Publications from local governments, private parties –

The Malheur Enterprise serves the 33,000 residents of Malheur County with its weekly newspaper, website and Facebook page. The newspaper is…

 Notice to Interested Persons
In the County Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Malheur. In the Matter of the Estate of Billie Rae Wright-Signer, Case No. 6239. Notice is hereby given that Seth Tyler Kiesel has been appointed Personal Representative of the above estate. All persons having claims against the estate are required to present them to the Personal Representative at the office of his attorneys, Butler & Looney, P.C., 292 Main St. South, P.O. Box 430, Vale, Oregon 97918, within four months after the date of first publication of this Notice, or they may be barred. All persons whose rights may be affected by this proceeding may obtain additional information from the records of the Court, the Personal Representative, or the attorneys for the Personal Representative. DATED and first published January 5th, 2022. 
Publish Dates January 5th, 12th, and 19th, 2022



RFP Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan – Consulting Services 
Malheur County and its operator Malheur Council on Aging and Community Services is seeking proposals from qualified public transportation consultants or consulting teams to complete a revision/update to the 2016 Malheur County Coordinated Human Services as well as additional tasks/analysis of the overall existing transportation services in Malheur County.
The full content of the RFP is available at: Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time), March 1, 2022. 
A pre-proposal meeting is scheduled for January 24, 2022. 
Pricing information is being sought as part of this RFP. Malheur County reserves the right to: reject any and all proposals for any reason, cancel this RFP, waive minor irregularities and accept all or part of a proposal, subject to negotiation of a final contract and price.
Publish Dates: January 5, 12, 19, and 26, 2022 and February 2 & 9, 2022

What guides our journalism at the Enterprise – read our principles.
You can be a backer too, and keep alive a powerful community asset — strong, independent and accurate news. Support us today and join the movement that says the loss of local news is an unacceptable loss.
[Unmatched local reporting – subscribe today]
[email protected]
Subscribe Now
Make a Donation
Give a Gift Subscription
Contact Our Team
About Us
How Our Journalists Work
Why Pay for News?
Advertise With Us
Privacy & Terms


Aboriginal Sport Circle seeks consultant for National Indig. Sport Strategy – Two Row Times

Five Express Interest In Developing Property Leased by Boat Club – The Hudson Indy Westchester's Rivertowns News – – The Hudson Independent

72 articles

29 articles
• Bookmarks: 100 • Comments: 1
By Barrett Seaman—
The Washington Irving Boat Club was joined by four other parties in submitting RFQ/RFI (Request for Qualifications/Request for Interest) responses promulgated by the Village of Tarrytown last July. The deadline was Wednesday, Sept. 22, at 11 a.m.
The purpose of the joint requests was to elicit both ideas on how the six acres currently housing the Washington Irving Boat Club (WIBC) and its restaurant might be used to better advantage by the village and to establish the credentials of the applicants. According to Village Administrator Rich Slingerland, this is the first step in a process likely to take two to four years before contracts are awarded and construction begins.
Because the riverside property, referred to by its address at 238 Green Street, is on dedicated parkland, the request stipulated that the village would not accept any proposal that included housing or a hotel. The goal, it said, was to seek “creative approaches to redevelopment of the property – for park-based uses…”
Not surprisingly, most, but not all, of the submissions focused on restaurant components, since eating establishments fell within the range of acceptable uses and because restaurants are more likely to provide a return on investment than, say, kayak rentals. Less prominent in the proposals was anything related to boating, although a couple suggested an openness to accommodate the existing Washington Irving Boat Club in one form or another.
The level of detail in the five proposals varied dramatically — from the 60-page submission by the WIBC itself to a six-page entry (including cover letter) from a Piermont-based group called Pier 115. (View the document repository with all five submissions here.) Here’s a summary of the proposals in the order they were listed by the village:
Barley House: Starting in Thornwood in 2015, this group has ambitions to spread its concept of brewpub service, best illustrated now by its Rye Beach property that features waterside outdoor dining. There was a full-service Barley House at the Tarrytown Marina, but the indoor portion was closed after damage by hurricanes, leaving only a bar and outdoor deck dining. Other than proximity to water, Barley House does not appear to have any marina experience. Its proposal did mention the prospect of engaging Oasis Marina as a potential partner that could create “a first-class marina with top-quality management.” It also stated, however, that the group was also “open to the idea of keeping the WIBC.”
NKB—N.K. Bhandari: This Syracuse-based architectural and planning firm touts its experience at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, where it did “comprehensive infrastructure repairs and modernization.” They also wrote a comprehensive plan for the Village of Haverstraw and designed the Beacon Institute for Rivers and Estuaries. Short on detail, the submission stated that any plan must be “understood in the larger context of the Tarrytown waterfront.”
National Resources: A regular, if not dominant presence on the Tarrytown waterfront, this is Joe Cotter’s Greenwich-based company that built the 219 units and 50,000 sq. ft. of retail space that comprise Hudson Harbor, with more residences to be built. NR also has had a proposal before the village to build a four-story “boatel” at the Tarrytown Marina. Its Green Street proposal leads not with a restaurant or marina but with a “Hudson Valley Gateway Visitors Center,” presumably designed to accommodate the anticipated influx of tourists. As for dining and boating, the proposal mentions potential partnerships with successful restaurant operators like Fish & Farmer, Xaviers or Rivermarket and a partnership with both the WIBC and the Tarrytown Boat Club that would share services to save money. “The importance of this component cannot be underestimated for the success of this project,” the proposal states, without offering any detail on how the two boat clubs would retain their identities or economic models.
Pier 115: Headed by Peter Helou, a New Jersey Porsche Sales Manager whose family is in the jewelry business, this group offers prior experience working with National Resources on its Edgewater, New Jersey complex similar to Hudson Harbor. Its proposal includes photos of four restaurant/bars in New Jersey and Manhattan. Its overall vision is to integrate the public park and marina with a “state of the art” restaurant and banquet hall. “A robust riverfront restaurant and banquet operator,” according to the Pier 115 proposal, “is a strategic engine for economic development that ripples beyond the waterfront.”
WIBC: The incumbent resident of 238 Green Street’s proposal (see The Hudson Independent‘s coverage of WIBC’s quest to keep its home) devotes considerable space to defending its past, its contributions to the village and its unique role in Tarrytown as a “community boat club.”  Its proposal includes ambitious plans to upgrade the restaurant and marina, extensive landscaping aimed at merging with adjacent Losee Park and the creation of a “Hudson River Environmental Center” to attract visitors and particularly children.
Over the next month, trustees and village staff will review and discuss the proposals. They will then interview the applicants and, sometime around the end of the year, decide which of them they want to pursue. In an email, Mayor Tom Butler stressed that there would be opportunities for village residents to weigh in with their views, and that there may be other requirements that were not included in the original solicitation. “This will be a partnership between the Village and the selected developer to do THE RIGHT THING for Tarrytown,” wrote the mayor.
The next step will then be the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) that will elicit detailed ideas on what should be on the property.

