Author’s Note: If, as a vendor, you operate at the level of standard industry practices when pursuing work in federal contracting, you’ll likely be able to achieve moderate success. To rise above and make notable impacts, you need to go beyond best practices. Are you ready to separate your performance from that of the crowd? A great opportunity to move the needle is by immersing yourself in the content and conversations taking place October 1st at our Insight Summit in Hanover, MD. 

 

Selling is ultimately about getting someone or some organization to commit to buying your goods, services, or solutions. The occurrence of the sales transaction is what rings the bell of your actual or virtual cash register, contributing to your top and bottom lines. Life would be so much easier if everything were as simple as selling hot dogs at a ball game, or selling someone a new set of tires for their car or truck. Very simple and transactional is how many perceive it. What most don’t see is the time and effort put into planning and developing insights that will lead to those transactions. This is very much the case in federal contracting.  Companies seeking to achieve those transactions believe it is more simple that it really is, and little preparation is required to achieve desired results.

 

A few years ago, I posed the question, actually a challenge, between federal agency requirement’s owners and the vendors seeking to fulfill those requirements. The challenge was about who puts more rigor into their planning when it comes federal information technology investments. That challenge is still under review. This conversation still challenges the notion that one side is more vested in planning than the other, but it also looks at how Industry can leverage the planning and reporting work being done by agencies, to achieve the transaction in a more efficient and informed manner.

 

Before I continue, and for the sake of this article, let’s ensure we are on the same page as it relates to important definitions. The first one is need. This is something identified by a customer (e.g. end user, project manager, stakeholder) that will allow them to replace, improve or sustain a specific process, material, or system they are responsible for, or use in completing tasks for meeting organizational objectives. When they begin or finish executing the process of making a request, such as submitting a requisition, it becomes a requirement. When that requisition is approved for purchase and is submitted to a purchasing activity, to include a purchase card holder for buys up to $10,000, it becomes an opportunity. So we have need, requirement, and opportunity.

In my experience, each of these is treated differently in a sales opportunity pipeline. Why? Because there is often different knowledge of, and risk associated with each one. Whether you observe the BANT model, or other, each of them is unique based on where they fit in the opportunity lifecycle, and how certain you are the result will be an award to your organization.

 

If you follow standard industry practices in federal contracting, tactics I generally consider to be subpar, the first interaction for many companies, regardless of size, is an opportunity. For a metric, I would apply the 80/20 Rule in the same way I apply it to companies winning those large, empty, multiple-award contract vehicles. 20 percent of them will win 80 percent of the business. In the case of this article, I believe that 20 percent of all companies in federal contracting begin their opportunity lifecycle by identifying a need or requirement versus an opportunity. This means they are better positioned to interact with customers versus just buyers. It means they are better positioned to help influence the technical attributes of how the customer will seek to fulfill their need or requirement. These organizations have embraced processes that are best, or beyond best industry practices.

 

Entities operating at the “best” or “beyond best” levels, are often ravenous consumers of information unknown to, or simply overlooked by others. They are engaging well before the transaction stage in order to shape the outcome in ways most suitable for their company, while staying focused on customer objectives. This requires awareness of the customer and their objectives, before the sale occurs. For companies that are part of the 80 in the 80/20 Rule, this awareness happens late in the cycle, if ever. These organization tend to operate in the lag versus the lead during the opportunity lifecycle, and are typically reactive to information that comes their way. Companies in the 20 of the 80/20 Rule are intentionally proactive when it comes to data and information, keeping them in the lead versus the lag of intelligence and lifecycle activities.

 

In my next few blogs, and on episodes of the GettingFED™ with Go-To-Guy podcast, I’ll talk about some of the information resources used by companies operating in the 20 versus the 80, and how minor adjustments to your growth efforts can move you towards the “20” and performing at best or beyond best industry practices.

 

Peace, Health, and Thriving,

 

Go-To-Guy Timberlake