Outcomes-Based Contracting: What is it? 

In an October 2025 piece published by the IBM Center for the Business of Government and entitled Outcomes-Based Contracting: An Invaluable Tool That Builds on Proven Practice, Jefferson Solutions Group’s Dr. Allan Burman applauded the Administration’s effort to bring this innovative framework to Federal Agency contracting. Outcomes-Based Contracting (OBC) has been in use in the United Kingdom for over a decade and has been touted as a highly effective means for forcing all parties in the process to collaborate on defining needs and then tying payment to measurable and agreed upon outcomes.  The focus is not on resources used and dollars spent, but rather on results achieved. For example, if the field is education, does more money bring higher test scores?  What is the value-for-money? The OBC approach also fits well with the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul’s goals of bringing speed, innovation, and flexibility into a contracting world long mired in “checking the box” compliance where process is king.  
 

Outcomes-Based and Performance-Based 

In many ways OBC mirrors a US contracting technique introduced in the early 1990’s and still in place today: Performance Based Acquisition (PBA). A key motivation in moving toward a performance-based approach was to encourage non-traditional firms with their new ideas and offerings to consider the Federal marketplace as a potential client. This is similar to the current environment in which the focus is to bring in new contractors that offer innovation not available in the Federal government today. Then and now, a traditional government contracting approach with low price shootouts and prescriptive contracting requirements offers little attraction for firms, particularly IT companies, that have demonstrated success in the commercial marketplace.  
 

Why Performance-Based? 

By adopting a performance-based model, the Federal government made itself a much more attractive target for these new companies. The approach offered firms flexibility in bringing their solutions to agencies’ problems. However, to meet agency goals, these firms would still have to abide by objective and measurable performance standards and demonstrate positive outcomes to get paid. A mantra for the new Federal program was  

“Tell the contractor the result you want, not how to do the work, and then be able to measure it.”  

Agencies used performance measures and data to assess progress as well as incentives to promote goal achievement and mission success.  
 

Benefits of a Performance-Based Approach 

In the 1990’s, the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) worked with both industry and selected agencies to see if data really supported the claims for benefits achieved.  

As reported in a 1998 OFPP study, “…[Fifteen] agencies converted 26 contracts with an estimated value of $585 million to performance-based methods. The agencies reported an average 15 percent reduction in contract price in nominal dollars, and an 18 percent improvement in satisfaction with the contractors’ work. Moreover, reduced prices and increased customer satisfaction occurred at all price ranges, for both nontechnical and professional and technical services, and whether the contract remained fixed-price or was converted from cost reimbursement to fixed-price.¹”  

Jefferson’s extensive experience in working with multiple agencies on performance-based practices would generally confirm the positive findings. However, a subsequent review by the 2007 Acquisition Advisory Panel offered a more cautionary tale². And the challenges noted in that study as well as other comments by critics could well apply today to OBC. It would be wise to consider these issues and constraints as we continue down this new path. 
 

Three Challenges on the path to Outcome-Based  

A major constraint affecting the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul will be the ability of program officials, overseers and perhaps, most important, Federal contracting staff to embrace the practices of accepting risk-taking and flexibility in pursuit of speed, innovation, and results. 

Having The Right Participants 

Even such seemingly minor issues as the naming of the practice can work to a disadvantage. For example, under its initial designation, Performance-Based Contracting, the approach was initially perceived by agency program staff as something that applied only to those in the Federal workforce designated as in the 1102 contracting profession. When training sessions were called for to develop a performance work statement that would include key performance measures to be achieved, only contracting staff showed up. However, critical to the success of the overall process, those officials on the program side were central to defining the benefits and outcomes to be achieved through the project. Ultimately Performance-Based Contracting was renamed Performance-Based Acquisition to recognize the breadth of staff needed to make the process work. Given the Performance –Based experience, perhaps Outcomes-Based Acquisition rather than Contracting would better fit the bill.  

Defining the Right Outcomes 

While ensuring the right people are addressing mission needs, the measures to be used also need to lend themselves to effective outcomes. For example, requiring a new information technology system to be put in place in six months reflects an important timeliness performance measure, but it says nothing about the quality of what’s being created. However, having a measurable performance metric, as, for example, citing a 95 percent reliability factor, gives a clear accounting of the expected benefit to be achieved. The capability to effectively measure results needs to be considered at the beginning of the process and is something that needs to be agreed to by all parties in the transaction. Having in place a clear plan and defined and measurable outcomes, particularly in a shared-risk and performance environment helps each party to understand their roles and their accountability in mission success. 

Understanding Supplier Control and Risks 

The Outcomes-Based approach touts a shared government-contractor responsibility more so than the contract terms and conditions model ultimately followed in Performance-Based. This new shared risk governance structure is something that must be fully developed with a focus to add clarity for execution. Case in point is that when following a Performance-Based approach, a risk management issue that frequently occurred when multiple contributors were at play was determining who was responsible when an outcome was not achieved or a performance measure missed. Clarifying, understanding, and documenting how risk is shared is critical when payment is tied to outcome. Underscoring the importance of clarity is the collaboration by organizations such as The Commerce and Contracting Management Institute, the National Contract Management Association, and the IBM Center, to include Dr. Burman’s expertise, to provide substantive guidance. The use of Artificial Intelligence incorporates a new element in the equation and may be used to assist in defining outcomes and performance measures, but it may also open the door to unexpected results and consequences. While AI is being adopted and enlisted, the actual results remain to be seen. Nevertheless, it is likely to play a major role in moving the process along more quickly. 
 
Where are we now? 