By Linda Viertel — Before everyone dives into squash recipes, apple pie baking and root vegetable roasts, take time to savor freshly farmed or foraged mushrooms in the fall, and you will relish a taste blast of earthy heaven. An easy sauté with cream or even a… More »

By Barrett Seaman– Revolutionary Westchester 250, the non-profit created to celebrate and promote the county’s role in the American Revolution, has released three new videos covering significant local players in the War for Independence. The three-and-a-half m… More »

© 2022. The Hudson Indy Westchester's Rivertowns News –. All rights reserved.
By using this site you agree to the use of cookies, more info.


Saalex Solutions, Inc. | US GAO – Government Accountability Office

Saalex Solutions, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Camarillo, California, protests the issuance of a task order to TeleSolv Consulting, Inc., an SDVOSB of Washington, District of Columbia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0025319R3501, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for business and administrative support services. The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s technical proposals.
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:  Saalex Solutions, Inc.
File:  B-418729.3
Date:  July 23, 2021
William M. Pannier, Esq., Pannier Law, PC, for the protester.
John E. McCarthy Jr., Esq., and William B. O’Reilly, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for TeleSolv Consulting, Inc., the intervenor.
Christopher Lybeck, Esq., Trent Bowen, Esq., and Robert Jusko, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
1.  Protest that the agency failed to assign additional strengths to the protester’s proposal under the management and staffing approach factor is dismissed as untimely where the protester failed to challenge the agency’s assessment of strengths within 10 days after receiving documentation of its evaluation during an earlier debriefing, and the record reflects that the agency’s subsequent decision to reevaluate proposals in response to a different offeror’s protest did not affect the assessment of the strengths at issue in the protester’s proposal or the proposal features on which the strengths were based.  Under these circumstances, the decision to reevaluate proposals also did not revive the protester’s ability to file a timely protest challenging conclusions first reached during the earlier evaluation, which this company did not protest.
2.  Protest challenging evaluation of awardee’s proposal is dismissed where protester’s allegations, which are based on speculation, do not establish a valid basis of protest and are legally insufficient.
Saalex Solutions, Inc., a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Camarillo, California, protests the issuance of a task order to TeleSolv Consulting, Inc., an SDVOSB of Washington, District of Columbia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0025319R3501, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for business and administrative support services.  The protester challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s technical proposals. 
We dismiss the protest.
The solicitation was issued on July 26, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 16, to SDVOSB holders of the Navy’s SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPort-NxG) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple-award contract.  Protest, exh. 5, RFP, amend. 0003 at 1; Supp. Req. for Dismissal, exh. 1, Declaration of Contracting Officer (Decl. of CO) at 1.  The solicitation contemplated issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a base year and four option years.  RFP, amend. 0003 at 1; Decl. of CO at 1.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors:  management and staffing approach, technical capability, past performance, and cost/price.  RFP, amend. 0003 at 15-16.
The agency received eight proposals, including proposals from Saalex and TeleSolv.  Decl. of CO at 1.  After the evaluation, on April 30, 2020, the agency issued a task order to TeleSolv.  Id. at 2.  On May 2, Saalex received a debriefing from the Navy.  Protest, exh. 4, May 2, 2020 Debrief at 1-4.  The debriefing listed the ratings for all factors for both Saalex’s and TeleSolv’s proposals.  Id. at 1.  It also detailed, for Saalex’s proposal, any strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies that had been identified by the agency for each factor.  Id. at 1-4.  Despite receiving this information, Saalex did not file a protest challenging the agency’s evaluation at that time.  On May 11, 2020, however, another unsuccessful offeror filed a protest with our Office challenging the Navy’s selection of TeleSolv for the task order.  Decl. of CO at 2.  Ultimately the agency decided to take corrective action in response to this unrelated protest by establishing a competitive range, reevaluating proposals, and making a new selection decision.  As a result, our Office dismissed that protest as academic.  Id.
On April 12, 2021, the agency notified Saalex that it had again selected TeleSolv for issuance of the task order, which has a potential total value of $49,072,993.  Protest, exh. 3, Notice of Award at 1.  After receiving a debriefing, Saalex filed this protest with our Office.[1]   
Saalex challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the management and staffing approach factor, arguing that it should have been credited for additional strengths under this factor.  The protester also challenges the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the management and staffing approach, technical capability, and past performance factors, arguing that the agency failed to recognize the superiority of Saalex’s proposal over the awardee’s.[2]  Based on these evaluation errors, Saalex also contends that the agency failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff determination.
The agency asks our Office to dismiss all of Saalex’s protest grounds, maintaining that they are untimely; legally insufficient, i.e., fail to state a valid basis of protest; and/or speculative.  Req. for Dismissal at 2-11.  On this record, we agree and dismiss the protest grounds as discussed below.
Management and Staffing Approach Factor
Saalex first challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the management and staffing approach factor, alleging that its proposal should have been credited for additional strengths under this factor.  Alternatively, the protester asserts that, standing alone, the two strengths its proposal received under this factor–for staffing and quality assurance–should have merited an “outstanding” rather than “good” rating.  Protest at 7-14.
The agency asserts that these arguments are untimely because the “evaluation findings Saalex seeks to challenge are identical to those disclosed” to Saalex in its earlier May 2, 2020 debriefing, but the protester failed to challenge them at that time.  Req. for Dismissal at 3.  
