The LAB's Yearly Digest FY2025 - Building Our Acquisition Muscle

The Warm-Up

Welcome to our FY25 Yearly Digest!

Prior fiscal years focused on the first two core functions of The LAB: Learning and Assessing. Catch up on prior Yearly Digests to review the approaches to learning and assessing our acquisition workforce.

In FY25, we focused on BUILDING. This past year was about building our acquisition muscle, strengthening core processes, and flexing our influence. The LAB played a pivotal role in shaping federal procurement by supporting the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) - providing key edits, guidance, and job aids for numerous FAR part revisions. Alongside this strategic work, we continued to coach and consult acquisition teams throughout the Department, launched a comprehensive new training, helped defend several bid protests, collaborated with internal and external stakeholders, overhauled our website (including new pages), streamlined policy, and finally badged some new Coaches! FY25 was a year of building strength and setting a new pace for what's possible.

A Word from Our Sponsor

This year’s digest shows that acquisition innovation is not a one-time sprint — it is a disciplined training regimen, more akin to a marathon. Across FY25, The LAB helped teams strengthen their acquisition strategies, build endurance through complex challenges, and flex new approaches to deliver better mission outcomes. Each section featured in this report reflects the hard work, creativity, and persistence of the people who made progress possible.

As we look ahead, our focus is on keeping that momentum moving: improving our form, increasing our pace, and helping more teams reach their personal bests in acquisition. The LAB’s work demonstrates what is possible when we train together, challenge old routines, and stay focused on results. I am proud of the progress captured here and excited for the next set of projects in FY27 and beyond.

Olivia Bradley, Senior Procurement Executive

Just like our bodies, an organization's core can be neglected over time as we stretch ourselves into other areas of need. The LAB has expanded into many other areas of need since FY23, but it still prioritizes its core function: coaching and consulting acquisition teams as they innovate toward better outcomes and a more efficient, streamlined journey for both government and industry. In The LAB, we call these procurement projects.

After a sharp rise in completed procurement projects from FY23 to FY24 (1 to 10), our projection for FY25 was six. The final tally was seven projects that summed to $9.5B in total value.

In our prior yearly digests, we only championed the successes of a single procurement project from the fiscal year. This year, we captured all seven as Government Acquisition Innovation Narratives (GAINs). Storytelling and sharing are important steps in building the acquisition innovation muscle and in fostering a learning culture in any organization — and GAINs can help! Each GAIN accounts for an entire journey with an acquisition team: its stakeholders, rounds of training, brainstorming, innovating, myth-busting, and culture building. Each GAIN captured involved the contracting team working alongside the program office to develop targeted evaluation criteria, which made submitting responses more direct and succinct for industry. Each GAIN involved working early with the attorney-advisors to assess and mitigate risk. And each GAIN employed a multiple-phase down-select using confidence ratings, demonstrated prior experience through targeted questions or scenarios, a targeted final-phase submission (an oral presentation, demonstration, or brief written technical submission), and on-the-spot consensus evaluations with brief, bullet-style documentation (some briefer than others). Click on each GAIN card below for a high-resolution copy! 

Heavy Lifters: A massive thank-you to all the teams who did the real heavy lifting — you should be proud of your ability to find the best partner for the mission, and to do so in a streamlined, efficient manner that turned out to be more fun than expected. Each GAIN and accompanying graphic includes the lead from contracting, the program, as well as the attorney-advisor. 

This multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, allowing firm-fixed price (FFP), labor hour (LH), and time and materials (T&M) orders, supports the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) by providing flexible solutions for disaster investigations involving structural failures, infrastructure performance, evacuation and emergency response procedures, evidence preservation, and fire- and earthquake-related analysis. Findings from these studies support improvements to national building and fire codes, standards, and related practices.

To streamline the acquisition process and reduce proposal burden for industry, NIST implemented a multi-track evaluation approach. Rather than requiring offerors to address every technical area of the IDIQ, vendors were permitted to compete within one or more specialized capability tracks aligned to their expertise. The four tracks established under the procurement were Primary (unrestricted), Earthquake, Evidence Preservation, and Fire (the latter three set aside for small business).

