In June 193, Kombs Engineering had grown to a company with $25 million in sales. The business base consisted of two contracts withe U.S Department of Energy (DOE), one for $15 milon and one for $8 milon. The remaining $2 mil-lion consisted of a variety of smaller jobs for $15,000 to $50,000 each. The larger contract with DOE was a five-year contract for $15 million per year. The contract was awarded in 1998 and was up for renewal in 1993. DOE had made it clear that, although they were very pleased with the technical perfomance of Kombs, the follow-on contract must go through competitive biding by law. Marketing inteligence indicated tha DOE intended to spend $10 million per year for five years on the follow-on contract with a tentative award date of October 1993. On June 21, 1993, the solictation for proposal was recieved at Kombs. The technical requirements of the proposal request were not considered to be a problem for Kombs. There was no question in anyone’s mind that on technical merit alone, Kombs would win the contract. The more serious problem was tha DOE required a separate section in the proposal on how Kombs would manage the $10 million/year poject as well as complete description of how the project mangement sytem at Kombs functioned. When Kombs won the original bid in 1998, there was no project mangement requirement. All projects at Kombs were accomplished through the traditional organizational structure. Line managers acted as project leaders. In July 193, Kombs hired a consultant to train the entire organization in project mangement. The consultant also worked closely with the proposal team in responding to the DOE project mangement requirements. The propsal was submitted to DOE during the second week of August. In Septmber 1993, DOE provide Kombs with a list of questions concerning its proposal. More than 95 percnt of the questions involved project mangement. Kombs responded to al questions. In October 1993, Kombs recieved notifcation that it would not be granted the contract. During a post-award conference, DOE stated tha they had no “faith” in the Kombs project mangement system. Kombs Engineering is no longer in business. 1. What was the reason for the loss of the contract? 2. Could it have been avertd? 3. Does it seem realistic that proposal evaluation committees could consider project mangement expertise to be as important as technical abilty?
In June 193, Kombs Engineering had grown to a company with $25 million in sales. The business base consisted of two contracts withe U.S Department of Energy (DOE), one for $15 milon and one for $8 milon. The remaining $2 mil-lion consisted of a variety of smaller jobs for $15,000 to $50,000 each. The larger contract with DOE was a five-year contract for $15 million per year. The contract was awarded in 1998 and was up for renewal in 1993. DOE had made it clear that, although they were very pleased with the technical perfomance of Kombs, the follow-on contract must go through competitive biding by law. Marketing inteligence indicated tha DOE intended to spend $10 million per year for five years on the follow-on contract with a tentative award date of October 1993. On June 21, 1993, the solictation for proposal was recieved at Kombs. The technical requirements of the proposal request were not considered to be a problem for Kombs. There was no question in anyone’s mind that on technical merit alone, Kombs would win the contract. The more serious problem was tha DOE required a separate section in the proposal on how Kombs would manage the $10 million/year poject as well as complete description of how the project mangement sytem at Kombs functioned. When Kombs won the original bid in 1998, there was no project mangement requirement. All projects at Kombs were accomplished through the traditional organizational structure. Line managers acted as project leaders.
In July 193, Kombs hired a consultant to train the entire organization in project mangement. The consultant also worked closely with the proposal team in responding to the DOE project mangement requirements. The propsal was submitted to DOE during the second week of August. In Septmber 1993, DOE provide Kombs with a list of questions concerning its proposal. More than 95 percnt of the questions involved project mangement. Kombs
responded to al questions.
In October 1993, Kombs recieved notifcation that it would not be granted the contract. During a post-award conference, DOE stated tha they had no “faith” in the Kombs project mangement system. Kombs Engineering is no longer in business.
1. What was the reason for the loss of the contract?
2. Could it have been avertd?
3. Does it seem realistic that proposal evaluation committees could consider project mangement expertise to be as important as technical abilty?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 5 steps
