GovCon Made Easy is a most often a game of smoke and mirrors led by those who are less informed and not vested in the success of the government buyer, customer or mission.

Those proselytizing “easy” approaches to achieving unusual and fantastic results in Federal Contracting, tend to suffer from a fear or dislike of the truth. Why? Because the methods they employ are mostly devoid of anything that would withstand scrutiny. The shortcuts they profess are intended more to benefit themselves versus any of the clients or customers they dupe.

Let’s dissect shortcut. One definition cites it as “a shorter alternative route.” That works. So if a route is a way or course taken from the starting point to a destination, this means developing an alternative route infers you already have knowledge for getting from start to finish, right?

Let’s assume I’m on-point about needing fundamental knowledge to create shortcuts. Wouldn’t it seem logical these would be identified by those already working in and acutely knowledgeable in the environment? The rules? The processes? Of course, this means they would have to intentionally LOOK for a shortcut, but I have to believe this happens regularly. After all, I’m doing it now, and have been for nearly twenty years. Think about it. How many companies today are employing Continuous Process Improvement tactics to drive up efficiencies and drive down costs? I see this happening quite a bit.

This isn’t to say someone new cannot find a better way, but again, this is tied to them possessing or developing knowledge of how it’s currently being done. If you take a close look at those making these “GovCon Made Easy” pitches, see if anything about them says “I spent time developing a solid understanding of how things work and decided to create a new way that is better and easier!” You won’t find it, if they are being truthful.

Another way to look at shortcuts is by applying the word “skip.” Taking a shortcut means skipping things. In the world of processes, like Business Development, skipping things can and often does lead to lower quality results, higher costs, more effort and potential reputational harm caused by “let’s see what sticks” tactics.

Here’s the thing. If these shortcuts worked so well, these folks would not be able to withstand the onslaught of eager clients. If these tactics were as surefire as they seem, they would surely be copied by others. Most important, the customers buying in to these systems would rule Government Contracting. I don’t see any of these outcomes happening. Not in 1988, 2004 or today.

It’s like the CCR/SAM Registration companies who purchased ads on Google to mimic (impersonate) federal agency websites to make thousands of companies and individual believe payment was required to register on these government systems. Their goal, very simply, is making you believe:

They flash half-truths and count on the fact you’ll not check, or have the knowledge to check up on them. Why do you think GSA ultimately had to post guidance on SAM.gov saying “Official U.S. Government Website – 100% Free” on the homepage?

Far too many of the “GovCon Made Easy” experts you will hear from on Clubhouse, YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn, are not knowledgeable in achieving traction or victory in federal contracting. At all or in a sustained way. Many of the one’s I have seen for myself and those pointed out by others, have never walked the path associated with achieving growth in GovCon.

It raises the question. How can they help you take an alternative route if they don’t know where they are going in the first place?

Peace and Health,

Go-To-Guy Timberlake