Our timeliness rules reflect the dual requirements of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their cases and resolving protests expeditiously without unduly disrupting or delaying the procurement process.  Cleveland Telecomms. Corp.-Recon., B-247964.4, Nov. 12, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 340 at 3.  Under our timeliness rules, protests based on other than alleged improprieties in a solicitation must be filed not later than 10 days after the protester knew or should have known of the basis for its protest, whichever is earlier, or within 10 days of the date a required debriefing is held.  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). The fact that an agency elects to reevaluate proposals and make a new source selection decision in response to a protest filed by a different unsuccessful offeror does not provide a basis for reviving untimely, and never previously raised, protest allegations for this offeror.   
Here, we conclude that the protest grounds are untimely.[3]  Although Saalex argues that its protest is timely given the agency’s decision to require the submission of revised proposals, after the protester learned of the two strengths and “good” rating assessed to its proposal under the management and staffing approach factor, we find the grounds untimely because these subsequent events did not affect the assessment of the strengths at issue, including the proposal features on which the strengths were based, or the “good” rating for this factor.  See 360 It Integrated Sols., B-414650.33, B‑414650.34, May 24, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 199 at 7. 
The record reflects that the protester was aware of its proposal’s rating and the strengths assessed under the management and staffing approach factor based on the debriefing it received on May 2, 2020.  Compare Protest, exh. 4, May 2, 2020 Debrief at 1 (explaining Saalex received strengths for “identif[ying] a unique approach within its staffing plan to improve [human resources] HR responsiveness” and “present[ing] a thorough quality assurance plan,” which merited an overall rating of “Good”), with id., exh. 2, April 12, 2021 Debrief at 2 (same).  Accordingly, to be timely, Saalex was required to file a protest with our Office no later than 10 days after May 2, 2020.  See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2).  Because the protester did not challenge the agency’s evaluation with regard to the management and staffing approach factor at that time, these allegations are untimely and therefore dismissed.[4]
Evaluation under Other Factors
Saalex next challenges the Navy’s evaluation of TeleSolv’s proposal under the technical capability and past performance factors, arguing that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s proposal.  The agency requests that we dismiss these protest grounds as legally insufficient because the protester bases its challenges to the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal on its speculation with regard to the contents of the awardee’s proposal, without actual knowledge as to the contents.  For the reasons discussed below, we agree.
The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3556.  Our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition are met.  Pacific Photocopy & Research Servs., B-278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-01 CPD ¶ 69 at 4.  To achieve this end, our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest include a sufficiently detailed statement of the grounds supporting the protest allegations.  4 C.F.R. §§ 21.1(c)(4), 21.1(f), and 21.5(f).  That is, a protest must include sufficient factual bases to establish a reasonable potential that the protester’s allegations may have merit; bare allegations or speculation are insufficient to meet this requirement.  Ahtna Facility Servs., Inc., B-404913, B-404913.2, June 30, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 134 at 11.  Unsupported assertions that are mere speculation on the part of the protester do not provide an adequate basis for protest.  Science Applications Int’l Corp., B-265607, Sept. 1, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 99 at 2.
The protester first contends that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the technical capability factor was flawed.  The protester notes that the rating of TeleSolv’s proposal under the factor improved from “acceptable” to “outstanding” after corrective action, and asserts that TeleSolv could not have gained sufficient experience during the pendency of corrective action to justify such a change.”  Protest at 23.  Based solely on this change in rating, the protester surmises that TeleSolv must have relied on subcontractors for its experience under this factor.  See id. (maintaining that “TeleSolv cannot be expected to perform at the level of its ratings without subcontractor support”).  The protester then claims that “subcontractor dependency is a risk” and that the agency
improperly failed to recognize the superiority of Saalex’s proposal over the awardee’s proposal because “Saalex clearly represents a much less risky offeror.”  Id. 
As pertinent here, for the technical capability factor, the solicitation provided that proposals would be evaluated “on the knowledge and capability to perform the [performance work statement] PWS” based on “demonstrated specific examples of corporate experience in performing similar tasking.”  RFP, amend. 0003 at 17.  It further specified that proposals “shall clearly demonstrate corporate experience of the Prime and Subcontractors in relation to the taskings to be performed under this solicitation.”  Id. 
The protester’s assumption that TeleSolv’s proposal relied on subcontractor experience for this factor, which as noted above, was permitted by the RFP, and the fact that TeleSolv’s overall rating for the technical capability factor changed from “acceptable” to “outstanding” during the reevaluation, do not provide a sufficient factual basis, without more, for the protester’s assertion that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal was improper.  As previously mentioned, unsupported assertions that are mere speculation by the protester do not provide an adequate basis for protest and will be dismissed.  Science Applications Int’l Corp., supra; 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(f).
The protester also asserts that the agency failed to recognize that Saalex’s past performance was superior to the awardee’s past performance.  See Protest at 23 (“Simply put, TeleSolv is a far less experienced contractor in this arena than Saalex and the Navy failed to account for this in its award decision as it was required to do.”).  In making this assertion, Saalex again relies on the improvement in TeleSolv’s overall rating between the pre-corrective action evaluation and final evaluation results.  See Protest at 23-24 (“[F]or TeleSolv’s confidence rating to jump from Neutral to Substantial in one year defies logic and is unjustified.”).
