Some of you may know we’re designing a training course to help suppliers sell software solutions to the government. We’ve talked to folks on both sides to identify pro tips from contracting professionals and guidance from business development gurus to make the course applicable & practical.
We touched on one finding in another (very popular) thread, Should Government “Flip The Table” And Start Focusing On Commercial Practices?. The specific topic deals with the government’s requirement for certain software solutions to have an Authority to Operate (ATO) before they can be purchased by the government.
We’ll discuss ATO and its implications for suppliers in Module 2, Preparing to Sell. But I’m posting this morning to solicit thoughts from the community for a track in Module 1, Intro to the Federal Marketplace, on selling in accordance with procurement integrity and ethics rules.
My question (which I’m getting to, I swear) relates to every contracting nerd’s favorite fundamental case law, the Christian Doctrine. For those unfamiliar, the Christian Doctrine essentially states that the principles of public law may be “read in” to a government contract even if that contract doesn’t specifically include the appropriate clause. Read more from my friend and former colleague, Tom Reid.
With that understanding, and with the recognition that ATO procedures have extended to most (all?) cloud-based solutions, could ATO requirements be “read in” to a contract if they weren’t expressly required in the solicitation but were otherwise part of the buying agency’s stated policy?
Director, Learning & Content Development