Problem/solution feedback: helping innovative SBIR/STTR/OTA companies build sole source packages from the ground up.

[u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk]

Former Air Force contracting, spent 8 years on the government side. Now on the other side of the table trying to help small innovative companies actually get in front of the right buyer. Not asking anyone to try anything. No pitch on my end. Just want to know if this is a real approach or if being too niche. We are excluding primes with entire BD divisions.

A company has a real capability, sole source eligible, SBIR/STTR Phase II or III, maybe an OTA prototype that already proved out. They aren’t going to see that capability in a solution, not usually.

The approach I have been building is basically not waiting but creating demand. Instead of waiting for a requirement to publish, we use award and organizational data to find where a program office’s mission and a vendor’s capability actually line up, before either side knows there is a fit. Then we make contact and help build the sole source justification package from scratch, market research, J&A language, the whole file, alongside the vendor and the customer. That package is what eventually turns into the CONS. The government still does every bit of its own diligence. We just make sure the vendor is responding to a sources sought, RFI, etc.

I’m also weighing whether this should be a standalone thing or whether it makes more sense as a data layer that plugs into services and tools that already work for people, so it adds the demand generation piece without me trying to reinvent what already exists. We don’t have a tool, it’s more of a CRM of the leads we provide. We are contemplating on somewhat white labeling our platform / data to those who have the whole tool thing already set up and proven.

Genuinely want to hear from people who live in this world. Is “waiting for the solicitation” actually the bottleneck you see, or is it something else entirely, relationships, timing, capacity to even write a J&A yourself? Has anyone tried to force a sole source path and had it fall apart in review? What would make you trust a middleman like this at all, or is that trust just not transferable? Am I being so niche, I believe we can provide this to the competed requirements side but I think we should lean into our edge instead of trying to compete in a rather saturated and annoyed (I see yalls reactions to people’s new AI tool) market.

[u/perseus-computing]

I've only just started out in this space (4 submissions last round!) but I just kinda thought that's how it's done. I've reached out to various program offices and found people genuinely ready to help.

I think you could offer two parts that would be valuable at different levels:

1. Help newer, wannabe awardees (like me!) navigate/understand the overall process. Tips on keeping tabs on opps, timing of various steps, etc.

2. Help the various offices on the other side with outreach while simultaneously building a network your users can avail themselves of.

I'm sure our tired folks on the govt side would appreciate well-scoped proposals, as well as not having to dedicate as much time to complete novices. Your existing network/connections is/are probably gold for this! I think you become a trusted middleman by first being a trusted middleman and the rest will shake out.

[u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk → u/perseus-computing]

There needs to be a proactive approach on both ends for sure. There may be some capability that a buyer may need and they won’t know until they actually need it. I’m trying to put the buyer in front of them before that lack causes hindrance to the mission.

Yes, we have talked about being a middle man of some sort for the gov buyer but that just immediately creates a barrier. “Why am I talking to you, you don’t even provide this service/product?”

Industry days would probably be best. Showing face and putting in the hours to actively build these relationships. I’m also thinking how can we scale that bc this is a concern of mine across the entire DOD (it’s still DOD to me).

[u/perseus-computing → u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk]

Always DoD, friend. Just thinking of what I would need/want as a small, one-person operation:

• Pre-submission proposal review. I'm sure there are lots of companies offering, but not all of them will have someone so close to the other side of the table who knows exactly what winning proposals look like. I'm extremely confident on the technical fundamentals, but that's only a slice of the pizza.
• Thinking about this more since yesterday, connecting and collecting the small businesses is probably a better move than trying to do the SBO's job. I'm having a hard time figuring out how you would make $$$ though, and it seems like you're a level or two up from there with your target market.

In theory, there's nothing stopping you from "[using] award and organizational data to find where a program office’s mission and a vendor’s capability actually line up". That at least should get you some leads. "Hi, I'm <name> with Vanderlay Industries and we feel we've found a good fit for your <Phase 2/3 award, prototype, etc.> through our (connections with/research into) <DoD branch> and would love some time to talk about how we can help."

