Direct messaging: Jonathan Mostowski

How did you become a procurement nerd?

Like most people in the profession, I had never planned on getting into procurement.

When I graduated from college, I had a personal training business. I was about to get married and, while my business was successful, I was considering a more stable career.

I was given the opportunity to apply for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency paid intern program, and was selected. When I started as an intern at NGA buying laptops and printers off of existing blanket purchase agreements, I was pretty sure it wasn’t for me.

When I told my supervisor I was thinking of leaving, she offered to move me to Research and Development procurement. Now this seemed cool, buying future tech for a spy agency!

When I got there, the contracts were kind of a mess and much more complicated than standard HW purchases.

The truth is I am a fixer, and the harder the problem, the more obsessed I get with fixing it. And, well, there are lots of problems in procurement.

As I got into more complicated procurements, I could see how the key to fixing it was being an excellent business advisor. To do that I had to learn the rules.

I think where most people looked at the FAR as a bunch of complicated ways to get into trouble, I saw it as answers to questions. It just made sense to me.

From there, my career kind of took on a life of its own. The better I got at helping people, the harder challenges I was given. Before I knew it, I had sort of developed a reputation for fixing things and coming up with creative solutions. So that earned me a lot of freedom in the profession.

I started day dreaming about how to radically change procurements and since I had the freedom to try the ideas out, I did.

Who wouldn’t love something like that?

Your book, Leading Agile Acquisitions. What inspired you to write it? Who’s it for?

Ever since I was a little kid I wanted to be an author. Of course, back then I was thinking it would be in the sci-fi genre.

Unfortunately, between school, work, and family, I never really had the opportunity to commit that kind of time to it.

After four years of being a founding member at a start-up, I decided it was time to go out on my own and take my part-time consulting company full-time.

After wrapping up a major client, I suddenly found myself with something I had never had before: a huge block of time that I could decide how to use. This was it, this was the thing I needed to make it happen.

Throughout my career I have created an immense amount of content to support the acquisition community. From legislation and policy to YouTube videos and podcasts.

I like teaching and sharing what I know to help others. I figured it was time to put what I had learned down in one place. I wanted to leave something behind. Not that I plan on going anywhere, but, if, for some reason, I left this community, I wouldn’t selfishly be taking the experience with me.

The book is for anyone who wants to learn about making change in very bureaucratic constructs.

While the focus is on acquisitions, the lessons are not unique to that space. Of course it is also for my current and aspiring acquisition nerds as well, but I tried to write it in such a way that there is value regardless of your level of contract specific knowledge.

I hope it inspires people to believe that regardless of your place in an organization or your particular industry’s seemingly rigid culture, you can make a difference If you are willing to become a professional, learn your craft, and push boundaries through responsible risk taking.

As president of Agile Acquisitions, what’s your day-to-day look like?

I guess the thing I love about it, is there really isn’t a typical day. I get to pursue whatever I consider to be the most important tasks.

Of course, there are the mundane activities that are required when you own a business, from registrations to taxes, but beyond that I can choose to spend time being creative or tactical.

I am not particularly good (or comfortable even) doing the “networking thing,” but I love talking to people about acquisitions, business, and strategy. So, I spend some time most days doing what I suppose would be considered “business development,” but for me it’s just talking with peers.

Most of my business comes from referrals or people who see my content and want to learn more. I prefer it that way.

Of course I spend a big chunk of every day supporting my clients. Some have standing meetings, some time is spent answering questions as they come in.

I try to be ridiculously fast at answering my clients questions regardless of the day or time. That is one of the things I think they really value. I don’t want them wasting a second researching or guessing about anything in the acquisition space. Send me a text, email, Slack, etc. Most times I can answer it on the spot. If I need to do some research it will typically be within an hour or two.

I also have “big project clients.” Usually, these are my government clients and the work there resembles what I did at U.S. Digital Service and the Defense Digital Service. I am helping them redesign business processes, plan acquisitions, and do training. So, each of those clients get a block of time dedicated to moving those projects forward.

Beyond that, I go camping with the family, interesting restaurants with my wife, the gym with my son, walk my dogs, and train in martial arts whenever I can.

What’s an agile acquisition?

Agile acquisitions in government streamline the procurement process to be faster, more flexible, and responsive to the purchaser’s needs, leveraging a broad spectrum of federal acquisition authorities.

This approach, inspired by the process improvement methodologies of the Toyota Manufacturing System from the 1950s, later influenced various industry and project management methodologies in the U.S., such as lean development and the agile manifesto.

Agile acquisitions challenge the traditional, rigid perceptions of procurement by simplifying the governance of the acquisition process while still addressing key elements like cost, schedule, and technical and management aspects. It seeks to reduce the resources and effort required from both industry and evaluators by focusing on a more streamlined and effective procurement process.

The philosophy behind agile acquisitions is that many procedural complexities are self-imposed. With a deep understanding of statutes and regulations, the inherent flexibilities within these processes can be utilized to enhance efficiency.

The essence of agile acquisitions is to tailor the acquisition strategy and planning to closely align with the highest priorities of stakeholders, ensuring their objectives are effectively met.