The goal was to ‘right-size’ submissions with targeted evaluation criteria for the two-phase advisory down-select. Factor 1 required an eight-page response for Demonstrated Prior Experience (allowing offerors to select one or multiple tracks). Factor 2 required a six-page response to a Mock Task Order, down from the initial 15-page requirement considered in acquisition planning. Factor 3 required a five-page response for the IDIQ Management Approach, down from the initial consideration of eight pages. Eliminated from initial consideration was a fourth factor on demonstrated problem solving and management, with elements incorporated into the other three factors. The price evaluation followed the Highest Technically Rated with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTRRP) model. The evaluation strategy significantly reduced the time and resources required for both proposal preparation and evaluation, while still promoting robust competition among highly qualified companies within each technical track. The acquisition structure ultimately provided NIST with a flexible, scalable contract vehicle capable of supporting a diverse range of disaster and failure study requirements. Strong on-ramp and off-ramp procedures, along with clear ordering procedures, will facilitate post-award administration to better enable the mission.

This National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) blanket purchase agreement (BPA) supports modernization of the federal spectrum data systems (FSDS) environment through Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Labor-Hour (LH), and Time-and-Materials (T&M) orders. The effort supports spectrum optimization, assessment, and decision-making capabilities through automated applications designed to reduce manual processes and improve operational efficiency.

The program strongly desired a contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) or other teaming or subcontracting relationship — where a large business and one or more small businesses teamed to perform portions of the work, increasing over time to 40% of the overall effort. Extensive market research included targeted requests for information (RFI) on SAM.gov, an interactive question-and-answer (Q&A) session with the program manager (over 90 attendees), eight one-on-one sessions, and a lightning-network industry day. The government hosted the industry day, allowing each industry partner to have three minutes to present their capabilities to other potential teaming partners and describe what they were seeking in a teaming agreement. A full draft solicitation was released, completing the Q&A period prior to release of the final solicitation. Phase 1 of the evaluation process included an advisory down-select process based on a review of Demonstrated prior experience as Factor 1, implemented confidence ratings, and reduced the competitive pool from nine vendors to three. All six vendors who were advised not to proceed to Phase 2 ultimately took the CO’s advice. 

Phase 2 required the submission of a technical volume in the form of an oral briefing as Factor 2 – Technical Approach – Interactive Oral Briefing, covering the FSDS solution, frequency assignment, system of systems approach, and management approach. Phase 2 additionally required a written submission of the following factors: Factor 3 – BPA Performance Work Statement (PWS) Work Plan, Factor 4 – Sample Task Order Approach, Factor 5 – Small Business Utilization Plan, and Factor 6 – Sample Task Order Pricing. The challenge-based oral briefings replaced lengthy written narratives, allowed vendors to present their technical approaches orally, and permitted an interactive dialogue with the acquisition team. This approach accelerated evaluations, improved the team’s understanding of proposed solutions, and reduced proposal burden for industry. The acquisition resulted in award within 78 days of the solicitation release and concluded without a protest.

The requirement was to provide an integrated, scalable, and flexible solution that met the Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) core support-service needs while maximizing the use of commercially available provisioned-service solutions. The acquisition team used the Department's Commerce Acquisition for Transformational Technology Services (CATTS) strategic sourcing vehicle — a small business set-aside — for this procurement. Leveraging CATTS minimized the need for the government to purchase or maintain new infrastructure and aligned with the Department's broader objectives of promoting modernization, efficiency, and cost-effective service delivery.

To support the mission-critical timeline and improve evaluation efficiency, the team implemented a firm down-select. Because the order was expected to be under $10M it followed FAR 16.505(b) procedures, making it generally not subject to a protest. The Phase 1 firm down-select on experience removed one vendor, reducing the burden on the evaluation team and allowing them to focus on the most highly qualified vendors for the Phase 2 oral briefings. For the oral briefings, vendors were afforded 30 minutes to present an approach to the PWS and answer questions, followed by another 30 minutes of interactive dialogue. The solicitation also included the Periodic Table of Acquisition Innovations (PTAI) technique Communicating Innovative Techniques with Industry (CITI), so small businesses could better understand the innovative techniques planned for the procurement. This approach proved effective, enabling the team to award at the end of the fiscal year while ensuring fairness and a quality review — just 35 days from solicitation issuance!

