Shaping the Buy: A Playbook for Responding to Federal SSNs and RFIs
Sources Sought Notices (SSNs) and Requests for Information (RFIs) are formal instruments of market research under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Properly handled, they are a contractor’s earliest and often most consequential opportunity to influence set-aside determinations, contract structure, and evaluation criteria before requirements harden into a solicitation. FAR Part 10 prescribes the purpose and minimum requirements of market research; FAR 15.201 further encourages early exchanges and makes explicit that RFI responses are not offers and cannot form a contract—so they should be framed for planning, not negotiation. (Acquisition)
Small-business policy is tightly woven into market research. Under the “Rule of Two,” contracting officers (COs) must set aside many open-market acquisitions for small businesses when there is a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible small firms can perform at a fair market price (FAR 19.502-2). FAR Subpart 19.5 provides the framework for total and partial set-asides and documentation duties that underpin those choices. Separate—and increasingly salient—policy developments clarify that set-aside decisions for orders under multiple-award contracts (e.g., GSA MAS) are generally an exercise of CO discretion, which raises the premium on informative, data-rich responses that de-risk a set-aside choice. (Acquisition)
COs must document acquisition planning with evidence proportionate to the requirement’s size and complexity. High-quality contractor inputs (capacity proofs, realistic KPIs/SLAs, and credible ramp and surge plans) directly feed those records and routinely become the skeleton of the draft PWS and evaluation scheme. Government guidebooks (e.g., DAU templates and MITRE’s market-research guide) reinforce that market research is the venue for aligning outcomes, constraints, and risk controls before competition. (Dau.edu)
Objectives that should govern every SSN/RFI response
1) Establish credible fit and present capacity in operational terms.
Replace generalities with numbers: FTE levels by daypart, throughput or cycle time, fill-rate targets, bench depth, facility or clearance readiness, and time-to-start. These are the artifacts COs need to conclude that sources capable of satisfying the requirement exist (FAR 10.001). (Acquisition)
2) Shape strategy through risk-reducing proposals.
Offer a handful of achievable KPIs/SLAs and reasoned recommendations on contract mechanics (e.g., task-order cadence or inspection access windows). FAR 15.201 encourages such exchanges; they often transfer verbatim into evaluation standards. (Acquisition)
3) Inform the set-aside decision with explicit math.
If small, show compliance with Limitations on Subcontracting (≥50% of the cost, excluding materials) and identify which labor categories you will prime. If large, propose category targets (SB/SDVOSB/8(a)/WOSB/HUBZone) and the governance by which you will hold them. For MAS orders, remember that set-asides are discretionary; make doing so look lower-risk by supplying capacity and performance evidence the CO can cite. (U.S. General Services Administration)
4) Make government evaluation easy.
Mirror the notice’s structure, answer each question fully and concisely, and respect forms and page limits. DAU’s report template underscores that complete, organized responses reduce clarification cycles and strengthen the government’s file. (Dau.edu)
A methodical structure for high-impact responses
Executive “signal” (≤½ page).
Open with the contracting basics (UEI/CAGE, NAICS with size status, vehicles, geographic reach) and a one-sentence statement of intent to perform as prime (or JV/mentor-protégé) for the specific scope and location. Add a standard footer on every page: “Provided for market-research planning purposes only; not an offer.” This tracks FAR 15.201 language and manages expectation. (Acquisition)
Capabilities mapped to the requirement (1–2 pages).
Organize by PWS thread rather than your org chart. For each thread: (a) Approach—methods, tools, and standards; (b) Proof—two or three metric-bearing past-performance “receipts” (e.g., fill-rate ≥98.5%, inspection ≥93/100); (c) Risk control—where programs fail and how you detect/correct; (d) Transition/sustainment—ramp speed, bench, surge band. This mirrors the way COs document their conclusions in market-research reports. (Dau.edu)
Capacity & staffing realism (½ page).
Translate capacity into quantifiable commitments: baseline FTEs and surge, 24-hour recall plans, time-to-fill for critical roles, supervisor spans of control, training cadence, and first KPI review timing (e.g., T+30). These details demonstrate a practical path from award to steady-state.
Small-business posture & teaming (¼–½ page).
If small, cite the NAICS size standard and show the performance-of-work math and role ownership. If large, provide category goals, role allocations, and control loops (monthly dashboards, corrective-action windows). This information directly supports 19.5 documentation. (Acquisition)
ROM basis when invited (¼–½ page).
When an RFI solicits pricing input, supply a Reasonableness-Only Model: identify drivers (SCA labor mix, shift differentials, attendance curves, consumables per unit, productivity), list inclusions/exclusions, and show a ±5% volume and ±1% wage sensitivity. This helps the agency test affordability without boxing you into future offer terms, and aligns with the “planning information” purpose of RFIs. (Acquisition)
Questions and recommendations (¼ page).