This approach prioritizes efficiency and incorporates the waste-elimination principles of Lean Development. It is dynamic, continually adapting to deliver the most value according to the current context.

For instance, depending on mission needs, a requirement owner might prioritize speed over competitiveness, cost over time, or long-term flexibility over immediate delivery. These adjustments are strategic levers to fine-tune the acquisition strategy, ensuring it aligns with desired outcomes and is responsive to the evolving needs of stakeholders without being bound by historical precedents.

What’s the opposite of an agile acquisition?

The opposite of an agile acquisition would be a traditional or waterfall acquisition.

This approach to procurement is characterized by its linear, sequential phases where each stage must be completed before the next one begins. It is typically less flexible, with requirements being defined in detail at the outset and changes being difficult to incorporate once the process has started.

This traditional method often results in longer timelines and less adaptability to changing needs or unforeseen challenges, contrasting sharply with the iterative, responsive nature of agile acquisitions.

When does agile fail?

Agile fails most commonly, for the same reason most things fail: people.

Agile can be made more difficult or less effective when it is watered down with historical waterfall processes, but that isn’t what typically makes it fail.

Failure comes from having the wrong team. By that I mean the wrong vendor and/or the wrong government team.

Having the wrong vendor is sort of self explanatory whether it is the wrong skill set, wrong sized team, or simply not understanding how to deliver under an agile contract/program.

When it comes to the government the biggest issue is not having an empowered qualified product owner who understands and accepts the definition of the minimum viable product and understands how to stay true to the product vision while responding to user feedback.

Not having the security office onboard to support agile releases is a common barrier that diminishes the value of agile, but it can be managed.

Having government leadership that doesn’t understand incremental delivery and what an MVP should be is what I most commonly see when I am asked to come in and “fix” a procurement. The result is unwillingness to accept deliveries, increased frustration, and loss of trust from both sides.

Typically, in an attempt to save their CPARs (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System), the vendor will come to the table without any leverage to try and negotiate a work plan that satisfies the government’s concerns. The result will often far exceed a true MVP, it will take longer than expected, and the vendor will start losing money. This is a failure that hasn’t been accepted yet.

What do you mean by ‘hacking procurement’?

Generally, when people refer to hacking procurement, what they are really describing is someone who understands the rules well enough to know there is an alternative to meet the objective when they have been told no.

Personally, I rarely “hack” procurement.

Hacking suggests some sort of unauthorized action or perhaps breaking something. In practice, In the world of ethical procurement, this typically means obtaining a temporary waiver or “going over someone’s head” to get approval.

There are times when this is the right thing to do. When I was supporting DoD, for example, and there were lives at risk, then I have at times chosen to use such approaches.

It is important to remember though that there are repercussions. Hacking is breaking glass, once broken it is difficult to repair. Pissing off people to get your way may work (once) but at some point you have lost an ally, made others cautious and you will run out of good-will. Good-will is far more powerful and sustainable than force.

Temporary waivers are great but, as the name suggests, it is not sustainable, so you are pushing the obstruction off for another day or for someone else to deal with.

That is lazy. Again, if there is a good reason for it, then absolutely I will use it, but if time and necessity permit it, I would just assume to fix the problem through existing or alternative authorities or working with those that control policies to make permanent change through logical and well researched proposals.

How do we hack it?

The short answer; build relationships, study your craft, be creative, and take responsible risks.

What’s your TLDR acquisition advice to government?

Stop making it so hard.

Most of the challenges in acquisition are self-inflicted reactions by risk-adverse bureaucrats responding to isolated instances or perceptions of malfeasance. Stick to the rules, find the shortest path, and reduce redundancy and anything that does not add true value.

Stop trying to build protest proof acquisitions. There is no such thing and protests would be less likely if acquisitions moved faster because there would be more opportunities for vendors.

• Simplify processes: Cut through complexity by eliminating unnecessary steps that don’t add real value.
• Minimize redundancy: Reduce redundant checks and paperwork that bog down the acquisition cycle.
• Accelerate timelines: Speed up acquisitions to decrease the likelihood and impact of protests by providing more frequent vendor opportunities.
• Embrace risk: Accept that some level of risk is inherent and avoid over-engineering solutions to be protest-proof—there is no such thing.
• Focus on value: Concentrate on actions that genuinely enhance value and efficiency in the procurement process.

To industry?

Stop protesting.

Unless there is a clear valid reason that will likely result in an overturn of the decision that may end in your favor. That is a very small number.

If you want more insight into why you didn’t win, stop making the government feel like everything they say is exposing them to risk. Wait a reasonable amount of time after the award and ask for more feedback about how you can submit more competitive proposals.

Hire an acquisition coach that can help you navigate and work with the government more naturally so you can stop guessing. Also, hire a lobbyist that can get your offerings added to language even if just by category and help you identify currently approved budgets that align to your offerings and the organizations that received them.

Limit protests: Only protest when there’s a substantial likelihood of overturning the decision in your favor.

• Seek constructive feedback: Allow time after contract awards before requesting detailed insights on how to improve future proposals.
• Build trust: Encourage open dialogue by minimizing perceived risk for government officials during feedback discussions.