Led by the Office of Acquisition Management’s (OAM) Shared Services Procurement Office (SSPO), NETS sought to establish multiple-award BPAs using the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procedures of FAR 8.405-3 for Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) IT products, licenses, and supporting software orders. The three-phase advisory down-select began with Phase 1 as a full draft solicitation and an Opt-In period, during which the only Q&A period occurred. Phase 2 covered Demonstrated Prior Experience (1,500-word limit), and Phase 3 covered (original equipment manufacturer) OEM Certifications, which included evidence of OEM partnerships and letters of supply, followed by price. The best-value methodology followed the highest technically rated vendor with a fair and reasonable price (HTRV-RP). The Opt-In process brought the expected pool of competition of 18 vendors down to six. As a result, the maximum number of Phase 2 submissions was six. To further streamline the process, the team switched the evaluation factors of Phase 2 and 3 that were listed in the draft solicitation. The result moved the OEM submission to Phase 2, and the demonstrated prior experience, a factor that is more burdensome to prepare for and evaluate, to Phase 3. After Phase 2 evaluations, five of the six vendors were recommended to proceed to Phase 3, with all five receiving an award. 

A paragraph in the solicitation also included guidance for vendors considering artificial intelligence in its submission of quotes. The paragraph was titled Restriction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technologies in RFQ Submissions, and it stated “The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, including but not limited to AI-assisted writing tools and automated content generators, is expressly discouraged for the preparation of the required 500-word response narratives. All narratives should be the original work of the Quoter, demonstrating their unique expertise, methodologies, and compliance strategies. Quotes must represent the Quoter’s original work and must not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. Plagiarism, including the unauthorized use of AI-generated content, is strictly prohibited and may result in the quote being deemed non-compliant. By submitting a Phase III response, the Quoter certifies that the narratives provided were created without the assistance of AI technologies. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in disqualification of the submission response at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to investigate and verify the authenticity of the submitted narratives, including the use of open-source AI detection tools. Plagiarism, including the unauthorized use of AI-generated content, is strictly prohibited and may result in the quote being deemed non-compliant.” 

The CO implemented a New Concept called Fair Evaluations & Anonymous Reviews (FEAR), a double-blind technique where vendor names were masked at submission and then masked again for evaluations to support unbiased reviews and guard against any apparent incumbent favoritism. Each phase took the team less than a few hours to evaluate and document. An agency-level protest was withdrawn, and no post-award protests were received.

The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) required IT infrastructure operations support services to enable successful execution of a cloud adoption strategy that would modernize the application landscape, improve security, drive out infrastructure cost inefficiencies through centralization, coordination, and risk management, and position the agency for future improvements through a "Cloud Smart" approach. The acquisition solution was a $557M single-award BPA. Like many acquisitions at the Department, and within the USCB, the acquisition strategy was full of innovative procurement techniques including advisory down-selects, confidence ratings, and streamlined documentation. The CO wanted to go beyond written-only technical submissions. The goal was for the program to have high confidence in the awardee, including the ability to talk with the vendor and challenge their understanding of the requirement. The solicitation included Factor 4 - Oral Briefing/Technical Challenge Session as an Optional Phase & Factor. This novel innovative technique was socialized with the attorney-advisor and their leadership early to ensure complete understanding of the approach. After all technical evaluations were conducted (without looking at price), the team analyzed whether conducting this Optional Phase & Factor was necessary. The team determined the targeted experience and hyper-focused functional and subtask areas of the technical approach led to a clear winner, so this Optional Phase & Factor was not implemented.

Another novel technique used was Rates Only Pricing for Evaluations (ROPE). For a single-award BPA, the CO wanted the price analysis to focus on the ceiling rates of the BPA, rather than the contrived total price for an entire BPA. The ROPE method required vendors to quote only ceiling rates for the labor categories provided by the USCB. The evaluation team then applied those rates to its own internal estimate of hours to establish the total evaluated price for evaluation purposes. Protests at the agency, Small Business Administration (SBA), and Government Accountability Office (GAO) all culminated with protests at the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) as Case Nos. 24-1862, 24-1863, and 24-1875. This decision is a fun read, denying all claims with quotes like "That is competent, thorough work" and "thus, the SSA assured herself that the adjectival ratings did not hide relevant nuances. Her conclusion is sound and it must stand."