On balance, Outcomes-Based offers an intriguing path to moving the government toward a contracting process that focuses on results and benefits. In a similar way to Performance-Based, it invites innovation and new solutions to meet the government’s needs. Having a skilled and knowledgeable workforce, not just contracting staff, that recognizes its benefits and is willing to attempt its shared-risk approach, will be perhaps the most critical element to its success. For contractors signing up to follow this path and the flexibility and innovation it offers, understanding the risks and ensuring they have a staff that understands the new model is every bit as important. 

About the Author 

Dr. Allan Burman is President of Jefferson Solutions, the government services arm of Jefferson. His distinguished government career included serving as the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in the Office of Management and Budget. He holds a Ph.D. from George Washington University, a Master’s degree from Harvard, and a Bachelor’s degree from Wesleyan University. To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s solutions, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.  

Understanding IT compliance requirements and certifications is crucial for government contractors and how you can navigate the “rules of the road” for successful and compliant federal contracting.  Federal agencies require contractors to follow IT compliance standards to protect sensitive information, ensure data integrity, and meet specific security protocols.  An inability to comply with these standards can be a barrier to entry in the federal market. Failing to meet these standards in existing contracts can lead to rejected bids, costly fines, loss of contracts, or even legal action.

In addition to regulatory requirements, there are a myriad of IT-related certifications.  However, it’s not necessary, or possible, to get every certification before you to go market.  It will be an ongoing conversation with prospective and existing customers about which ones to pursue and along what timeline.

Federal IT Standards

• FAR, DFARS, and Beyond

When it comes to federal contracting, two of the most critical regulatory frameworks are the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS).  The FAR outlines the general compliance requirements for federal contractors, while the DFARS goes a step further with additional cybersecurity requirements for DoD contractors.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed a suite of guidelines that serve as the foundation for IT compliance in federal contracting. The FAR and DFARS refer to some of these NIST guidelines through specific clauses that mandate safeguarding procedures for federal data. For instance, DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 outlines security requirements for handling controlled unclassified information (CUI) on contractor information systems. Contractors must comply with standards such as NIST SP 800-171 to secure sensitive data and avoid unauthorized access.

• Protecting Federal Data: CUI and CMMC

Contractors working with federal agencies may be required to handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), which encompasses sensitive information that needs safeguarding but does not meet the criteria for classified information.

For instance, the NIST SP 800-171 control set is the foundation for Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) and is specifically designed for non-federal information systems that handle CUI, covering 110 security requirements across categories like access control, incident response, and risk assessment. By implementing NIST guidelines, contractors not only meet regulatory requirements but also strengthen their own cybersecurity defenses against potential threats.

• The Role of CMMC

CMMC is a recent addition to the IT compliance landscape for federal contractors, especially those working with the DoD. CMMC is a cybersecurity framework that requires contractors to demonstrate their cybersecurity practices through independent audits. Contractors must achieve the appropriate certification level to bid on certain DoD contracts.

Understanding CMMC is crucial because it directly impacts contractors’ eligibility. If a contract requires a specific level of CMMC certification, failing to obtain that level will disqualify the business from the bidding process.

• Protecting Federal Information Systems: FISMA, RMF, and ATO

Compliance with Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) standards is often required for systems developed on behalf of, or to be used by, the federal government.

To comply with FISMA, contractors must implement information security controls within those systems that align with the NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF) and perform regular security assessments based on the assigned categorization level. Non-compliance with FISMA can impede the developed system from getting an Authorization to Operate (ATO).

ATO is the security approval to launch a new IT system in the federal government and the requirements can vary agency by agency.  Obtaining an ATO can take days, weeks, months, or a year+. 

• Protecting Cloud Information Systems: FedRAMP

Cloud service providers entering the federal market must understand the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), as it is a critical compliance framework for offering cloud services to U.S. Federal agencies.  The purpose of FedRAMP is to ensure that cloud services meet strict security requirements to protect federal data.  Without FedRAMP authorization, most federal agencies cannot legally use your cloud product/service.

Key Steps to Ensure Compliance: Practical Tips for Federal Contractors

Given the complexity of federal IT and the associated certifications, requirements, and trends, staying on top of what is a “must have” and what is a “nice to have” can be a challenge. In some cases, the way forward will be guided by ongoing conversations with prospective and existing customers about which ones to pursue and when.  In other cases, federal laws and regulations dictate what’s required.  Here are a few strategies to help contractors stay compliant:

• Understand the Market: Any go-to-market strategy should include steps needed to address any security compliance requirements.
• Regularly Review Regulatory Updates: IT compliance requirements evolve frequently, especially in federal contracting. Keep a close eye on changes to FAR, DFARS, and CMMC requirements to ensure that your organization remains compliant.
• Invest in Cybersecurity Training: Educating employees on cybersecurity best practices and compliance requirements is essential. Many security breaches are caused by human error, so training employees to recognize threats and follow protocol can significantly reduce risks.
• Perform Internal Audits and Assessments: Conduct regular compliance audits to assess your company’s cybersecurity practices and identify any vulnerabilities. By identifying weaknesses before an external audit, you can make improvements and ensure that your systems meet federal standards.
• Partner with IT Compliance Experts: For many contractors, especially smaller businesses, the complexity of IT compliance can be overwhelming. Partnering with compliance experts or managed security providers can help you navigate regulations more effectively and implement necessary security controls.

Understanding the IT requirements for market entry and growth in federal contracting is essential to building trust with government clients and positioning your business for success. From FAR and DFARS to CMMC and FISMA, federal IT compliance requirements ensure that contractors can protect sensitive information and meet the government’s security standards. By investing in cybersecurity, staying informed on regulatory changes, and taking proactive steps to ensure compliance, contractors can avoid the risks of non-compliance and confidently pursue federal contract opportunities.

About the authors

MJ Sivulich is a Senior Vice President and leads Jefferson’s business solutions practice.  MJ provides federal business development, capture, proposal, government affairs, and market research support to industry clients.  Contact MJ to learn more about Jefferson’s federal business development services, such as information on go-to-market strategy solutions, including IT requirements, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.  

