination in accordance with the law. (Note: Pricing information may not be considered confidential.)

Okay, now that you’ve read that, consider this. During an RFP proposal process I was involved in years ago, one of the proposers marked its entire proposal “secret, not subject to disclosure.” We successfully defeated that request. We were only able to “defeat” that request because we had read the law (the entire law) and because, knowing what “the law” said, were able to make the points necessary to defeat the proposer’s claim (that its proposal should be considered “trade secret.”) It takes some time to go about this, but it is definitely worth it (well, that’s just my opinion, of course.) After all, we aren’t talking about nuclear-bomb secrets, are we? I am “so anal” on this particular point that I would, if I had to, hire an attorney to force disclosure.

Points related to Issue #2:

Now, I’m going to do my best to explain to you what you should consider doing if you really want to be successful in competing for government-sector business.

a) Read the entire RFP or bid document, over and over, until you are absolutely sure what you have to do to be considered a “responsive” proposer/bidder. Do you really want to be considered “non-responsive” because you did not fulfill every requirement to be considered “responsive”? If you have questions about the RFP or bid document (about anything in the document), then prepare your questions in writing and send them to the procuring agency. (The only dumb question is the one that is not asked!) Later, when you get the response, if you get a response you don’t understand, ask for clarification! Government procurement people are sometimes lazy and sometimes stupid, to the point where they issue responses that even the most veteran reprographer can’t understand!

b) Do your best to educate the procuring agency about reprographics and about the terms we use for our services and the units of measure commonly used by reprographers. Do your best to convince the procuring agency to update and modernize their procurement document so as to eliminate services that are completely obsolete. (When they don’t listen to you and/or don’t do what you suggest, learn how to take advantage of their ignorance.)

c) If the procurement is one that’s replacing an earlier procurement (meaning that the current procurement represents competition for a contract that is soon to be over and done with), then request one year’s worth of paid invoices. I’m talking about the invoices that the “current vendor” submitted to the government agency for work that was done during the most recent twelve month period. Government agency procurement people are particularly lazy when it comes to publishing “real” past demand (the actual quantities that were ordered from, and provided by, the current vendor) for the services listed in an RFP or Bid document. Don’t ever rely on “estimated” quantities listed in an RFP or Bid document! Rarely are they accurate …. or even close.

d) Make sure that your proposal or bid is delivered before the deadline (we most always hand-delivered our proposals and bids, so that we could watch the receiving person “date and time stamp” our envelope. That way, no funny business, such as later being told, “your bid/proposal was late,” or, “sorry, we didn’t receive your bid/proposal.”)

e) If the procuring agency is holding an “open bid” session, meaning that they will, at a designated time and place be “opening” the envelopes and reading out who bid and what was bid, then, by all means, have someone from your company attend the bid opening session! Most government agencies, simply as a matter of standard procedure, will hold “open bid” sessions, and, if you attend the session, they will, if asked, read out the bids. Or, allow you to examine the bids that were submitted. (This is not always the case for “proposals” responding to RFP’s.) As to “bids”, there were times when I had to ask that the gov’t person opening the bids read out the prices that were bid (by each bidder) or where I had to ask for copies of the bids so that I could record the bid-prices on a sheet of paper I always brought to bid openings. Whenever the information wasn’t voluntarily offered, I spoke up and asked for it. They can’t deny you! So, if the information is not offered, then ASK FOR IT! In fact, DEMAND IT. The best way to prevent funny business with bids, is to record the bids when they are opened. Then, no one, later on, can slip a new bid into the pile of bids. (You never know who’s got a friend inside a government procuring agency.) As I said, RFP’s are different, so you have to refer to the instructions to proposers to find out when you can get copies of proposers’ proposals.

f) Always request, at the earliest time they are supposed to be available, copies of every bid and every proposal submitted! (and submit your requests in writing, not over the phone.) You can learn a lot from reading and reviewing bids and proposals submitted by competitors. Never, ever let any government procurement agency get away with not complying for your request for copies of bids or proposals. Remember, you have the right to request and receive copies of those documents, and they have the absolute obligation to comply with your request!