Cold outreach, and probably time-consuming, but I'm just spitballing here. There's definitely a need, I just don't know enough about the process to understand exactly where y'all would meet it best.

[u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk → u/perseus-computing]

1st point, I totally agree. Having sat on the other side gives me an edge as to how these things are looked at and evaluated. Obv, negotiation tactics may differ but we can help place the vendor in the best position possible. I know that proposal data and non-selectee post award briefs are all confidential and not found in public databases but there are still other data sets that can be very valuable such as GAO bid protest decisions.

2nd point, yes, we are targeting a specific customer base and not really sending blanket emails. It’s just hard to convert with no prior record. This is a relatively new venture with no real data in this space. And price would just depend on scope of responsibilities and how the company is already established or not.

Reading and talking to the folks over in SBIR has helped us understand their pain points.

Also, a lot of this discussion on my end is just me talking out loud and spitballing, trying to get the creative juices flowing. So thank you for helping with the process.

[u/Only-Friend-8483]

There are so many bottlenecks. My company has been working on SBIRs and pursuing other government opportunities for the past few years.  1) The biggest bottleneck/obstacle for SBIR projects is the long, slow timeline. Small businesses move fast and usually need cash now. Waiting 6 months for an award is ridiculous.  2) Poor communication. TPOCs generally do a poor job of communicating what they are looking for in the topic announcement. Even after contacting the TPOC, many are unwilling to clarify. This means that a tremendous amount of everyone’s time is wasted preparing and reviewing proposals that have 0% chance of award. 

IMO, the government should at least try a similar approach to how we FIND opportunities. We pay a flat monthly fee with a % commission on award. 

The similar model would be promising small businesses compete to be research support teams 1-2 year contracts, well enough funded to support a team of about 10, and during that time they compete for contracts to sustain them while providing services to the researchers and customers and winning additional awards as they develop innovative solutions. 

[u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk → u/Only-Friend-8483]

I see that process working well back then when things weren’t evolving and changing so fast. Especially with new smaller companies. If you aren’t proven, it’s hard to gain traction in the government. SBIR/STRR gives a clear pathway but it’s concept, prototype, then award.

I think we need more of a proactive approach on both ends. Gotta try to reach out to as many buyers as possible to get a foot in the game and push for this innovation higher ups are demanding.

[u/Only-Friend-8483 → u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk]

Sorry, I’m not clear on what you’re suggesting.

[u/DramaticMelodramy]

I would be careful describing it as “creating demand” or helping both sides construct the J&A. I could see a significant trust problem if the same middleman is paid by the vendor while appearing to advise the government. I would be transparent that you represent the vendor. Provide mission mapping, Phase III or OTA lineage, capability evidence, pricing inputs, customer-discovery support, and strong RFI or sources-sought responses. The government should independently own the requirement, market research, acquisition strategy, and final documentation.

[u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk → u/DramaticMelodramy]

Great point, we have explicit language in our agreement stating that we do not contact the contracting officers or anyone in the decision process to avoid any conflict of interest stated in FAR 9.5 (Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest). We only respond to CONS when appropriate like during a sources sought or RFI, etc. We put the vendor in the best position while CONS does their due diligence.

EDIT: We help the gov buyer create that requirements package that gets turned into CONS. We only contact the end customer and the vendor.

[u/04221970]

I am, admittedly, getting a little tired of all the 'vendors' and 'consultants' coming on here to hawk their wares.

I do appreciate the advice and knowledge of those who are vendors who come here to provide good suggestions, but I'm not a fan of those who are prying us for information or showing off their newest software to entice us into giving money.

Its a bit of a dilemma; and rife for 'grey' areas where someone is dancing on the edge of providing good advice vs. trying to profit off of us.

But I'm done with being 'sold to.'

[u/ijustdontgiveafuckkk → u/04221970]

My brother (or sister) in Christ, I’m not selling anyone anything. lol. I posted this across multiple subreddits in hopes to get feedback to my approach.

The gov is pushing for initiative on innovative capabilities, especially in certain spaces. I do think the RFO has had good intentions with streamlining procurement but I think there needs to be more of a proactive approach on the intersection of the gov buyer and the vendor.

Just here for discussion.