"This We'll Defend"

April 23, 2026

​

Firstly, I want to congratulate my colleagues at the US Army who are stewarding their MAPS initiative.  You have the market’s attention in a time of competing interests.  I just watched all of this play out with NASA, so let me help my colleagues at the US Army who now have the attention placed on them.  But before I do, let me lay out my working assumptions:

​

1.  I assume that the US Army assembled and developed requirements that met their mission needs and functional structure.

2.  I assume that the US Army did a market comparison to see if there was anything that gave them what they sought from a contractor base and in the way they sought to manage it.

3.  I assume that the US Army contracting team met with their Small Business liaison to discuss what they were doing and why and assume that the US Army Small Business liaison signed off on this approach.

4.  I assume that the US Army contracting team met with their legal team to ensure that what they sought from a contractor base was legal and compliant.

5.  I assume that the US Army met with OFPP to discuss MAPS and the reasons why they were executing this way.

6.  I assume that so long as they meet Dr. Rhodes requirements for 1) greater speed, 2) competition, and 3) cost/price controls that OFPP granted permission for you to proceed.

7.      The US Army decided to put out an IDIQ for their mission purposes, for their requirements.  This is a position that I can respect, because it was a position that NASA found themselves in while recompeting their SEWP VI agreements.

​

Most of the time it would be wrong to assume, but these assumptions above I am confident in.  Why?  Because these are the necessary steps any agency must take to execute an IDIQ contract.  This holds true whether you are NASA, the US Army, the US Navy, the US Air Force, HHS, Treasury, Energy, or any other agency looking to do the same for their agency mission and enterprise.

​

So, my friends at the US Army MAPs program, these are the premises under which I am writing.  You are running against a set of very strong interests that can be referred to as the Coalition of Self-Interests, or the Coalition of GSA-Interests.  These are the people that no matter what the question is, the answer for them is GSA are things like:

​

“Well, you can do that on GSA.”

“Well, isn’t this the same as what GSA has?”

“We convinced an administration to push forward a consolidation initiative.  It wasn’t meant for GSA to consolidate themselves. It's to eliminate you as programmatic competition.  Why are your playing along?”

​

It also refers to the capture class who look to shape requirements to look like GSA and the GovCon IDIQ capture hustlers.

​

Now I don’t want to paint the community with a broad brush.  Some consultants are phenomenal.  They pay close attention to what you are doing and saying, advising companies as to whether they should offer a response to MAPs, and right now are heads down on helping companies with their proposals to help the US Army advance their mission through MAPS.  Some of the best will even send you a quiet note on the side if they see something that they think will cause you an issue. Not create an issue, but to help you avoid a problem.  These are the good ones.

​

What do the bad ones do?

​

They will make public claims that their questions were not answered, which really means that you did not answer the questions they asked in the way where they would be able to write the response themselves.

​

They will claim that they “speak for industry” and is only doing this to ‘help’ make you successful.  If you hear from these consultants for the first time, then you will already know that they are not there for you.  They are there for themselves.  If they were there for you and your interests, then they would have introduced themselves to you prior to issuing a complaint.

​

They will pull the “do it for the children” small business card.  They will argue that what you are doing is detrimental to small businesses, and that you should change your standards and requirements to open it up to more companies.

​

These are all tactics that they use to make money off your action.

​

Here is the playbook used:

​

Step 1 – Complain about your requirements.  Do so to force a stall and create delay.  Try and shape it for the purpose of opening it up to more potential clients through which to make money.

​

Step 2 – Threaten protests when you don’t shape the requirements in the way that they would like to see.  Oddly you rarely find their name on protests submitted.  That’s OK.  They think that ‘don’t do this or I will protest’ threats will change your requirements or evaluation procedures.

​

Step 3 – Do so in the most visible way possible.  Be sure that while doing so you make the claim to be someone ‘fighting for industry’ while simultaneously make claims about only wanting to make the US Army MAPS program better as a result.  What they are really doing it is attention seeking for themselves.

​

Step 4 – While doing so identify more clients who would have an interest in bidding on Army MAPS and talk them into it.  Make promises.  Charge hourly.

​

Step 5 – Rinse and repeat.

​

What we witness this past week may have gotten your leadership’s attention.  Mr. RobertTurner issued a very public document that was addressed to the top levels of the US Army.

​

This is a pattern from an area govcon grifter.  Know why I am confident in this pattern?  Because he took the exact same actions as NASA when they were asking for proposals for SEWP VI.

​

Here is what he wrote to NASA leadership in 2024: rTurner Consulting -- SEWP VI Industry Day Report 2024-10-04 (template).docx - Google Docs

 

Here he bring it up again wanting to ‘shape’ NASA’s program rather than ‘respond’ to what NASA required of industry.  In fact, he admittedly said so. “Our objective is to work in collaboration with NASA to shape SEWP VI… this is a great time to voice our concerns and help shape the Solicitation.”

 

At the time I took issue with Mr. Turner.  I saw him unnecessarily spending time complaining and thought if he read, listened, and thought he would know how to respond on behalf of the companies he looks to help.  I thought “What kind of consultant thinks it is a good idea to interact with government in this way?”.

 

(*Note ~ I would have provided more examples from a year ago, but was blocked before I could go back for reference for this post.  Occupational hazard for telling the truth.)

 

One observation had with experience – people are their patterns.

 

The pattern could not be more clear.  Past is prologue.  He did this before.  Was not successful at shaping requirements in his way and was looked upon as a complainer who wanted to be spoon-fed his responses.  He was not taken seriously then, therefore doing the same he should not be taken seriously now. (*Listening to industry is a good idea, but you don't have to listen to everyone).

 

My advice to the US Army MAPS program (specifically the recipients of Mr. Turner's word doc): You are free to ignore him completely.  Should my premises above hold true, there is nothing for you to be concerned about.  I am sure you have your advisors who are helping you negotiate the pitfalls that come with the territory, and I am sure you are making adjustments based on industry’s comments.

 

My advice to companies who hire consultants is the same as what I advised a year ago.  Know whom you are working with and do your due diligence.

​

As a former federal employee, I would openly wonder whether the company whom I contract with works with people like Mr. Turner.  It is something that I would want to pay attention to.  If I see a consultant supporting making these kinds of public demands on government – I would certainly want to know if there is a relationship there.  After all, would this consultant do the same if I award a contract to that company holding a task order with my agency or program?  I would certainly think about this when making a best-value determination in making an award.

​

Now that said, you have no worries about that.  Mr. Tuner doesn’t help companies fulfill agency mission.  He only helps them secure their fishing licenses for an IDIQ for your area pond then moves along.  Consultants like this view the government as fish to be caught, and I don’t know any federal agency who likes to be seen as a fish.

​

Apparently, he gives area media something to write about during their slow days.  Kicks a little dust up with a self-created word doc posted on LinkedIn that media outlets couple it with anonymous sources from GSA is today's media environment.  It isn’t going to win a Pulitzer, but it is apparently good enough for the govCON outlets to chalk off as “news”.

​

Kinda feels like COVID coverage…doesn’t it.

                                                                                                                                                                                            ~ J. Johnson