solution

In -Tech Co Case Study

In 2003, In -Tech Co., started its operations as an engineering/manufacturing company. By 2013 the company had grown to a $30 million sales organization. The major business was with a government agency; a $25 million contract. The remaining $5 million consisted of smaller contracts varying from $10K to $50K.

The contract with the government was for 5 years and was up for renewal. The government made it clear to In -Tech that although they were satisfied with their technical performance, the renewal of the contract must go through competitive bidding following government regulations. The follow on contract was estimated to be around $12 million per year, for another 5 years with an award date of January 2014.

In May 2013, the RFP (request for proposal) was received at In -Tech Co. The technical specifications of the proposal were not considered a problem for the company. The company was confident that on technical merit alone, In -Tech Co would get the contract. However, the contract had a stipulation that the proposal must contain a section on, (a) how would the company manage the $12 million per year and a section on, (b) how the project management system at In -Tech Co functioned.

When In -Tech Co won the first contract in 2008, the above were not a requirement. All projects were accomplished through the traditional organizational structure. The project leaders were the line managers.

In July 2013, the company hired a consultant to provide training to the organization in project management. The consultant had an additional responsibility to work closely with the proposal team in response to the government project management requirements. In -Tech Co submitted the proposal to the government in September. In October, the government sent a list of questions to In -Tech Co concerning its proposal. Most of the questions were related to project management. The responses were sent within weeks.

In November 2013, In -Tech Co was notified by the government that it would not be granted renewed contract. During the usual post-award consultation, the government stated that they were not happy with their project management system.

Questions:

1. Was hiring a consultant the correct decision that In -Tech Co made? Briefly explain why?
2. How could In -Tech Co averted the loss of contract? (must be precise, not vague)
3. It seems that proposal evaluation committee considered project management expertise as important as technical expertise. Is this a proper way to evaluate projects? Need to explain.
4. If you were the consultant, would you have taken the added responsibility of working with the proposal writing team? Briefly explain.