Close with precise, risk-reducing questions that tee up clarifications and better PWS drafting (e.g., data rights/acceptance testing, inspection access, lotting or geographic segmentation to improve competition among smalls). FAR 15.201 encourages these exchanges. (Acquisition)
Advanced tactics to shape the eventual procurement
Propose KPIs with provenance.
Ground proposed thresholds in achieved results of similar programs (e.g., historical cycle times, uptime) rather than aspirational targets. Because market research is designed to test feasibility and risk, data-anchored KPIs are more likely to be adopted.
Offer pilots or demonstrations selectively.
Where the notice suggests uncertainty or novelty (IT, process innovation, or mission-critical logistics), a time-bounded demo with explicit exit criteria can de-risk adoption for the government at the planning stage.
Flag constraints with pragmatic mitigations.
Facility access lead times, cybersecurity obligations (CUI/SCIF), data availability, or potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) can derail timelines. Use the RFI to surface these facts and propose remedies (e.g., phased access, interim architectures, firewalled teams). DAU materials stress that good market research exposes constraints early. (Dau.edu)
Stay current on evolving guidance.
In 2025 the FAR Council issued “FAR Overhaul” (RFO) deviations that streamline Parts 10 and 15 and clarify expectations for market research and RFIs; GSA likewise issued deviations on ordering and MAS program practices, including explicit statements about CO discretion at the order level. These updates reinforce the importance of concise, decision-oriented submissions. (Acquisition)
A ready-to-use response template (copy/paste)
Heading/Contact Block (½ page)
Company | UEI | CAGE | NAICS(s) & size status | Facility clearances | Vehicles (MAS/OASIS+/Agency IDIQs) | Geographic coverage | POC (email/phone).
Statement of intent: “We can perform as Prime for [scope, location], with [teaming construct if any], available to start within [X] days of award.”
Footer on every page: “Provided for market-research planning purposes only; not an offer. Some information proprietary.” (Acquisition)
1. Understanding & Outcomes (¼–½ page)
Two sentences restating the mission outcomes in the notice’s language; one sentence listing the 3–4 biggest risks you will control.
2. Capabilities by Requirement (1–2 pages)
For each PWS/requirement thread: Approach → Proof (metrics) → Tools/Standards → Risk controls → Transition/Sustainment.
3. Capacity & Staffing (½ page)
Baseline FTEs and surge; fill-rate commitments; bench and time-to-fill; escalation path and 24-hour recall; governance rhythm (weekly ops, monthly KPI, quarterly exec).
4. Small-Business/Teaming Plan (¼–½ page)
If small: “We will perform ≥50% of the cost of the contract excluding materials; prime staffing plan covers [roles].”
If large: target participation by category; where work will be placed; how you’ll track and meet goals. (Dau.edu)
5. ROM Basis (¼–½ page, if requested)
State assumptions and drivers; show ±5%/±1% volume/rate sensitivity; list inclusions/exclusions. (Purpose: inform planning, not negotiate). (Acquisition)
6. KPIs You Propose (¼ page)
3–6 measurable items with thresholds you will stand behind.
7. Questions & Recommendations (¼ page)
Ordering cadence, acceptance criteria, data/integration standards, facility access timelines, evaluation factors that reduce risk for both sides. (Acquisition)
Appendix A: One-Page Compliance Matrix
RFI/SSN question → section/page in your response.
PWS paragraph (if provided) → where you address it. (Acquisition)
Quick Checklist (printable)
Built a 1-page compliance matrix from the notice. (Acquisition)
Capability narrative mirrors PWS threads; every claim has a metric. (Dau.edu)
Clear small-biz capacity (≥50%) or robust small-biz participation model. (Acquisition)
Transition timeline & surge staffing are explicit. (Dau.edu)
UEI, CAGE, NAICS, vehicles, clearances, geographies listed. (Acquisition)
Questions posed that steer SLAs/contract type sensibly. (Acquisition)
Proprietary markings; “planning purposes only” disclaimer. (Acquisition)
Registered/visible in GSA MRAS; SAM.gov alerts set. (U.S. General Services Administration)
A well-constructed SSN/RFI response is not a marketing brochure—it is a rigorously sourced planning document that helps the government record credible answers to who can do the work, under what constraints, and with what risks and controls. By grounding your submission in FAR-aligned concepts (Part 10 market research, Part 15 exchanges) and small-business policy (Subpart 19.5 and related documentation), and by supplying quantitative proofs, KPI proposals, and explicit performance-of-work allocations, you materially improve the odds that the eventual solicitation reflects the standards and mechanics you can outperform against. In an environment where ordering under multiple-award contracts increasingly relies on CO discretion, disciplined, data-forward responses are the contemporaneous evidence that shapes both the set-aside decision and the evaluation framework you will face later. (Acquisition)
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general information only and reflects sources believed reliable at the time of writing, but accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. It is not legal, accounting, or procurement advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify requirements against the current FAR/agency supplements and consult qualified counsel.