This 10-year multiple-award IDIQ to support the National Oceanic and Atmospherics’ (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) is part of ProTech 2.0, a series of multiple-award IDIQs split into four domains that align with NOAA's main line offices (Satellites, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather). All four domains share an $8B ceiling, providing professional, technical, and scientific services supporting NOAA's core missions. The acquisition strategy for this Weather Domain IDIQ, the last of the domains to be awarded, included the release of a comprehensive draft solicitation that allowed for questions and provided a document outlining good and bad proposal practices. The acquisition strategy also included a pre-solicitation industry day. The final solicitation included multiple phases. Phase 1 included a submission of administrative information and a technical experience self-assessment matrix. 30 offerors were advised to proceed to Phase 2, with 31 submitting Phase 2 proposals. Phase 2 required information to validate technical experience, past performance, and price, along with an oral presentation discussing management approaches (with an on-the-spot consensus evaluation after each session). Awards went to the highest technically rated offerors with fair and reasonable prices (HTRRP), using confidence ratings of high, some, and low. 

A unique aspect of the acquisition strategy for the ProTech 2.0 Weather Domain was the team’s efforts to transform Phase 2 management approach questions to allow offerors to deliver straightforward oral presentations where they could tell stories about their successful approaches to teaming and management rather than vague promises of teaming or having networks of partners. To better emphasize the impact this approach had, we can compare the results against the prior three ProTech 2.0 domains. The prior domains all used the same questions for the management approach/oral presentation factor. Those questions resulted in only 10 oral presentations receiving a rating of high confidence, with 71 receiving a rating of some confidence. For the Weather domain, the team’s transformed questions allowed offerors to present more focused responses that directly addressed the evaluation criteria. Out of 20 total oral presentations, 15 received a rating of high confidence. Only five of the 20 received a rating of some confidence. This data illustrates the outcomes that the more targeted questions had for this effort. This process permitted the evaluators to more easily identify higher rated presentations while avoiding the high volume of proposals rated with some confidence. 

The CO held group oral debriefings for offerors who did not receive awards. Only one protest went to decision — denied, Manutek Inc., B-423476.4. The GAO opinion reinforced several leading practices and The LAB’s implementation recommendations including confidence ratings, short and streamlined evaluation reports, on-the-spot consensus evaluations, oral presentations with interactive dialogue noting general observations, and a succinct Section M (Evaluation Criteria). These transformational efforts of the team practices combined with these leading practices resulted in a "days to award" timeline that was 206 days shorter than the predecessor contract vehicle — even though this effort received 13 additional proposals than the predecessor IDIQ contract! 

For this extremely complex space situational awareness requirement, NOAA relied on the open-market using FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation procedures. To streamline the process, the team intentionally avoided excessive subfactors, complicated scoring systems, and lengthy proposal requirements, and instead used succinct mission-focused evaluation criteria.

Phase 1 included an advisory down-select based on demonstrated prior experience only as the only evaluation factor, with no separate past performance factor. The required experience areas were specific, targeted areas crafted by subject matter experts who considered historical lessons learned and mission priorities. Only one of the 13 offerors chose to proceed to Phase 2 against NOAA’s advice. A total of four offerors advanced to Phase 2. Phase 2 included a single technical factor of interactive oral presentations with a live system demonstrations, and price. NOAA was able to engage with vendors directly, assess technical understanding in real time, and observe how proposed solutions would function operationally. No other written technical submissions were required. 

The simplified evaluation structure proved highly effective. The acquisition team completed both evaluation phases in just 35 days while still maintaining meaningful competition with thorough documentation. The award came in approximately 28% below the government estimate, demonstrating that streamlined evaluations can produce both strong technical outcomes and significant cost savings. Of note, the procurement withstood multiple challenges in a protest to the GAO, all of which were denied, Kayan, B-423221.2. The Past Performance section of the decision is worth a read, outlining The LAB’s go-to model for prior experience that includes contract references while not invoking past performance in any way. This excerpt from the decision summarizes this section “Given the differences between experience and past performance, the language of the solicitation under the experience factor discussed at length, and that the agency’s consideration of references is a normal occurrence in experience evaluations, we find that Kayhan’s interpretation is unreasonable and does not withstand logical scrutiny.” 