The protester, in support of its assertion, points to “[p]ublic information available on resources such as” and “Govwin” and contends that TeleSolv “has done very little work for Department of Defense components and the Navy in particular.”[5]  Protest at 23-24.  According to the protester, these sites show that the “vast majority of TeleSolv’s work has historically been with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Coast Guard.”  Id. at 23.  As the agency points out, however, the protester fails to cite to any part of the solicitation criteria that makes the identity of the agency material to the past performance evaluation.  Req. for Dismissal at 10.  Again, we find that the protester has not provided a sufficient basis for its assumption that the awardee’s rating could not have improved, and therefore, the agency’s past performance evaluation must have been improper.[6]  
In sum, we conclude that both of these protest grounds–concerning the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal with regard to technical capability and past performance–are based on nothing more than the protester’s speculation and supposition.  Accordingly, we dismiss the protester’s arguments because the protester’s speculation is insufficient to state a valid basis for protest.  4 C.F.R. §21.5(f).
Best-Value Tradeoff
Finally, Saalex also argues that the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision was improper because it was based on a flawed evaluation.  These allegations are derivative of Saalex’s various challenges to the agency’s evaluation, which we have concluded are untimely or fail to provide a valid basis of protest.  Accordingly, we dismiss Saalex’s challenges to the best-value tradeoff because derivative allegations do not establish an independent basis of protest.  Computer World Servs., B-417356, May 16, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 185 at 5 n.4.
The protest is dismissed.
Thomas H. Armstrong
General Counsel
[1] This procurement is within our jurisdiction to hear protests related to the issuance of task orders under multiple-award IDIQ contracts awarded under the authority of title 10 of the United States Code, where the awarded value of the task order at issue exceeds $25 million.  10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(1)(B).
[2] Saalex also filed a supplemental protest arguing that the agency failed to fully implement its corrective action, but later withdrew that protest ground.  See Supp. Protest & Response at 1; Reply at 2 (“Saalex withdraws its supplemental protest.”).
[3] The protester also points to the Navy’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the other three factors–technical capability, past performance, and cost/price–and argues that it “highlight[s] the irrationality” of the agency’s evaluation of Saalex’s proposal under the management and staffing approach factor as only “good.”  Supp. Protest & Response at 8; Protest at 14-19.  For example, the protester points out that for the
technical capability factor, Saalex’s proposal was assessed two strengths and no weaknesses and rated as ‘Outstanding,’” while for the management and staffing approach factor, Saalex’s proposal was “assessed two strengths and no weaknesses and rated as ‘Good.’”  Supp. Protest & Response at 8.  The protester contends that this “inconsistency is unreasonable” and shows that the agency’s evaluation under the management and staffing approach factor was improper.  In light of our finding that the protester’s challenge to its evaluation under the management and staffing approach factor is untimely, we likewise do not address this aspect of the protester’s argument for the same reason.  In any event, to the extent the protester’s contention is that it should have been assigned a higher adjectival rating based solely on the number of evaluated strengths identified by the agency during its evaluation, the protester fails to assert a valid basis for protest because the allegation argues for a mechanical rating based on the number of strengths, and does not demonstrate that the agency unreasonably assessed the underlying technical merit of the firm’s proposal.  See Southwind Constr. Servs., LLC, B-410333.2, Jan. 21, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 64 at 6; 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4), (f).
[4] We similarly find untimely the protester’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the management and staffing approach factor.  The protester argues that it is “inconceivable” that the awardee’s proposal could receive an overall higher rating under this factor than Saalax’s proposal in light of Saalex’s “experience and competencies” as the incumbent contractor.  Protest at 5, 21.  The protester therefore contends that “TeleSolv’s proposed Management and Staffing Approach should be rated below Saalex’s, and certainly not rated higher than Saalex’s.”  Id. at 23. 
The record reflects, however, that Saalax was provided with the information upon which this protest ground is based–namely that Telesolv’s proposal received an “outstanding” rating under the management and staffing approach factor, and that Saalax’s proposal
received a “good” rating under this factor–during Saalex’s earlier May 2, 2020 debriefing, but the Navy’s corrective action did not change this evaluation.  Req. for Dismissal at 4; compare Protest, exh. 4, May 2, 2020 Debrief at 1 (disclosing TeleSolv received an “outstanding” rating, with id., exh. 2, April 12, 2021 Debrief at 1 (same).  Accordingly, to timely challenge the fact that Telesolv received a higher overall rating than Saalex under the management and staffing approach factor, the protester was required to file a protest with our Office within 10 days of the May 2, 2020 debriefing.  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2).  The protester’s failure to raise this challenge at that time renders it untimely here.  As a result, this protest ground is also dismissed.
[5] Saalex fails to provide any citations to any of the vague “resources” it references.
[6] Also, in the debriefing questions and answers (Q&As), the Navy explained that “[d]uring discussions, [it] advised Offerors of references that it considered Somewhat Relevant or Not Relevant.”  Protest, exh. 1, Debrief Q&A, Q2.  For the awardee’s
proposal, the Navy stated that “TeleSolv replaced all of its original references with different references in its final proposal revision.”  Id.  The Navy further explained that “[p]er the evaluation criteria in Section M of the solicitation,” the past performance evaluation team considered the references provided in TeleSolv’s final proposal revision to be “recent, relevant when considering scope, complexity, and magnitude, and all performance ratings were [s]atisfactory or better.”  Id.  In other words, the Navy provided a reasonable explanation for the improvement in TeleSolv’s past performance rating.
Stay informed as we add new reports & testimonies.