Lisa Wallace is the President and CEO of Stanton Secure Technologies (SST), leads a dedicated team that provides exceptional cybersecurity compliance services. SST is your trusted partner in developing and implementing effective risk management and security programs, conducting thorough assessments, and ensuring that you meet compliance standards. If you’re seeking tailored solutions for NIST, FedRAMP, CMMC, or ISO to protect your organization, please email info@sst-llc.com.

I had the opportunity a couple months back to speak with Jefferson and USAID Africa Bureau staff on the policies prohibiting federal contractors from performing inherently governmental functions. It’s a topic that I spent some time wrestling with as Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Bush and Clinton Administrations, but one that doesn’t seem to get much attention these days. It probably should get more. It’s at the nexus of the relationship between federal employees and private contractors and is central to the question of who is driving policy, the government or industry.  

Companies like Jefferson that provide institutional/mission support assistance to federal agencies need to understand the reasons for the policy and how best to work as partners in carrying it out. Agency officials receiving this type of help, however, also need to understand the rules and the reasons behind them. Key questions for both parties are “what are inherently governmental functions and what’s the concern” as well as “how can government and industry work together effectively to meet mission needs within the construct of these prohibitions.”   

OFPP Policy Letter 92-1 that I signed in September 1992 directly addressed the reasons for the policy, stating “Government actions should reflect the independent conclusions of agency officials and not those of contractors who may have interests that are not in concert with the public interest and who may be beyond the reach of management controls otherwise applicable to public employees.”  

Congressional concerns were about such issues as contractors preparing Congressional testimony for agencies or for contractors drafting responses to Congressional correspondence, worrying that the contractors, not federal employees, would be driving the policy. In response to these concerns and complaints, Policy Letter 92-1 prohibited those activities and other actions creating similar concerns. These included, among other things, prohibiting contractors from determining federal priorities for budget requests, from awarding contracts or from taking other actions that would be seen as inappropriately binding the government. These specific prohibitions continue to apply today and can be found in Part 7.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This Part also includes a list of activities such as supporting acquisition planning that, while not inherently governmental, require careful review and management oversight by agency staff. 

While Policy letter 92-1 provides lots of prohibitions, it also makes it clear that inherently governmental functions don’t normally include contractors providing advice, opinions, recommendations or ideas to Government officials or include functions that are primarily ministerial in nature. And while various activities are clearly identified in FAR Part 7.5, there is no bright line test that you can automatically use to determine what activities should or should not be proscribed. As a result, if an activity is not listed, agency staff, understanding the reasons for creating the prohibitions, would have to make their own decision on what role a contractor should or should not play. What’s most important here is that both parties understand what the rules are and can agree on and explain how their activities fall within them. 

A subsequent document in 2011, OFPP Policy Letter 11-01, expanded on this coverage and added “Critical Functions” to the mix, stating that functions “necessary to the agency being able to effectively perform and maintain control of its mission and operations” should be performed or managed by federal employees. This addition responded to criticism that agencies in some cases lacked the internal capability to review and effectively respond to advice they were receiving from contractors.  In this case, since “Critical” is based on the key mission of the agency, functions considered “Critical” could differ among agencies. For example, it could well be important that a meteorologist in the National Weather Service at NOAA be a federal employee while in other agencies a contractor could easily play that role.  

In addition to expanding on the earlier restrictions, the new policy document directed agencies to review service contracts on a regular basis to ensure that the agency was managing these issues closely and was not employing contractors to perform inherently governmental work. An important point here is that while these policies were put in place some time back, they have not been forgotten. For example, in January 2024 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued GAO Report-24-106312 titled “VA Acquisition Management: Oversight of Service Contracts Needing Heightened Management Attention Could Be Improved.” In this report, GAO criticized the VA for failing to adequately oversee and manage its service contracts along the lines required by the 2011 Policy Letter.  

For reasons then of effectively carrying out the policy and for ensuring that outside reviewers acknowledge that compliance, contractor and government staff should fully understand the policy, the reasons behind it and their respective roles in carrying it out. The best path here is for them to partner in meeting agency mission needs while being able to describe how each of their actions fits well within the inherently governmental construct. 

If you have further interest in this topic, Jefferson has a half-hour training program on inherently governmental functions and how best to address the policy.  

About the Author 

Dr. Allan Burman is President of Jefferson Solutions, the government services arm of Jefferson. His distinguished government career included serving as the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in the Office of Management and Budget. He holds a Ph.D. from George Washington University, a Master’s degree from Harvard, and a Bachelor’s degree from Wesleyan University. To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s solutions, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.  

How to Lose Friends and Alienate Agencies: Top Federal Marketing Fails

Marketing to the federal government presents unique challenges and requires a strategic approach different from the commercial sector. Here are some pitfalls to be aware of and avoid in federal marketing:

• Not making the most of meetings – Government representatives say time and time again – “Don’t ask me what keeps me up at night.” They want and expect you to come into the meeting prepared, which means you have to do your homework.  To make the most of meetings, you need to know their gaps and pain points and customize your messaging to ensure it’s clear how your product or solution can address their needs and help them meet mission.
• Avoid a cookie cutter approach – Commercial and federal are different, and one federal agency is different from another agency.  Engaging the federal market without thorough research on your target agencies, their missions, and procurement processes can lead to misguided strategies. Invest time in understanding your market and customizing your approach.
• Inadequate networking and relationship building – Federal contracting and business development rely heavily on relationships. Take advantage of networking opportunities to build relationships and learn about agency challenges. Opportunities include industry days, conferences, trade association meetings, and meetings with agency representatives.
• Not following up –Failing to follow up after meeting with agency officials or potential partners can close doors that might have been open. Maintain communication with agency and industry contacts and follow up on submissions.
• Overlooking the importance of past performance –Past performance is often a critical factor in federal contracting decisions. Not providing thorough and positive past performance references can hurt your chances. Focus on building and showcasing a strong track record.
• Underestimating the time and effort required – Federal contracting can be a lengthy and complex process. Underestimating the time and resources needed for the long sales cycle (capture, proposal preparation, compliance, and follow-up) can lead to frustration and subpar performance.
• Lack of a Long-Term Strategy – Treating federal marketing as a short-term effort rather than a long-term strategic initiative can limit your success. Develop a comprehensive and sustained strategy with clear objectives tied to revenue goals.
• Ignoring Feedback – Failing to request a debrief and/ordisregarding feedback from contracting officers or debriefings after losing a bid can prevent you from improving your future proposals and messaging. Always seek and learn from feedback.
• Failing to differentiate your offerings – Federal buyers look for solutions that stand out. Not clearly articulating your unique value proposition or differentiators can result in your offer being overlooked.
• Failing to Stay Informed About Policy Changes – Government policies and procurement processes can change. Not staying up to date on these changes can result in non-compliance or missed opportunities.
• Overestimating Past Relationships – Assuming that past relationships or contracts will guarantee future success without continuing to build and nurture new and existing relationships can be a critical mistake.

Avoiding these mistakes can enhance your chances of success in federal marketing and contracting. By understanding the unique aspects of the federal market and strategically addressing them, businesses can better position themselves to win and execute federal contracts.  Jefferson has a track record for helping companies create, build, and sustain business with the federal government. Jefferson professionals have particularly strong insight into and experience with the broader govcon community.  Contact us to learn how we can help!

About the author:  

MJ Sivulich is a Senior Vice President and leads Jefferson’s business solutions practice.  MJ provides federal business development, capture, proposal, government affairs, and market research support to industry clients.  To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s federal business development services, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.  

Federal Business Development professionals are expert at navigating the “GovCon” environment.  They know the importance of building relationships, understanding the customer, and being strategic.  However, Capitol Hill is an often overlooked piece of the puzzle for growth strategy.  Many BD’ers monitor congressional hearings focused on government programs of interest but are uncertain how, when, or if to get involved.  Not being involved, means Congress is not hearing your interests as they provide oversight and direction to federal agencies and the programs you support.  Here are key steps to consider when forming a congressional strategy:

Understand the Legislative and Regulatory Environment

• Monitor Legislation: Stay informed about pending legislation and regulations that could impact your industry. Use resources like Congress.gov, Federal Register, and government affairs publications.
• Identify Key Committees and Members: Determine which congressional committees and members are influential in your sector and/or represent the state or district where your employees and offices are located. These can include committees on appropriations, commerce, defense, energy, etc.
• Monitor GAO Reports and IG Reports: Agencies regularly determine their budgets and acquisitions far in advance.  One big exception can be contractor support needed quickly by agencies to respond to Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Inspector General (IG) findings and criticisms.  Congress holds hearings on topics covered by the GAO and IG and agencies often require contractor help to address any deficiencies.

Build Relationships

• Engage with Congressional Staff: Congressional staff members are gatekeepers. Develop relationships with staffers who handle issues relevant to your business.  A key part of a congressional staffer’s job is helping constituents, including constituent companies.
• Participate in Industry Associations: Join trade associations and business groups that advocate for your industry. These organizations often have established relationships on the Hill and can amplify your voice.
• Attend Hearings and Events: Participate in congressional hearings, town halls, round tables, and policy events to meet policymakers and stay updated on key issues.

Develop a Strategic Plan

• Set Clear Objectives: Define what you want to achieve on the Hill, such as influencing legislation, securing funding, or shaping regulations.
• Craft a Compelling Message: Develop clear, concise messaging that explains your position and how it benefits the public and aligns with policymakers’ goals. 
• Prepare a Lobbying Strategy: Decide whether to hire a lobbying firm or advocate directly. Professional lobbyists can offer expertise and established networks.

Advocacy and Lobbying

• Meet with Legislators: Schedule meetings with members of Congress and their staff. Be prepared with data, case studies, examples to support your position, and how any decision will impact their constituents.  Define your “ask” so that Members of Congress and staff understand how they can help.
• Submit Testimony and Comments: Provide written or oral testimony during congressional hearings. Submit comments during the regulatory rule-making process.
• Coalition Building: Partner with other businesses, non-profits, and community groups to strengthen your advocacy efforts.

Compliance and Reporting

• Understand Lobbying Disclosure Requirements: Determine if any of your interactions require disclosure.  Ensure compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) and other relevant laws. Regularly report your lobbying activities as required.
• Ethics and Transparency: Maintain high ethical standards in all interactions. Transparency builds trust and credibility with policymakers.

Continuous Engagement and Adaptation

• Stay Engaged: Advocacy is an ongoing process. Maintain regular contact with policymakers and their staff.
• Adapt to Changes: Be flexible and ready to adjust your strategies in response to political and regulatory changes.
• Measure and Report Success: Track your progress and outcomes. Report back to stakeholders on your achievements and any changes in strategy.

While each step will not be relevant to each government contractor, it’s important to be mindful of the role Congress plays in the GovCon ecosystem.  Congress cannot hear your voice if you don’t have a seat at the table.  Leveraging Capitol Hill for federal business development requires a combination of knowledge, relationship-building, strategic planning, and effective advocacy.  Jefferson can help!  View our capabilities. 

About the author:  

MJ Sivulich is a Senior Vice President and leads Jefferson’s business solutions practice.  MJ provides federal business development, capture, proposal, government affairs, and marketing support to industry clients.  To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s federal business development services, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.  