The project serves as a strong reminder that clear and concise evaluation criteria, streamlined factors and documentation (including capturing only areas that increased or decreased the team's confidence rather than areas that adequately met the requirements for each factor), and use of other complementary innovative procurement techniques can produce a faster, more defensible acquisition process without sacrificing fairness or quality. This is evident even within a FAR Part 15 acquisition!

Each year, it is important to track progress and use data points across the organization's portfolio to identify trends. What doesn't get measured is often neglected. Without measuring progress, how can an organization identify trends, spot areas for improvement, and recognize what it is doing well?

In our procurement projects, The LAB collects over 50 data points to measure progress and uncover areas that need to be addressed such as timelines, cost, competition, and more. Some of those are reflected here. A new data point we tracked this year was the total hours spent by the technical evaluation team to perform technical evaluations (across all phases of a multi-phased procurement), as well as the training time taken to prepare for evaluations. It is important to develop processes that make technical evaluations efficient so the technical evaluators can get back to their important roles supporting their missions, as soon as practicable.

Below are some key metrics that stood out in FY25:

• 7: Procurement Projects coached and awarded through The LAB.
• $9.5B: Combined awarded value of all 7 projects.
• $7.5M / 22%: Total cost savings across all projects, not counting awards for IDIQs or BPAs (five of the seven), where the award value was unchanged from the solicitation.
• 149: Average time to award, in days, from release of solicitation to award for all projects.
• 76: Average time to award, in days, from release of solicitation to award for obligated contracts or orders (not the creation of IDIQs or BPAs).
• 71: Average time, in days, for reviews and approvals to be finalized after the acquisition team completed evaluations and consensus documentation. This is part of the 149-day average. This accounted for almost half of the timeline and highlights an area for improvement.
• 3: Average number of days for the down-select notification to vendors to occur after completion of Phase 1 evaluations. This statistic helps down-selects remain successful.
• 96%: Success rate of advisory down-selects, down from a historical average of 98.6%. This means 96% of the time, the vendor took the advice and discontinued participation in the acquisition. 
• 11: Average number of innovative procurement techniques used on each project.
• 97: Companies that submitted quotes or proposals in response to these seven procurement projects.
• 14: Average hours spent by technical evaluation teams in training, and in reviewing, evaluating, and documenting findings for all vendors across all phases of these procurements.
• 100%: Every awarded project had a small business awardee. One project was a multiple-award IDIQ with three of four tracks set aside for small businesses; the other six projects were total small business set-asides.

• 3: Projects that were protested and denied or dismissed, with none of them implementing corrective action.

  ---

It is very difficult to get to that next level working out on your own. To keep developing and making gains, it's imperative to train with partners, hear different ideas and training regimens, and have a spotter when you need one! If you have a question, feedback, or just need to flex, please reach out to [email protected]. In FY25, we exercised our muscles primarily toward one external objective — the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO). This external collaboration was conducted mostly with GSA and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). Our external stakeholders are important to us, so The LAB continued its weekly collaborations with OFPP as part of the PTAI Action Team. In addition, The LAB has served as a guest speaker at other federal agency and industry events by request. Here's a partial list of The LAB's FY25 external collaborations:

• OFPP
  • Assisted OFPP in drafting a memo to all Chief Acquisition Officers (CAOs), Senior Procurement Executives (SPEs), and Chief Acquisition Innovation Advocates (AIAs) titled Scaling Innovative Buying Practices in Federal Procurement, published on 12/11/2024. The LAB created a roadmap for any organization that wants to start its own acquisition innovation lab or cell, detailing 20 key considerations for successful implementation: Starting an Acquisition Innovation Lab.
  • Supported the PTAI Action Team, meeting weekly to review and plan updates, improvements, and new techniques for the PTAI. 
• GSA  — The LAB supported the GSA Practitioner Team tasked with implementing the RFO. This support ranged from creating smart accelerators, reviewing FAR line edits, reviewing and sharing samples, FAR companion references, and scripts, to proposing revisions and additions and presenting at a FAR Forward Alliance Webinar in August 2025. The webinar covered the top 10 highlights to consider when planning future orders implementing FSS procedures in GSA Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 538.71. 
• DITAP Consortium — Joined a two-day workshop as a lead agency sponsor, alongside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and USDS, to enhance and improve Digital IT Acquisition Professional (DITAP) trainings across the federal government. The group was led by USDS and included all industry DITAP training providers.
• Department of the Navy — Discussed with a group of contracting officers, attorney-advisors, and other acquisition leaders from the Naval Systems Management Activity (NSMA) the importance of risk mitigation and the use of innovative procurement techniques.