Hire an acquisition coach: Engage a coach to help you navigate government processes more effectively, reducing the need for guesswork.

Employ a lobbyist: Use a lobbyist to integrate your offerings into legislative language and identify budgets and organizations aligned with your services.

Biggest mistakes each make.

Government:

Optimizing risk avoidance over operational efficiency and success. Perfection is the enemy of good.

• Inhibiting quick decision-making by over-emphasizing comprehensive reviews and approvals that delay action.
• Missing opportunities to learn from iterative developments by not implementing pilot programs or phased rollouts.

Industry:

Lack of proactive engagement and strategic positioning.

• Late engagement: Entering competitions solely based on opportunities seen on the Government Point of Entry without prior awareness or preparation.
• Passive inquiries: Failing to engage actively and ask probing questions during the government’s market research phase, which limits understanding and influences on potential solicitations.

Best procurement resources for government.

Agile Acquisitions, LLC. 🙂

There are many. The TechFAR Hub and 18F’s website are great places to start.

Talk to industry. I get some of my best ideas by asking industry (large and small companies) what they are thinking and how they would like to see things done differently.

I know it sounds self-serving, but bringing on an acquisition coach can be invaluable. There is no reason for agencies to try and reinvent the wheel. Hiring someone who has done what you are trying to do will save you countless hours and should be able to connect you with other government agencies that have already done it to help reduce the risks of uncertainty or being the first one.

And industry.

This is a harder question to answer. It really depends on what problem they are trying to solve.

If it is navigating procurement, then the answer is probably the same as above.

But the biggest challenge that industry faces is finding customers who want what they offer and have the budget to buy it in that fiscal year. After you have that, then you need to be creative in helping them find a way to buy it from you.

Depending on the maturity of the company that could take many forms.

If the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) asked for your acquisition advice, what would you say?

1. Reimagine appropriations: The current limitations imposed by fiscal year constraints and the specific use of funds significantly hinder operational efficiency. Particularly during periods of Continuing Resolutions (CRs), which are increasingly common, these restrictions impede proactive financial management. To address this, I recommend implementing a policy that rewards program offices for fiscal prudence. Specifically, offices that manage to underspend their budgets should have the option to “bank” their unspent funds for future use on innovative solutions. This change would not only encourage efficient budget use, but also foster an environment where saving funds does not penalize future appropriations.
2. Expand Other Transaction Authority (OTA): I propose broadening the scope of OTAs to specifically include all aspects of software development and modern IT solutions. This expanded authority should be available to every federal agency and extended to all warranted Contracting Officers. Such a change would accelerate the procurement process for cutting-edge technologies, facilitating more rapid adaptation and implementation of IT advancements across the government.
3. Streamline legal redundancies in contract clauses: Many contract clauses duplicate prohibitions that are already covered by U.S. law, adding unnecessary complexity and redundancy to government contracts. For instance, the clause against human trafficking merely reiterates existing legal prohibitions. I suggest that all such redundant clauses be replaced with a single provision stating that any violation of U.S. law by a contractor constitutes grounds for default termination. This approach would simplify contract language and focus enforcement on substantial legal compliance, enhancing clarity and reducing administrative burdens.

Imagine a procurement-perfect world. What does it look like?

In a procurement-perfect world, the acquisition process would be optimized for efficiency, transparency, and innovation, ensuring maximum value for all stakeholders.

Here’s an enhanced vision of such a world:

1. Streamlined processes: Simplified and clear guidelines would minimize bureaucratic delays, with automation and AI handling routine tasks and compliance checks, speeding up the procurement cycle.
2. Total transparency with security considerations: Every step of the procurement process would be transparent, allowing stakeholders to understand decisions and actions fully while also safeguarding sensitive information critical to national security.
3. Perfect alignment with needs: Dynamic systems would adjust procurement strategies to reflect current priorities and conditions, ensuring a perfect alignment with organizational goals.
4. Advanced data analytics: Robust data from past procurements would be leveraged using advanced analytics to optimize supply chains, predict needs, and assess risks, thus enhancing decision-making.
5. Seamless collaboration: Effective collaboration tools would ensure all parties, from internal teams to suppliers and regulatory bodies, are synchronized and working together efficiently.
6. Supplier innovation: Suppliers would be encouraged to innovate, with contracts designed to embrace new technologies and solutions, thus delivering greater value throughout the contract term.
7. Customized training and development for contracting officers: Contracting officers would engage in ongoing, specialized training similar to professionals in fields like medicine and law, ensuring they maintain cutting-edge procurement expertise.
8. Optimal supplier relationships: Strategic and collaborative supplier relationships would be based on trust, with suppliers integrated into the procurement process to foster continuous improvement.
9. Effort alignment with success probability: The effort required from industry and evaluators would be directly proportional to each offeror’s likelihood of success, streamlining resources towards the most promising proposals.
10. Higher bar for protests: The criteria for lodging protests would be stringent, ensuring only legitimate concerns are raised, thereby reducing frivolous disputes and focusing on genuine issues.

In this ideal procurement landscape, the system not only supports but actively propels organizational success and innovation, establishing procurement as a pivotal strategic function.