Marketing Manager – New York, NY, US | Jobs – Archinect

SBLM Architects, comprised of 5 Studios – HealthCare; Education; Mixed-Use Residential; Retail/commercial and Civic, seeks a pro-active experienced, Marketing Manager to lead our Marketing and Business Development efforts. We maintain a consistently reliable and innovative design professional service to an expanding client base. Our enthusiasm and commitment to achieving optimal results encourages a creative and spirited thinking environment.
Job Responsibilities:
Employment Requirements:
Interested candidates should forward their cover letter and resume to
Please include Marketing Manager in the subject. No phone calls, please. 
More job listings from this employer:
New York, NY, US
New York, NY, US
New York, NY, US
New York, NY, US
Back to Job List…
Keep your inbox updated with new job opportunities:
Archinect Jobs on Twitter:


How to Write an Intelligence Community Business Proposal – ClearanceJobs

There is a LOT that can be said about the proposal, from planning to execution and delivery.  Entire Intelligence Community (IC) careers are spent right here, moving from one proposal to the next.
Your business development professional found a program to go after.  Your capture manager did the research to determine exactly what the customer needs. Your team has developed an understanding of the customer’s mission and developed a strategy for a compelling response that addresses not only what the customer is asking for, but also the unspoken factors that impact their ability to prosecute the mission. You have examined the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) closely.  The RFP drops.  It’s on…
The proposal period is often a month or more of frenzied activity, near panic, oh craps, long hours, and crisis management until a hopefully pristine, compelling, compliant, cohesive, and cost-conscious proposal is finally delivered. Let’s face it – even the most prepared proposal teams will run into problems and will have to rethink, redo, rewrite, recover, and so on. The unforeseen will happen. The best way to handle and to minimize any impacts is to begin before the RFP drops with some key activities. These are the things that can be accomplished before the response clock starts ticking. Should your proposal time be taken up with things like determining who should be on the team, who your teammate points of contact are and how to contact them, developing a schedule, defining labor categories, and so on? Do what you can before the RFP comes out. For things like proposal outlines and schedules, yes, do those ahead of time, as well. You can even pass them out as “preliminary.” Once you have had a chance to review the RFP, you can refine your schedule, proposal outline and writing assignments before sending out the final copies.
Never start with a blank page. I am like a lot of people — I want some structure that I can write to as opposed to having to develop the structure AND the content. Make sure that you take the time to develop a proposal template that everyone will use. This template establishes the font type, font size, call out boxes, table and graphic formats, color scheme, and any other layout features.  This ensures that your proposal at least looks cohesive and saves time. If you are a company that has written multiple proposals, you probably have a “best of” library that you can reuse. I am not saying that you should just simply re-use material from previous proposals. What I am saying is that by having this material, you can use the structure of a previous response to create a new response. Spend more time on content tailored to the new proposal rather than on format and framework. Some areas of a proposal response will remain stable over several years, needing only slight refinement each time. Examples include your team’s ability to obtain and retain staff, or how your company ensures that invoices are always provided in a timely manner.
With so much that goes on during a proposal and the fact that missing just one thing can make your proposal non-compliant, having someone who is able to focus on just being a proposal manager is very important. The proposal manager is a herder of cats and someone who can identify and resolve issues before they impact the entire proposal. An expert at crisis identification and avoidance, the proposal manager will help to ensure a smooth process and will minimize the inevitable problems that arise.  The proposal process is under a deadline, so your team’s ability to avoid and recover from problems is absolutely critical. The proposal manager job is a stressful one. I could probably do it, but would likely be unable to sleep for the entire proposal period, worrying about things that are or could go wrong.
I once asked a proposal manager why they did it.  Her response explained everything.  She said, “I do this because I thrive on chaos.”  Not me. I like to nail things down, put processes into place that ensure smooth function and guarantee positive results. The proposal manager is organized, has a commanding presence, and loves to put out fires.
If you have been in the IC for more than a year or two, chances are that you have heard the terms Pink Team or Red Team. The color teams are proposal evaluation opportunities that are very useful for ensuring that the proposal is progressing at an appropriate pace, that problem areas are identified quickly, and that the required story and win themes are coming through. The Pink Team is about a week or 10 days into a 30-day response. It is mainly used to make sure that each area is covered and has a planned response, if not actual text and graphics. The Red Team ensures that each area of the proposal is responding effectively, that the win themes are present, and that the response is nearing completion. The Red Team takes place 7-10 days after the Pink Team.  This is about two-thirds into your proposal response time. It needs to be conducted with enough time left to recover if there are any issues identified.
After the Red Team, a Gold Team is held. Held in the last week of the proposal effort and often attended only by the prime, the proposal is reviewed by senior management with a view towards overall completeness, cost, approach and risk evaluation.  The team will also ensure that the theme and compelling aspects from the Capture Plan are evident in the proposal. Some companies also do a White Team or “White Glove” review just before submittal. Here, every page of the proposal is gone over to make sure that everything is in order and that there are no mistakes or missing pages, or other possibly overlooked items.
The more you work proposals as a prime and a sub, the more you will be able to refine how your company undertakes a proposal response and your own ability to support and contribute to this important process will improve. I do NOT like to waste my time. If I do something, I want to be successful. This is why I find proposals so onerous.  As someone who wants/needs to achieve results, I have to force myself to give my all for a 30% pWin. You have to approach each proposal with a winning attitude, even though your work and that of your team could result in nothing. You may be assigned just a section of the proposal to write, a volume lead position, or multiple areas of responsibility.
How you improve your odds of being successful with your proposal work is by learning more about the proposal process and industry best practices.  My favorite resource is Shipley Associates. Shipley offers outstanding classroom and on-site training on proposal management and proposal development, in addition to BD and capture. Shipley also provides outstanding resources such as proposal and capture guides. If you are like me, you want to do your best to ensure, as much as you can, a positive outcome, regardless of the pWin. Industry best practices are available to help you to do your best. For large, must win efforts, use Shipley or other proposal development firms to come in and run your entire proposal. Other resources include the Association of Proposal Management Professionals, or APMP.ORG, “The Association of Record for Bid, Proposal, Business Development, Capture and Graphics Professionals.”  APMP offers webinars, certifications, events, chapters, and a body of knowledge. Check them out.
In addition to being a very critical part of winning new business, proposals offer the opportunity to train more people from your company to perform at high levels to win new business. Bring in a few new guys to your proposal response team and let them learn.  The proposal response is an opportunity for your team to contribute at ever increasing levels. From one proposal to the next, individuals can grow from contributor to section author, to section lead, and to volume lead. Don’t overlook the importance of proposals in training your own staff. If you do bring in a firm like Shipley to manage your proposal effort, make sure that you use this as a learning opportunity for your own team. Observe and learn so that you can do it yourself the next time.
The proposal is a culmination of a lot of work, from business development to capture to a month or more of stress and hard work.  Make it your goal to improve with each proposal you submit and from each time you contribute on a proposal effort.  You really can step up and be the factor for a major win. Aim to improve and contribute at ever higher levels. Observe, learn, ask questions, and step up. This is how you make a difference.
© 2022 ClearanceJobs – All rights reserved. ClearanceJobs is a DHI service.


Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Expected to Deliver Dynamic Progression until 2028 | RFPIO, Loopio, RFP365, PandaDoc – Industrial IT – Industrial IT