• DOE NNSA — Presented to over 175 acquisition workforce members for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) on the essentials of the PTAI.

  ---

We're excited to share a major milestone in our badging program: a full redesign and a focused push to expand coaching badges. While the badging program is for the Department of Commerce and its Bureaus, its purpose and intent can be applied at any federal agency or industry partner. Our efforts reflect our commitment to better recognize and grow acquisition innovation skills across our community.

Through the redesign, we introduced clearer pathways, more accessible criteria, and a more direct process to obtain badges. The requirements to earn an Innovator or Coach Badge were streamlined to encourage participation across the Department. We also created a new badge — the Facilitator Badge. This badge focuses on the skills for facilitating requirements building sessions, consensus evaluations, industry days, and other related functions. These changes make it easier for participants to showcase their skills, gain recognition, and stay engaged as they develop their capabilities. We're already seeing strong momentum and look forward to continued growth in both participation and impact. 

For example, these changes helped drive an increase in Innovator Badges, from 40 in FY24 to 123 in FY25. The Coach Badge is reserved for highly skilled personnel, requiring a high bar for the award of the badge. That is why it is important enough to warrant its own section (see Certified Acquisition Innovation Coaches in this report, directly below).

Most people have a tough time learning new exercises or getting into shape on their own. That's why instructors, certified personal trainers, and the like are vital — they provide education, guidance, and examples. They help you correct your form in real time, they track your improvements, and they show you how to progress over time. Similarly, with acquisition innovation, coaches help internal organizations change their culture, improve how they buy, and better understand acquisition innovation. Therefore, we prioritized efforts to credential some acquisition innovation coaches. These individuals gained experience over the years in the acquisition innovation space — leading their own procurements or assisting with others. As a result, 10 individuals earned a Coach Badge at the end of FY25, with the actual issuance and recognition following in early FY26. You can find these Coaches listed here.

The customer's experience must be a focal point for any business unit offering support to an organization. The LAB is no different, prioritizing customer service throughout its trainings, coaching services, and all other engagements. The LAB delivered significant value to its customers, earning a 100% rating in the Customer Survey results across all six evaluated performance areas: exceptional technical knowledge, superior quality of service, prompt responsiveness, effective communication, unwavering professionalism, and consistent delivery of viable, customer-focused solutions.

In FY25, The LAB began conducting post-award retrospectives with acquisition teams from the procurement projects. These surveys remain completely voluntary. It's important to stay agile and continually refine our approaches based on user feedback. Participants consistently reported that The LAB's collaborative approach improved acquisition efficiency, strengthened evaluation quality, and enhanced overall procurement outcomes. Teams highlighted the value of responsive support, practical coaching, and innovative evaluation techniques that increased confidence and helped maintain milestone schedules, even during complex, time-sensitive procurements. Participants also credited The LAB with improving documentation quality and supporting defensible acquisition decisions, including additional support when faced with a protest. Support that resulted in a successful defense of several protests. Overall satisfaction with acquisition innovation outcomes was unanimous, with every respondent rating their experience five out of five. Suggestions for future enhancement focus primarily on simplifying early-phase submission requirements and further streamlining evaluation strategies to reduce administrative burden while preserving the effectiveness of the innovative acquisition approach.

Another highlight for FY25 was the creation and rollout of the Summer Camp of Innovation. This training was developed after years of studying our acquisition workforce. These studies refer to the years of survey results regarding acquisition culture and use of innovative procurement techniques, as well as years of coaching dozens of acquisition teams. This experience shaped an understanding in how leading practices could be highlighted and implemented throughout the acquisition lifecycle. The training breaks the acquisition lifecycle into seven main areas: Market Research, Evaluation Criteria, Developing the Solicitation, Evaluations, Negotiations, Documentation, and Debriefings/Brief Explanations. Each area covers three leading practices. Our acquisition workforce was encouraged to focus on these often-overlooked opportunities to improve. For example, within Market Research, there's an emphasis on using forms-based RFIs in lieu of manual RFI submissions; within Developing the Solicitation, there's an emphasis on solicitations that are professional, polished, and written in plain language while incorporating proven innovative techniques from the PTAI. The two-hour training had three offerings in FY25 with over 200 total attendees. 