Performance reviews are a cornerstone of employee development and organizational growth.  They serve multiple purposes, benefiting employees, managers, and the company as a whole when done correctly.  They provide a structured framework for feedback, development, and strategic alignment. At Jefferson we exemplify these principles, ensuring that performance reviews are a vital part of our organizational culture. 

There are numerous stories regarding the effectiveness of performance reviews and when they should occur, if at all.  But if done correctly and incorporated with ongoing feedback, performance reviews help employees grow professionally, allow the manager to understand the employee’s professional desires and with the support of the company, help the employee to achieve them. Our managers integrate ongoing feedback into the performance review process, ensuring continuous development and alignment with company goals. 

So, what can employees and managers do to ensure the process is working and the review is effective?  At Jefferson, both employees and managers are open to feedback. While the review is about the employee, our managers understand the importance of the employee feedback they receive about them and the company.  These managers use this feedback for self-improvement and the improvement of the company, making the environment better for the employees. 

For Employees. 

Writing an effective and informative self-assessment is a critical part of the performance review process at Jefferson. It provides valuable insights for the manager and helps ensure that the review is comprehensive and balanced. Here are five principles Jefferson encourages employees to utilize when developing their self-assessment to ensure it is effective and informative: 

• Reflect on Achievements and Contributions. Highlight key accomplishments and list significant achievements and contributions made during the review period. Be specific about what was achieved, how it was done, and the impact it had on the team or company. Whenever possible, use data and metrics to quantify achievements. 
• Be Honest and Objective. Provide an honest evaluation of your performance, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. This shows self-awareness and a commitment to personal growth. For some, it is difficult to write about yourself, so one way to do this is to think about what others would say about your performance and write in the third person.  Avoid exaggeration, being truthful and realistic in your assessment.  Overstating achievements can lead to credibility issues, while being too modest may result in undervaluing your contributions. 
• Provide Specific Examples. Use concrete instances to support your claims with specific examples that illustrate your points. Instead of saying, “I improved team communication,” provide a detailed example such as, “I initiated a weekly team meeting that increased transparency and collaboration.”  Also, consider including comments made by others about your example and how it had influence. Showcase problem-solving by highlighting instances where you effectively solved problems or overcame challenges, demonstrating your critical thinking and resilience. Remember to use concrete examples. 
• Align with Goals and Objectives.  Review your past goals, reflecting on them during the previous review period, and discuss how well you met them. Provide examples of how you worked towards these objectives. Connect your goals and achievements to Company objectives, aligning your achievements with the broader goals of the company, your business unit, contract, and/or team. This shows that you understand and contribute to the bigger picture. 
• Discuss Development and Future Goals. Identify learning experiences by mentioning any training, courses, certifications achieved, or learning experiences you have undertaken and how they have contributed to your performance.  Learning experiences aren’t always in the classroom, so be sure to include any experience, even if “on the job.”  Propose new goals and objectives for the upcoming review period by using the SMART method. 
  • Specific – Be clear on what it is you want to achieve, including specific steps to get there. 
  • Measurable – Define how the goal will be measured to track progress. 
  • Achievable – Be realistic and determine if the goal is possible. Don’t make it too lofty. 
  • Relevant – Align the goal to your professional development and organizational goals. 
  • Time-bound – Define the deadline and interim steps needed to achieve the goal. 
• Identify any resources, support, training, or other items needed to achieve your goals. This will show initiative and a proactive approach to professional development.   

For Managers

Writing an effective performance management review is crucial for fostering employee growth, improving productivity, and ensuring alignment with organizational goals. Jefferson emphasizes the importance of these elements and encourages managers to utilize these five principles to write a comprehensive and constructive performance review: 

• Provide Specific and Measurable Goals and Achievements. Assess how well the employee met their goals, providing concrete examples and data.  Review future goals set by the employee in their self-assessment, ensuring they are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) and align with goals for the company, team, business unit, and/or contact. Be sure to highlight employee achievements, detailing the employee’s accomplishments, quantifying them where possible, and highlighting how they had a positive impact. 
• Deliver Constructive Feedback with Examples. Balance positive and negative feedback by starting with the positive observations and then addressing areas of improvement. Use specific examples to illustrate points rather than vague statements. Thoughtful employees will press you for examples, so be ready. Make sure to focus on behavior, and not personality by addressing behaviors and results, avoiding personal attributes or assumptions.  Employees will better understand the outcome or impact of a behavior, whereas commenting on personality will be viewed as an attack on their character. 
• Read and Understand Employee Self-Assessment. Incorporate employee insights and reference their self-assessments to acknowledge their perspectives and insights.  Highlight where there is agreement and discrepancy between your review and the self-assessment to encourage open dialogue and mutual understanding. Be sure to comment on the employee’s strengths and areas of development. 
• Highlight Development and Training Needs.  Identify any skills or knowledge areas where the employee could improve. Recommend specific training programs, workshops, certifications, or courses that could benefit the employee and support their professional development. Outline a clear plan for professional growth, including milestones, and be sure to discuss resources available to the employee (e.g., covering the expense of the training, making time available to attend, and providing opportunities to apply new skills).    Don’t be afraid to create a plan that goes beyond the next review period. 
• Future Goals and Action Plans.  Set new objectives by establishing new, clear goals for the upcoming review period that align with the employee’s role and career aspirations.  Provide detailed action steps on how the employee can achieve these goals, including any support or resources the company will provide. Encourage ongoing communication by emphasizing the importance of regular check-ins and feedback sessions throughout the year to monitor progress and adjust as needed.  Performance management doesn’t occur just once per year. 

Performance reviews are a cornerstone of employee development and organizational growth, offering a structured framework for feedback, development, and strategic alignment. When done correctly and supplemented with ongoing feedback, performance reviews benefit employees, managers, and the company by fostering professional growth, clarifying professional aspirations, and aligning individual goals with organizational objectives. At Jefferson, these principles are at the heart of our performance review process. 