Request for Proposal RFP Software Market report focused on the comprehensive analysis of current and future prospects of the Request for Proposal RFP Software industry. This report is a consolidation of primary and secondary research, which provides market size, share, dynamics, and forecast for various segments and sub-segments considering the macro and micro environmental factors. An in-depth analysis of past trends, future trends, demographics, technological advancements, and regulatory requirements for the Request for Proposal RFP Software market has been done in order to calculate the growth rates for each segment and sub-segments.
Get a Sample Copy of the Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Report 2021 Including TOC, Figures, and Graphs @
Major Market Players Profiled in the Report include:
RFPIO, Loopio, RFP365, PandaDoc, Qvidian (Upland Software), DeltaBid, SalesEdge, DirectRFP, SupplierSelect, Paperless Proposal, Synlio, Proposify, Qwilr, Expedience Software, ProcurePort, Qorus Software, R3 WinCenter.
The report also focuses on Request for Proposal RFP Software major leading industry players of Request for Proposal RFP Software market providing information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. This report focuses on Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Trend, volume and value at Request for Proposal RFP Software level, regional level and company level. From a Request for Proposal RFP Software perspective, this report represents overall Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Size by analyzing historical data and future prospect.
Market Segmentation:
On the basis of type:
On-premises, Cloud-Based
On the basis of application:
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), Large Enterprises
In addition, report helps the users to identify the growth factors and also opportunities for the new entrants in the Global Request for Proposal RFP Software Market industry. Research report includes in detailed study of opportunities and technological innovations and trends of the Global Request for Proposal RFP Software Market. Report covers all leading vendors operating in the market and also the small vendors which are trying to expand their business at large scale across the globe. For that report presents strategic analysis and ideas for new entrants using historic data study. The study report offers comprehensive analysis about market share in terms of percentage share, gross premium and revenue of major players functioning in the industry of the Global market. Thus report provides estimation about the market size, revenue, sales analysis and opportunities based on the past data for current and future market status.
The Request for Proposal RFP Software Market report has been segregated based on distinct categories, such as product type, application, end user, and region. Each and every segment is evaluated on the basis of CAGR, share, and growth potential. In the regional analysis, the report highlights the prospective region, which is estimated to generate opportunities in the global Request for Proposal RFP Software market in the forthcoming years. This segmental analysis will surely turn out to be a useful tool for the readers, stakeholders, and market participants to get a complete picture of the global Request for Proposal RFP Software market and its potential to grow in the years to come.
Why to Buy this Report?
Regional Outlook (Revenue, USD Million, 2021 – 2028)
Key Insights That Study Is Going to Provide:
Table of Content (TOC):
Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview
Chapter 2 Industry Cost Structure and Economic Impact
Chapter 3 Rising Trends and New Technologies with Major key players
Chapter 4 Global Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Analysis, Trends, Growth Factor
Chapter 5 Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Application and Business with Potential Analysis
Chapter 6 Global Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Segment, Type, Application
Chapter 7 Global Request for Proposal RFP Software Market Analysis (by Application, Type, End User)
Chapter 8 Major Key Vendors Analysis of Request for Proposal RFP Software Market
Chapter 9 Development Trend of Analysis
Chapter 10 Conclusion
Get Research Report within 48 Hours @
About Global Market Vision
Global Market Vision consists of an ambitious team of young, experienced people who focus on the details and provide the information as per customer’s needs. Information is vital in the business world, and we specialize in disseminating it. Our experts not only have in-depth expertise, but can also create a comprehensive report to help you develop your own business.
With our reports, you can make important tactical business decisions with the certainty that they are based on accurate and well-founded information. Our experts can dispel any concerns or doubts about our accuracy and help you differentiate between reliable and less reliable reports, reducing the risk of making decisions. We can make your decision-making process more precise and increase the probability of success of your goals.
Contact Us
Sarah Ivans | Business Development
Phone: +1-3105055739
Email: [email protected]
Global Market Vision
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2022 Industrial IT
Powered by WordPress


Mayor to ask council for recommendation on trash collection contract Tuesday – WLBT

JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT) – Members of the Jackson City Council will have the chance Tuesday to tell the mayor whether they want a contractor to pick up trash once a week or twice a week.
Tuesday, the administration will be asking members to vote on a non-binding resolution to negotiate one of four proposals for residential collection services.
Options into two proposals for once-a-week pickup, including one that would require residents to have a special garbage can, and two proposals for twice-a-week pickup, also including one that would require a special garbage can.
If the mayor accepts the recommendation, he will negotiate with the vendor that received the highest score for that proposal before taking a final contract back to the council for consideration, said City Attorney Catoria Martin.
“The mayor is essentially compromising and asking them to give a recommendation on which option they prefer,” Martin said. “The council… has made it very clear to us they wanted to participate in the process. The mayor decided he was willing to allow them to participate at this point.”
Mayor Chowke Antar Lumumba’s decision comes months after the council twice rejected a proposal to hire FCC Environmental Services to pick up residential waste. Members voted down the proposal, in part, because it would have increased costs and reduced collections to once a week.
At the time, some members also said they wanted more transparency in the RFP evaluation process.
RFPs are requests for proposals. Cities issue RFPs for professional services, such as trash hauling. In Jackson, once proposals are submitted, they are evaluated by a committee made up of department officials and mayor’s office representatives, and the winning proposal is taken to the council for consideration.
“Part of the procurement process is you go with the highest-rated vendor,” Martin said. “We can only negotiate with one (firm) and it has to be based on the score.”
“If the council goes with the cheapest option, once a week without a cart, and the mayor accepts the recommendation, we would go into negotiation with the highest score for that option,” she added.
Council members are being provided with the options, as well as the costs for each. They will not be given the names of the vendors. Martin said Lumumba also does not know which proposals are from which vendors.
“The mayor and the evaluation team knows who the three vendors are, but doesn’t know which one goes with which score,” she said. “All they know is are what scores they submitted.”
Three firms responded to the city’s RFP, which was issued in October: FCC Environmental, Waste Management of Mississippi, and Richard’s Disposal. “We had three proposals but all three had four options,” Martin said.
The best prices for each option are shown below:
Several council members say they want to continue twice-a-week services, but still have questions for the mayor next week.
Ward 2 Councilwoman Angelique Lee said many residents in her ward want to continue with twice-a-week services, but do not want to be required to have a special garbage can.
“They are worried about being 96 gallons and seniors being able to get it to the curb,” she said.
Ward Six Councilman Aaron Banks also is concerned about requiring residents to have a special can. He questions why the costs for twice-a-week pickup without a can is more expensive than twice-a-week with a required can.
The twice-a-week option without a cart is also more expensive than the current emergency contract Jackson has with Waste Management, which costs $808,035 a month, Martin said.
Jackson entered into the six-month contract in late September after talks to enter into a long-term contract broke down. The city’s previous contract was also with Waste Management and has been in place for more than a decade.
The current emergency agreement runs out at the end of March.
The next contract also could dictate how much Jackson will have to increase its monthly garbage rates.
Council members voted down a proposal to increase rates to $35 a month in December, in part, because members did not know how much a new contract would cost.
Administration officials brought forward the proposed rate increase, saying the city’s Solid Waste Division was slated to run out of money by the spring.
The council meets on Tuesday, January 11 at 10 a.m.
Copyright 2022 WLBT. All rights reserved.