Shoutout to NIST, SSPO, and USPTO for the heavy lifting to host these sessions!

One of the most valuable areas we focus on in The LAB is sharing helpful samples, ideas, and documents so they're accessible to both external federal partners and industry. Therefore, we overhauled our website. The LAB's vision, mission, and values statements have all been updated, and the website now has a fun new look and feel! There are several new pages and features that we invite you to check out — here are a few:

• Formal Coaching Support: The LAB's project workflow shares the various steps in how we support our formal project teams. When a new project is submitted, the submitting team receives an automated message welcoming them and sharing a workflow. A scheduler is also introduced to plan the kickoff/brainstorming session. 
• The Monday Morning Court-er Back Series (MMCB): This 25-volume series analyzes GAO and COFC bid protest decisions involving innovative procurement techniques and other mythical "risks." Most importantly, the series aims to address the overtly risk-averse culture and stakeholders that plague many acquisition teams when they try to be innovative or find efficiencies. You'll also find the MMCB series referenced as a smart accelerator in the RFO Part 33 Practitioner Album.
• New Concepts:New Concepts are ideas that need testing and feedback before maturing into easily adoptable techniques or processes, and prior to being included on the PTAI. Four new concepts were posted in FY25: Replacement Task Order, Set Price Highest Evaluated Ratings (SPHERe), Fair, Efficient, & Transparent Acquisitions (FETA), and Opt-Ins. This page is meant for government and industry alike to take the idea and run with it. If so, don’t forget to fill out the submission form so we can track samples and form lessons learned. 
• Innovative Training Courses: Each year we include training information from various external providers, along with no-cost courses focused on acquisition innovation.
• Website Feedback:  Simply put, a mechanism to help us improve the website's content, usability, and design.

To better share our work throughout the GovCon (government contracting) community, we founded The LAB's LinkedIn channel and reached just over 60 subscribers by the end of FY25. We're excited to share more resources, trainings, ideas, and presentations with all GovCon moving forward.

FY25 Outcomes

• Completed Projects: The goal in FY25 for completed projects was 10. The outcome was seven. Considering the focus on acquisition and the number of policy changes implemented in FY25, seven was a number to be proud of. Many in-progress projects have shifted into FY26. 
• Social Media: The LAB's LinkedIn channel was launched! This channel is a spotlight page from the official Department of Commerce channel. You can find it here: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/the-lab-at-commerce/. Our intent is to use this channel as a forum to connect users across the Department and throughout industry.
• Badging: As shared in the section Badging Program Overhaul, this was completed along with the issuance of 10 Coach Badges. 
• Bureau Innovation Advocates (BIAs): Many BIAs started supporting coaching engagements, creating training opportunities, and sharing resources while advocating for innovation in acquisition.  
• Micro-trainings: Dozens of presentations on granular topics were produced with a plan to publish them on The LAB’s website, as well plans to publish some on The LAB’s YouTube site soon. 

FY26 Goals

• Completed Projects: Maintaining seven completed projects is our new benchmark going forward.
• Trainings: Sanitizing and publishing the trainings from prior fiscal years on The LAB’s website. This includes comprehensive training decks created for acquisition teams on topics such as consensus evaluations, choosing the right requirements document, overviews for program managers and contracting officer representatives, project stories, innovation, and more. 
• Rotation Program: This is a holdover from the prior FY due to staffing uncertainties but remains a possibility in FY26 as a Learning Development Opportunity.
• Survey: The annual Innovation and Culture Survey for the workforce took a strategic pause in FY25, but we intend to continue it — and to include the RFO in it for FY26 or early FY27.
• RFO: Support the Department's transition into RFO procedures.
• Presentations: Continue upskilling stakeholders at internal and external conferences, town halls, and forums on the future of doing business with the Department and how acquisition teams can adjust to newer acquisition methods.

Thank you for taking the time to catch up on our FY25 activities. Please email [email protected] if you have any questions.