For employees, an effective self-assessment is crucial. Reflecting on achievements, being honest and objective, providing specific examples, aligning with goals, and discussing development and future goals ensure that the self-assessment is both informative and valuable to managers. This process not only highlights accomplishments but also demonstrates self-awareness and a proactive approach to professional growth. 

For managers, writing a comprehensive and constructive performance review involves providing specific and measurable goals and achievements, delivering balanced feedback with concrete examples, understanding and incorporating employee self-assessments, highlighting development and training needs, and setting clear future goals with action plans. This approach ensures that the review is fair, motivating, and aligned with both employee development and organizational goals. 

Ultimately, effective performance reviews and self-assessments create a culture of continuous improvement, open communication, and mutual understanding, driving both individual and organizational success. By committing to these practices, employees and managers at Jefferson ensure that performance reviews are not just an annual task but a meaningful part of professional development and organizational strategy. 

About the Author:  

Marty Mackes, the Chief Delivery Officer at Jefferson, stands as a testament to over three decades of distinguished service in delivering solutions to Federal Government clients. His expertise spans across Homeland Security, Defense, Intel, and Civilian agencies. Marty’s leadership has been instrumental in steering an exceptionally talented team, fostering a culture of extraordinary delivery while aligning with business growth and corporate strategies. He oversees Jefferson’s Mission Support Team, including Enterprise Program Management, Talent Acquisition, Contracts, and IT. 

His academic background includes a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Old Dominion University. Marty’s commitment to industry excellence is reflected in his chairmanship of the Homeland Defense Business Council (HSDBC). 

You’re interested in selling to the federal government?  Perhaps you’ve won a contract or two or have been told that the government buys what you sell?  Why not give it a shot?  The good news is that the U.S. federal government is a fantastic customer – it has a huge budget and pays its bills.  However, it is important to understand that sustained success in the federal space requires understanding the ins and outs of this complex market and dedicating the needed resources to commit to the market.  Jefferson can help you understand the how, when, and who of federal contracting.

Getting Started

You can’t be successful selling to a market you don’t understand.  Assessing the market, analyzing your competitors, and understanding the federal-specific security and compliance requirements are necessary to effectively pursue the market.  You will need to identify which federal agencies are most likely to need your products or services.  Researching who your competitors are, what contracts they’ve won, and their strategies will allow you to better understand the market landscape.  If you find a sufficient addressable market, it’s time to get started!

How? – Strategies for Success

Commit to the market!  Success in federal market requires top-down buy-in of the government as a customer.  Budget should be dedicated for business development, federal marketing, and proposals with an understanding that the federal sales cycle is often much longer than the commercial sales cycle.  Specific elements of creating success in the federal market include:

• Strategy – Based on your market research, develop a business development/ marketing strategy that is consistent with your internal bandwidth.  Do not attempt to respond to everything.  Take the time to understand your target customer.  The government is looking for a partner that knows their pain points and culture.
• Marketing – Your marketing strategy should be part of an overall business development strategy. Every marketing activity should be tied to advancing a business objective. 
• Processes – Federal contracting is a complex web of policies, regulations, and requirements.  Familiarize yourself with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations), which governs all federal procurement processes, and understand all the compliance requirements specific to your industry and any regulations pertinent to your products or services.
• Flexibility – Be flexible and strategic when addressing federal acquisition barriers.  Team with small businesses for set-aside contracts or integrators for large programs.  Demonstrate success incrementally, prove yourself as a problem solver and solutions provider, and become a trusted partner to shape how the Agency procures the service or product.

When? – Understanding the Lifecycle 

The federal sales cycle is typically longer than the commercial cycle and has strict timelines around when industry can and cannot engage with the government.

Pre-Request for Proposal (RFP) Market Research: The government conducts market research to understand if products/services are available to meet its need.  This is the appropriate time to meet, brand, and position with the government.

RFP Development: The government is defining its scope of work.  While discussions with the government are allowed by law, communication with the Program Office may be limited or not permitted.

Active Competition: Once the government releases the RFP, no communication is permitted with the Program Office until contract award.

Contract Award and Implementation: Open communication is permitted.

Who? – Decision-makers, Stakeholders, Influencers

Decision-Makers

• Contracting Officers (COs): They are authorized to enter into, administer, and terminate contracts on behalf of the federal government. They ensure that all contract actions comply with federal laws, regulations, and policies.
• Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs): Designated by (COs) to perform certain contract administration duties. As the CO’s representative, they ensure proper implementation of requirements, monitor the technical efforts being performed under the contract, and are responsible for the day-to-day administration of a contract.
• Program Managers (PMs): Responsible for the overall planning, execution, and performance of specific programs. They define the requirements and work closely with contracting officers to procure necessary goods and services.
• Senior Executives and Agency Heads: High-ranking officials within federal agencies who provide strategic direction and approve major procurement decisions.

Stakeholders

• End Users: Individuals or groups within federal agencies who will directly use the procured goods or services. Their needs and feedback are critical in defining requirements and evaluating contractor performance.
• Agency Procurement Offices: Responsible for managing the acquisition process within their respective agencies. They ensure compliance with federal acquisition regulations and policies.
• Financial Officers: Ensure that funds are available and properly allocated for procurements. They play a role in budget planning and approval.
• Legal Advisors: Provide legal guidance to ensure contracts are compliant with laws and regulations. They assist in resolving disputes and interpreting contract provisions.
• Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU): Advocates for small businesses and ensures they have opportunities to participate in federal contracting.