g) When the procurement is an RFP and is evaluated by subjective criteria, that means that someone (or several people) at the government procuring agency is going to read, review and ‘score’ the proposals. You have the right to request and receive the minutes of proposal-review meetings and the right to request and receive any recorded-tapes from those meetings (if recordings were made, and, nowadays, most government procuring agencies do make recordings.)

h) Also, if the proposal review/scoring meetings are going to be held in “public” session, then attend those meetings and listen in. You will be surprised at how absurdly stupid some of those meetings are. You will learn, first-hand, how the “points” for “subjective” criteria are awarded.

i) Maintain a history file of government-sector bids and proposals. That history file can make a difference.

Issue #3 – Evaluation of “Price”. I don’t mean to shock you, but there have been (and will continue to be) bid documents and proposal documents that contain sheets where bidders/proposers are required to enter their “prices”, but nothing said about how the “low price” bidder/proposer will be determined. In most bids/proposals that call for pricing, the procuring agency will list the services, will indicate the standard unit of measure for each service (pay particular attention to that), and will provide an “estimated” quantity for each service. They will also require you to enter your unit prices and to extend each line item (total for each line item) and to enter a “total bid” (for all items) at the bottom of the list of services. That’s the simple way of “evaluating” who is the “lowest” bidder/proposal. Now, if you look at the “pricing page” that’s in the City RFP document that I posted on Google Docs, you will see that this City agency has not explained how the “low price” proposer will be determined. There are 8 items listed. “What if” there were 8 proposals submitted and each proposer entered the lowest price for one service? Meaning that 8 different proposers would be the lowest-price proposer for a different service. How the hell does that compute to the “lowest overall price proposal?” It does not compute! That would have been the first question I asked this City agency, right after I first read the RFP. When it is unclear, in any way shape or form, “how” the agency is going to calculate the “lowest price” proposer, then you MUST ask that question, and do that as soon as you can. Don’t allow “price” to be come a “subjective” evaluation criteria.

Other Issues:

Earlier, I mentioned the issue of “politically correctness.” If you are worried that your communications with a government agency will hurt you, then you may want to consider asking your questions or making your suggestions and comments (including criticisms) through a “third party.” Could be a cousin, a friend, a consultant, an accountant or an attorney, someone who won’t be (can’t be) directly connected to you or your company.

If you believe that any competitor is benefitting from favoritism and/or cronyism with respect to bids/proposals and/or “projects” in the government sector – and, folks, that is NOT supposed to happen in government-sector procurement - then you may want to seriously consider speaking to someone in the local state legislature, to voice your concerns and to ask for guidance how to deal with it. You may also want to consider speaking to an investigative reporter (for a local newspaper, alternative newspaper, local TV station, local radio station). Investigative reporters love to find and report on stuff that government agencies (or politicians) are doing but not supposed to be doing. C’mon folks, this is America. If you have not yet read any of Upton Sinclair’s books (one of the most famous “muckrakers” in U.S. history), read a few; they are enlightening; they will encourage you to participate in the process of keeping our government-sector “honest.”

Doing business in the government-sector can be very profitable over the long haul, but, like it or not, it can also be very frustrating. Learning to take advantage of bids and proposals can be a lot of fun and be very rewarding, but it takes a lot of work to position oneself to really know how to take advantage of bids and proposals.

Above, I mentioned that it is always a good idea to request copies of all bids and proposals that were submitted in a competition in which you participated. But, you shouldn’t limit your interest to only competitions you entered. If your company is thinking about offering a new business segment that your company has not offered in the past, such as the FM business (if you are not already in that business), you might find it very interesting to request and review copies of proposals that were previously submitted in government sector FM Service RFP competitions held in the past. And, not just ones that were submitted to government agencies in your market area. Last year, Pitney-Bowes (PB’s FM business segment) was awarded two different government-agency staffed (reprographics-services-related) FM deals. Although I haven’t read the proposals that PB and others submitted in those competitions, I’m sure that anyone who read/reviewed those proposals would learn something about the FM business and how to propose FM’s.

I invite Repro 101 blog visitors to comment on this article. And, to use the “comment” section to share their advice.

I may or may not update this particular post.