If It’s Not Broken, Is It Really Perfect? : Rethinking Vendor Transition in Government Contracting

Four sleepless nights. That’s how long a federal contracting officer once spent wrestling with a dilemma: a new small business team submitted a proposal that offered bold, cost-saving automation ideas. Meanwhile, the incumbent vendor—steady and familiar for fifteen years—already knew how to navigate the complexities of her agency’s codebase and culture. She found herself torn between an exciting unknown and a comfortable status quo.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” people say. But what if that’s exactly when we miss out on truly game-changing innovations?

Taking Stock of Our Audience

This question isn’t just for that one contracting officer. It’s for every Contracting Officer, Small Business, and Federal Employee who shapes acquisition decisions. If you’re reading this on your phone, scanning on a lunch break, or scrolling through LinkedIn, these concerns affect you. By understanding the barriers that lock new vendors out, and the policies that might unlock fresh competition, we can ensure better outcomes for taxpayers—and maybe snag a full night’s sleep in the process.

Barriers to Entry: The Comfortable Incumbent vs. The Bold Newcomer

In government contracting—especially for large IT or highly specialized tasks—incumbent vendors often have the edge. They know the personalities and processes, they’ve coded millions of lines to keep systems running, and they’ve built relationships that grease the gears of day-to-day work. Plus, let’s be real: no one likes risking mission-critical operations for something unproven.

But here’s the twist:

• Diminishing Returns can set in after years of the same approach. Lost are the sparks of new ideas or modern tech solutions that a fresh contractor might bring.
• Reduced Competition often leads to bloated budgets, because it’s simple economics: less competition can raise prices and lower performance incentives.

So while incumbents offer stability, we might be inadvertently paying for that comfort—sometimes with higher costs, sometimes with stagnated innovation.

The Cost of Sticking With “What Works”

Let’s jump back to that contracting officer and her sleepless nights. She wasn’t alone in her apprehension:

1. Talent & Knowledge Lock-In
2. Past Performance Hurdles
3. Status Quo Bias & Risk Aversion

Yet the flip side is just as real: the “safe” choice can eventually become the costly one. Like an old pair of shoes, the incumbent fits comfortably, but the wear and tear might cause bigger issues down the line.

Unraveling the Knots: Where to Begin?

Here’s where the conversation gets interesting. If we dive only into dry regulations—like referencing specific FAR parts or enumerating each clause in MAS Schedules—we risk putting readers to sleep faster than a lullaby. Instead, let’s zoom in on practical solutions and the subtle rhetorical shifts that might spark real change:

1. Longer, Phased Transition Windows
2. Evaluation Beyond Past Performance
3. Fostering Knowledge-Sharing Culture
4. Transparent & Fair Selection Processes

A Surprising Perspective: Embracing the Uncomfortable

Here’s the part many find unexpected: sometimes, the best value for the government might indeed be to stick with the incumbent. After 15 years, they might still be delivering cost-effective results, and the knowledge base might be unmatched. That’s okay!

What we need is the courage to revisit that decision with fresh eyes:

• Is the vendor still innovating?
• Are costs and performance metrics transparent?
• Could fresh blood amplify what’s already working?

The real risk is growing complacent and never asking these questions—instead rubber-stamping the incumbent for another decade.

Closing the Loop: From Sleepless Nights to Well-Rested Decisions

Remember our contracting officer who juggled comfort vs. innovation? She ultimately split the difference: she required the incumbent to partner with the small business, offering a dual-team approach for a transitional period. The new vendor got the chance to showcase cutting-edge automation, while the incumbent provided historical knowledge.

Outcome? Faster turnaround on code fixes, improved morale (no more “we’ve always done it this way”), and a nice surge of cost savings that made the leadership team take notice.

It’s a reminder that vendor transition is never a binary “incumbent vs. newcomer” choice—it’s a balancing act that demands agility, open-mindedness, and yes, sometimes a leap of faith.

Ending on a Note of Possibility

If your agency or team is grappling with a similar dilemma, consider this your invitation to ponder: Could sticking with what’s “not broken” actually be limiting what could be remarkable? By integrating phased transitions, inclusive evaluations, and open knowledge-sharing, we can redefine what government contracting looks like—for the people making the decisions and the taxpayers footing the bill.

Because sometimes, the most surprising innovations come from the riskiest leaps—just ask anyone who’s finally decided to ditch their old, comfortable shoes.