Influencers

• Industry Associations and Advocacy Groups: Organizations like the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) and Professional Services Council (PSC) represent the interests of contractors and influence procurement policies and practices.
• Lobbyists: Representing various industries and companies, lobbyists work to influence legislation and policy decisions affecting federal contracting.
• Congress: Through legislation and oversight, Congress influences federal contracting by setting budgets, passing procurement laws, and conducting hearings on contracting practices.
• Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Provides oversight and guidance on federal procurement policies, ensuring they align with broader administration goals.
• General Services Administration (GSA): Influences contracting by providing centralized procurement for federal agencies and setting policies and standards.
• Auditing and Oversight Bodies: Entities such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and agency Inspectors General (IG) review and report on federal contracting activities, influencing practices through their findings and recommendations.
• Media and Public Opinion: Coverage of federal contracting practices and controversies can shape public perception and influence policymakers.

Foundational market research and an understanding the how, who, and when of the federal market are key to getting started in the federal market.  Jefferson can help develop and execute your strategy!  View our capabilities.

About the author:  

MJ Sivulich is a Senior Vice President and leads Jefferson’s business solutions practice.  MJ provides federal business development, capture, proposal, government affairs, and marketing support to industry clients.  To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s federal business development services, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.  

Hybrid work strategies are more than just scheduling in-person work; they are about creating sustainable relationships with colleagues and meaningful exchanges between distributed workers to advance the organizational mission and improve the employee experience. 

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations have been wrestling with a ‘new reality’ that is increasingly defined by remote work. But this new reality is not necessarily new, only the scale at which workers are opting to work remotely. As of 2023, nearly 40 percent of employees work from home at least part of the time, if not working fully remote¹. 

This means managing and contributing to work and teams requires an increased dependence on and proficiency with digital communication and collaboration tools. It also means that traditional in-office approaches to work need to be redefined in the distributed context. The outcome is that individual schedules are defined by the work being performed, not personal preference.  

Three keys to success in a hybrid environment: 

• Let the Work Drive the Schedule. The nature of the work being performed and the necessary interactions between employees to complete that work must be considered first, before determining work schedules. Work must be assessed independent of traditional work configurations to expose the optimal opportunity to work remotely, or meaningfully connect in person.  
• Optimize Informal Communication. Investing in advanced digital communication solutions (i.e., instant messaging, audio and video calling, mobile access) will provide employees a variety of ways of connecting with their colleagues in real-time, share work, and rapidly resolve issues or remove impediments to productivity.   
• Manage Meetings Better. Enhancing employee’s proficiency in running efficient meetings is more than facilitation, it is creating agendas that can be realistically accomplished in a short duration while determining the best method (in-person, remote, hybrid) to meet the requirements of the meeting. Effective meeting managers are also proficient in participant selection, driving the discussion and controlling side conversations, and identifying and communicating clear, actionable tasks for participants.  

Establishing sound hybrid practices must be a deliberate action taken, supported from the top down, and designed to be sustainable, but not rigid. Organizations will need to consider their hybrid values, adopt standards of communication, establish a routine cadence for both collaboration and individual contributions, and purposefully evaluate the outputs and outcomes of hybrid strategies. This approach will ensure they are able not only to both meet the needs of the organization and adapt to future operating conditions, but also to create a meaningful employee experience.  

Jefferson has developed an approach to creating meaningful hybrid workforce strategies that ensure compliance with governmentwide requirements, while also preparing agency workforces to operate in a hybrid environment. Very often agencies need to focus on manager readiness to effectively lead with maximum workplace flexibilities. This may include establishing meeting management protocols, programming individual work time into daily schedules, and improving facilitation and event planning skills to promote sound time management practices. 

About the Author:  
Jd Walter, PhD, is the Executive Director of Human Capital Programs for Jefferson. Jd has a PhD in Public Administration, an MPA and an MS in Organization and Management with a specialization in Human Resource Management. Jd has nearly 30 years of experience in and around the federal sector, including active-duty military, defense contracting, civil service and management advisory services, with an emphasis on working with executives to improve organizational performance and the employee experience. To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s solutions, please email jwalter@jeffersonsg.com 

The federal contracting process is complex and not for the faint of heart.  Determining how to establish or expand a footprint in federal can be a tough investment decision for industry executive teams.  While many contractors have some government business through “being reactive,” responding to RFPs/RFQs that pop up in SAM or eBuy, they lack a comprehensive strategy to support sustained intentional growth.  The first step of building out a strong federal BD strategy is market research, because you can’t be successful selling into a market that you don’t understand.

Market research should answer questions such as:

• What is the size of the addressable market?
• What are the potential market catalysts and inhibitors (e.g. legislative mandates, OMB policy, IG/GAO investigations, etc)?
• How is the agency buying the product/service today (e.g. contract vehicles)?
• What are the agency’s pain points and how does the solution address them?
• Who is the competition, how much federal revenue does each competitor have, and who are their agency customers?

Ultimately, you need enough information to identify your target market, define the fit of your products and services, outline your pricing strategy, describe how your products will be distributed or how a customer will access your services, develop a promotion strategy, review your competition, and prepare a marketing budget.  Market research will provide you with the foundational information needed to create a business development strategy.  Elements of research include:

• Understand the rules — The federal government operates under a complex web of regulations and compliance standards. Contractors must understand these regulations to ensure they meet the necessary criteria for bidding on contracts and conducting business with the government. Familiarity with regulations such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) is essential.
• Determine how the agency buys — Government contracts are typically awarded through a competitive bidding process. The primary contracting methods used by the government are simplified acquisition procedures, contract by negotiation, and consolidated purchasing programs (GSA schedules, Government Wide Acquisition Contracts, and other multiple award vehicles). Knowing how contracts are solicited, evaluated, and awarded is necessary to successfully secure contracts.
• Understand the sales cycle – Branding and positioning for work happens in the pre-RFP development phase and market research phase.  This can begin a year or more before an RFP is released. Once an RFP is issued it can take several months or a year (or more for very large procurements) before an award is made. Familiarity with the sales cycle will allow you to better resource your federal growth function and manage expectations.
• Understand post-award cycle — Most government services contracts include an initial period of performance of 12 months (base year), with four 12-month option periods, for a total of five years.  The government has the authority to exercise these option periods based upon its satisfaction with the contractor’s performance, the availability of funds, and agency on-going requirements/needs.
• Identify market dynamics — The federal market has its own unique dynamics and trends. Understanding the current landscape, including which agencies have budget allocations for specific projects, emerging priorities, and upcoming opportunities, is vital for positioning oneself as a competitive contractor.
• Understand contract types and requirements — Federal contracts can vary widely in terms of scope, duration, and requirements. Contractors must understand the different types of contracts (e.g., fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, time and materials) and the specific requirements associated with each. The government may also require federal-specific certifications such as FedRAMP, ATO, or CMMI.  Knowing the needs and requirements of government agencies is necessary to tailor proposals and develop solutions to meet those needs and requirements.
• Identify competition — The federal market is highly competitive, with numerous contractors vying for contracts. Identifying the key players, their capabilities, and their strategies can help contractors identify opportunities for collaboration or differentiation.
• Know the players –Building relationships with government agencies, procurement officers, and other contractors is necessary for long term success in the federal market. Cultivating strong relationships can help contractors identify opportunities and teaming partners, navigate challenges, and ultimately win contracts.

A thorough understanding of the federal market is important for anyone seeking to become a government contractor. It involves knowledge of regulations, the bidding process, market dynamics, contract types, competition, and relationship building. By understanding the target market, contractors can position themselves for success in the complex and competitive world of government contracting. 

Jefferson provides Market Assessments for clients looking to enter or expand in the federal market.  View our Market Research capabilities.

About the author:  

MJ Sivulich is a Senior Vice President and leads Jefferson’s business solutions practice.  MJ provides federal business development, capture, proposal, government affairs, and marketing support to industry clients.  To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s federal business development services, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.  

Agile + Empathy: The Formula to Government Innovation 

Government projects must strike a balance of efficiency and impact to deliver meaningful services and solutions that meet public needs. At Jefferson, we recognize that a successful strategy for achieving this balance is to combine agile project management — an iterative approach emphasizing continuous releases and incorporation of customer feedback — with Human-Centered Design (HCD) principles — a creative approach to developing a service or solution that centers on the end user’s perspective and needs. This strategy not only streamlines and speeds up the delivery of services and solutions, but it also ensures that these services and solutions are designed with a focus on the end user, making sure their needs are met in every step along the way. Agencies that leverage agile project management and HCD can expect to improve adaptability and responsiveness to changing demands and realize outcomes directly aligned to the needs, and expectations of the citizens and individuals that they serve.  

Blending Agile and HCD 

In the digital age, government agencies must move quickly to adapt and respond to rapidly evolving changes while still delivering impactful services, which is where agile project management comes into play. Agile breaks large projects into smaller, manageable tasks, in which teams can focus on iteratively delivering specific features or services, allowing for regular feedback and adjustments during short sprints. This is particularly valuable in the context of reducing the risk of project delays and budget overruns in government projects.  

By adding HCD into the mix, agencies can understand their actual users’ needs to not only move projects forward faster but also ensure those projects really make a difference to the public. Just as its name suggests, HCD is a project approach that puts the people who will be using a service or solution at the center of its design to develop something tailored to their needs. When combined with agile project management, HCD is the driving force behind each iteration to align the service or solution with the user’s experience and feedback. As a result, the project team is continuously validating and refining their approach based on real user insights instead of proceeding based on the team’s assumptions. 

How to Embrace Agile-HCD Approach 

To integrate HCD into agile processes, it is key to involve the end-users early and often to create solutions that are useful, useable, and desirable. For instance, the team could conduct user research before the first sprint or incorporate user feedback directly into the sprints. HCD tools such as personas, empathy maps, and user journey maps help keep the user’s perspective at the center of every decision and iteration. Embracing this combined strategy also requires a culture shift towards continuous improvement and user engagement, which can be fostered with the support of expert partners. 

At first pass, it may seem as though these concepts fit well with major development efforts. However, at Jefferson, we have seen the significant impact of applying HCD in its agile projects through our support of “low code” solution development and business process automations for federal agencies.  We “begin with the end in mind”, as Stephen Covey would say, first forming integrated project teams and listening to our clients and their customers regarding their pain points or administratively burdensome tasks. We pair this with conducting research, shadowing the “as-is” process, and brainstorming ideas for solving these challenges as ultimately, these clients and customers will be the ones working the solution. We meet frequently to observe and ideate on the current processes and possible “to-be” solutions, to see things through their point of view, and we embrace the opportunity to learn together what works and what does not work. As a team, we then determine the solution, work together on how the solution will be developed, tested, deployed, and communicated, while identifying and documenting additional ideas and possible enhancements throughout. By utilizing this combined approach of agile management and HCD, we can quickly produce results that our clients and their customers benefit from and feel positive about and proud to support. 

Jefferson is committed to continue this work, to collaborate with government agencies to not only improve their operational efficiency but also to gain a better understanding of the citizens and individuals they impact.  

About the Author:

Michelle Straughn is a Senior Vice President and leads Jefferson’s Infrastructure and Natural Resources Portfolio.  Michelle has a Master’s of Public Management (MPM) in Finance and a Bachelor of Art degree in Government and Politics, both from the University of Maryland, College Park.  Michelle has over 25 years of management advisory services, operations, and Information Technology experience supporting federal, state, and non-profit clients.  To contact the author or learn more about Jefferson’s solutions, please email contact@jeffersonsg.com.