Dairy briefs | Dairy Foods –

Serendipity Brands, a New York-based super-premium ice cream brand inspired by the world-famous Serendipity3 restaurant, said it teamed up with delivery startup Gopuff, Philadelphia, for a one-day experiential pop-up in New York inspired by the classic 1983 film, “A Christmas Story.” To help celebrate the launch of Serendipity’s limited edition “A Christmas Story”-inspired pint, the pop-up offered attendees free pints of the new flavor and a recreation of the iconic “A Christmas Story” living room. With more than 700 total in-store attendees, Serendipity Brands and Gopuff distributed 1,000 pints of free ice cream and gave away 60 leg lamps to special winners throughout the day.
The Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association (WCMA), host of the 2022 World Championship Cheese Contest, said it is seeking volunteers to prepare entries and assist judges as they evaluate thousands of world-class dairy products. Volunteer applications are available at
“We’re grateful for the volunteers who help make the Contest possible. Affectionately known as The B-Team, our volunteers appreciate seeing this expert evaluation firsthand, connecting with dozens of their colleagues in the cheese industry, and making this world-renowned event run like clockwork,” said Kirsten Strohmenger, events manager for Madison, Wis.-based WCMA.
Entries for the 2022 Contest must be submitted at by Wednesday, Jan. 26. Following the entry deadline, competitors will package and ship their products for check-in.
Multiple volunteer shifts are available to support this check-in process, scheduled for Feb. 15-18 and Feb. 21-25 at WOW Logistics’ warehouse in Little Chute, Wis. Volunteers are also needed during the judging portion of the contest, March 1-3 at Monona Terrace Convention Center in Madison. WCMA said it is also seeking volunteers to manage the Championship Cheese Cooler Display on the trade show floor at CheeseExpo in Milwaukee.
To help ensure a safe working environment, all 2022 contest volunteers and judges must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, WCMA said. Volunteers will receive an official B-Team baseball cap and pin in appreciation of their efforts.
F4SS, the Foundation for Supply Chain Solutions, announced a new strategic partnership with Herndon, Va.-based PMMI, the Association for Packaging and Processing Technologies. This partnership will allow F4SS to provide additional value to its members and expand its reach. Saddle River, N.J.-headquartered F4SS will maintain its vital role providing a forum for consumer packaged goods companies, external manufacturers and secondary packagers to share best practices, benchmark, network and help companies find solutions to challenges they are facing across the supply chain.
Effective January 2022, PMMI will provide management support for F4SS, adding to its portfolio of association partners, which includes The Cold Pressure Council, CPA, The Association of Contract Packagers and Manufacturers, The Institute of Packaging Professionals and OMAC, The Organization for Machine Automation and Control.
Businesses across the world are confronting increasing water challenges and growing calls for tangible accomplishments on sustainability. The Water Council, Milwaukee, partnered with Emeryville, Calif.-based SCS Global Services to meet this challenge by improving corporate water stewardship outcomes and reporting. This new partnership will include the development and rollout of programs to help companies move beyond traditional water management to credible and verified water stewardship that addresses enterprise-wide challenges and opportunities, the organizations said.
Blommer Chocolate (Blommer), Chicago, announced several organizational changes to better serve its customers. David Meggs will move into the chief operating officer role, leading the commercial team (sales, marketing, R&D, supply chain), in addition to operations of the company’s four North American production facilities. Meggs joined Blommer in 2017 and has an extensive background in the food industry in various sales, business development, and engineering roles.
As part of this change, Blommer said it is promoting Colleen Ness to vice president, sales and marketing. Ness also joined Blommer in 2017 and brings a strong background of leadership roles in sales and customer-focused activities.
Blommer also said it promoted Melissa Tisoncik to vice president of research & development and QA. Tisoncik has more than 10 years of experience within Blommer and will now take on responsibility for the company’s quality assurance and regulatory activities.
Deerland Probiotics & Enzymes, a Kennesaw, Ga.-based supplier of science-backed solutions for microbiome health that was recently acquired by Chicago-headquartered ADM, said the United States Patent and Trademark Office published its application for a distinct use of Deerland’s signature strain DE111 of the probiotic species, Bacillus subtilis DE111 based on compelling human clinicals performed on DE111.
The patent application (US# 2021-315808 A1), titled “Bacillus subtilis containing composition for treatment of gastrointestinal irregularity,” claims the use of B. subtilis strain DE111 for promoting gastrointestinal and bowel regularity. Deerland said it envisions additional applications for supplements and functional foods/beverages claiming anti-fungal and anti-microbial properties that exert health benefits of gastrointestinal regularity, immune support and balancing of the microbiome.
CRB, a Kansas City, Mo.-based provider of engineering, architecture, construction and consulting solutions to the life sciences and food and beverage industries, said Paul Skinner was promoted to chief financial officer (CFO). A deeply experienced business and financial leader and 23-year CRB veteran, Skinner replaces longtime CFO Tim Henquinet, who plans to retire in 2022.
Motion Industries Inc., a Birmingham, Ala.-based distributor of maintenance, repair and operation replacement parts and a provider of industrial technology solutions, completed the purchase of Kaman Distribution Group, Bloomfield, Conn., for a purchase price of approximately $1.3 billion in cash, effective Jan. 3, 2022. Motion Industries said the acquisition will significantly boost its concentration in core industrial products and services, as well as in the growing technical/automation arenas, including precision engineering.
Synerlink, a Barry-Wehmiller Packaging Systems company based in Paris, announced the appointment of Aurore Vanappelghem as project director. In her new role, Vanappelghem leads Synerlink’s project management team and is responsible for evolving the company’s abilities to manage food-filling and packaging equipment projects in a timely, cost-effective manner. Prior to joining Synerlink, Vanappelghem spent 22 years in various roles at Autoliv, a Swedish-American automotive safety supplier.
subscribe to dairy foods
You must have JavaScript enabled to enjoy a limited number of articles over the next 30 days.
Submit a Request for Proposal (RFP) to suppliers of your choice with details on what you need with a click of a button
Browse our Buyers Guide and Sourcebook for equipment, distribution, ingredients, quality control, and much more!
An at once an all-inclusive guide to the meaning of hundreds of technical terms and ideas needed for ice cream manufacturing, as well as a practical introduction to the ingredients, freezing methods, flavoring, and packaging of ice cream, sherbet, sorbet, gelato, frozen yogurts, novelties and many other kinds of frozen desserts.
Copyright ©2022. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing


Antitrust Issues Scuttled Aon-WTW Combo. What Comes Next? –

Art by Bill Mayer

Though Aon and Willis Towers Watson (WTW) called off their proposed union after the Department of Justice (DOJ) raised antitrust concerns, experts say merger and acquisition (M&A) activity in the financial services industry appears poised to continue, especially among middle-market companies.
While the two firms managed to secure approval for the deal from the European Commission, the DOJ had filed a civil lawsuit—the first of its kind under the Biden administration—opposing Aon’s proposed $30 billion acquisition of WTW on antitrust grounds.
The suit argued that the deal would lessen competition across five markets: actuarial services for single-employer defined benefit (DB) pension plans; the operation of private multicarrier retiree exchanges; health benefits brokering for large customers; property, casualty and financial risk brokering; and reinsurance brokering. The combined firm would have enjoyed more than a 40% market share in each of those markets, according to the lawsuit.
The DOJ concerns centered on the elimination of competition between Aon and WTW that could hurt innovation and adversely impact customers, says William Kovacic, former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a professor of law and policy at George Washington University Law School.
“The fear was that the two firms in selected insurance markets competed against each other, and the merger would have extinguished that rivalry with adverse effects on pricing and quality,” Kovacic says. “This is a concern that’s ascended in prominence in recent years and that has been underscored by new leadership at the FTC, by Congress and by the president.”
President Joe Biden in July issued an executive order endorsing a whole-of-government effort to promote competition in the American economy, encouraging antitrust agencies to vigorously enforce antitrust laws.
Given the likelihood that the administration would be willing to fight a protracted legal battle, Aon and WTW decided to call off the deal in July, rather than spend months battling the Department of Justice in court. In the end, it’s unclear which side would have won.
“The delay [caused by a court battle] is a real consideration,” Kovacic says. “In this instance, they’d probably be thinking that they wouldn’t have an answer for perhaps a year, and they didn’t want to wait.”
Aon and Willis had argued that their combined business would accelerate innovation within the aforementioned markets and lead to more competition, but Kovacic says regulators zeroed in on this deal due to the size and market domination of the players, who represented the second- and third-largest insurers in the markets (after Marsh McLennan, which owns Mercer).
Given the administration’s stance, Kovacic says deals of a similar magnitude will likely face more scrutiny going forward.
“Bigger deals are going to get a closer look,” he says. “The regulators are going to say more about what they think is an unacceptable level of concentration. Aon–Willis is a good example of the type of transaction that the Department of Justice will examine much more carefully and in a more demanding way going forward.”
Doug Melamed, a professor at Stanford Law School and former acting chief of the DOJ’s antitrust division, has a similar outlook for large deals.
“Clearly, we are looking at an administration—including both the Justice Department and the FTC—that is going to be more aggressive than its predecessors have been,” he explains. “And by predecessors, I mean going all the way back to the Clinton administration.”
While this failed deal could discourage some other large mergers, Kovacic says, others may go forward, prepared to take their case to court.
“There are some companies that will not walk away when they’re sued,” he says. “They will say, ‘We think [the Department of Justice] is wrong, and we’ll see what a federal judge has to say.’ You need a couple of those decisions to form a more reliable idea of where the boundaries are.”
The Federal Trade Commission announced in August that it’s so behind on its required reviews of deals worth more than $92 million, it wanted to remind companies that its failure to immediately challenge potential deals was not an “approval” or “clearance.” The agency said companies that moved forward with deals without getting approval are “doing so at their own risk” and the agency could take further action.
While the size of this deal caught regulators’ attention, experts say the smaller deals that have been a prominent feature of the M&A landscape for the past decade appear set to continue.
“It’s very likely you’ll see more mergers,” says R.J. Lehmann, a senior fellow at the think tank International Center for Law & Economics. “There’s a lot of money moving around in the system and interest rates remain low. M&A is still very hot.”
M&A activity in the retirement advisory space has reached record levels in each of the past three years, and there were 22 transactions in the first quarter of 2021 alone, according to a recent report by Wise Rhino Group.
Much of that activity has taken place in the middle market, and it is doubtful that the Justice Department will interfere with such deals, sources say.
“A merger of smaller firms could well be pro-competitive, because they’re not likely to become monopolies,” Melamed says. “They’re trying to achieve economies of scale and bring together assets. It’s less likely to be motivated by a quest for market power.”
The number of small players in the insurance industry means that there’s plenty of room for continued consolidation among the smaller firms—and acquisitions of the smaller firms by bigger ones, he adds.
“For the past 20 or 30 years, companies like Gallagher, Aon and Marsh have been scooping up the smaller brokerage operations for years, and that doesn’t look like it’s going to slow down at all,” says J. Paul Newsome Jr., managing director, equity research, at Piper Sandler. “If you’re talking about selling insurance to the dry cleaner on the corner, there are thousands and thousands of possible people that could sell that product.”
Meyer Shields, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, says the need for economies of scale to compete—especially as technology becomes even more vital to success—will continue to drive M&A activity among smaller players throughout the financial services industry and adjacent sectors, such as insurance and benefits consulting. The number of retirement plan recordkeepers, for example, has fallen by more than half over the past decade, and asset managers are also quickly rolling up their businesses.
In addition to technology needs, demographics are also factoring into the trend, as Baby Boomer business owners consider their next move, Shields says.
“Some of those independent shops are starting to consider ownership succession, particularly now ahead of higher capital gains taxes,” Shields says. “There’s just so much opportunity and likelihood for continued consolidation right now that most of the world will look exactly like it did before the [Aon–WTW] deal was announced.”
Other sources agree that the failed Aon–WTW deal may have little immediate impact on the benefits and insurance consulting industry.
“The main thing is that if you have a relationship currently with Aon or Willis, it’s not going to be disrupted,” Lehmann says. “Alternatively, if the deal had gone through, some accounts might have been shed, due to conflicts of interest. If you were dealing with them before, you’re probably happy you don’t have to concern yourself with a change now.”