Name: From Past to Progress: Lessons from the History of Defense Procurement for Today’s Federal Contractors
Uploaded: 2025-11-20T17:16:17.006Z
Duration: 45 min 32 s
Description: From Past to Progress: Lessons from the History of Defense Procurement for Today’s Federal Contractors

Transcript for "From Past to Progress: Lessons from the History of Defense Procurement for Today’s Federal Contractors": and thanks for joining us for this GovDash live session, From Past to Progress, Lessons from the History of Defense Procurement for Today's Federal Government Contractors. I'm Andrew Flynn, an account executive here at GovDash, and and I've spent a good bit of my career thus far supporting Department of Defense, DHS, the VA, and several OIGs, which means I've lived through some of the acquisition and capture challenges, we're gonna really unpack here today. At GovDash, we work with federal government contractors who are trying to navigate a really complex procurement environment and an environment that's changing faster than ever. Tighter timelines, more data requirements, new modernization mandates, and expectations all around speed as well as AI. Those expectations don't always match the reality on the ground, if we're gonna call a spade a spade. What we've heard repeatedly from customers, here at GovDash that we support is that it's hard to understand where the system is going as a whole, if we don't truly understand how we got here. So that's why I'm extremely excited for today's discussion with our distinguished guest, mister Wesley Sparks. He's the director of business development and growth over at Honeywell and the author of a book I genuinely recommend to everyone here on the call, who works in this space. It's called Buying Power, the business of defense in America. And Wesley brings a pretty unique perspective here. He's seen defense acquisition from both in, from inside and both in uniform and on the industry side of the house. His book tells the story not through politics or through theory, but through the actual forces of how the Department of Defense buys today and has been shaped. So we're gonna connect that history of where we've come from to what's happening right now with defense contracting and what that really means for GovCon folks as we approach, you know, fresh year being 2026. Couple of things folks on the call or the GovDash live session today can expect to take away. How the history of defense procurement still shapes our current acquisition environment. Where technology, data, and AI are genuinely moving the needle and where the hype is a bit over overstated. Practical ways GovCon can align with DoD modernization, their priorities in order to adapt a little bit faster. And we'll take a look at the lessons from the past in how we can help teams compete smarter and actually real really build real buying power. Wesley, it's great to have you here. I gave a pretty short version introduction. Before we jump in, I'd love for you to share a little bit more about yourself, your background, and really what inspired you to write the book, Buying Power. From from my foxhole. So, again, Wesley Sparks. I live, in Huntsville, Alabama. So, you know, Pentagon South. And, I was an army acquisition officer. So went through the DAU training to become, that functional area inside of the army. And I spent my government acquisition time up at PEO Ground Combat Systems, which is, the Detroit arsenal. So I worked as an assistant project manager in, several different vehicle offices there, working for tracked vehicles, and other combat platforms. Spent a lot of time in the building, filling in as what's called a DAS, part of the army systems coordinator. I was just kind of a liaison for a program office to the building. And then I retired from the army at the 2018. Since then, I've worked for a couple, prime contractors. And like you mentioned, I'm currently working, at Honeywell, and that's why I've been with them now for two years and really representing, some of the newer technologies like directed energy and trying to help build that internal business case, for something that's still kind of on the left side of the, you know, technology adoption curve. It's just a little bit of building internal business cases, tracking opportunities, watching what crimes are doing, and, so get excited to get started today. Yeah. So I think it's safe to say not your first rodeo. So Got a few proposals. so let's kinda start, if you don't mind, Wesley. Let's go back to kind of the origins here. Because the themes we'll see today, they didn't just show up out of nowhere. They were shaped by decades of, let's say, policy shift, crises, industrial evolution, if you will. In your book, Buying Power, you described how defense procurement evolved out of necessity, often during crises. What do you think or if you wouldn't mind outlining for me some of those key inflection points in the story that still define how DoD buys today. Sure. Yeah, I think we can and start with kind of the more recent era being, really, you know, World War two. You know, I'm I'm considering that recent. But, there's a great book, Freedom's Forge, that a lot of people have been talking about and reading, and you get a lot of, you know, industry days and events, and that book's mentioned a lot. It was really baked into that industrialization process, you know, prior to The US entering the war, how the, you know, automotive industry, got brought into the defense industry. You know, even, you know, Singer Sewing machines started making, you know, handguns and things like that. And so that was kind of what the first big turning points that really was bringing US economic power and industrial base broadly into the defense ecosystem. Sometimes you go through you know, a little bit. Right? It wasn't always, smooth sailing, but that was kinda first era. You know, and then you really get into, you know, the McNamara era, when he was, SecDef in the nineteen sixties as you really started to get into the the kind of professionalization and, you know, using statistic modeling and things like that, was really that next era, you know, which, unfortunately, is some of the stuff that we're kinda have now shaped off when you look at some of the, you know, PPBE that's been talked about being reformed with how we plan budgets and things like that. You know? And then, arguably, the next real leap ahead change, was in, you know, the, early nineteen nineties, everyone talks about, you know, the last supper, with the consolidation getting started there. And, again, it's a great era for a couple of reasons or I should say an important era. One being, you know, that's when really a lot of the leap ahead technologies and that offset really were seeded and and and moved forward. You know, precision guided munitions, you know, really moving into some of those areas, really, you know, digital communication stuff. Those these were planted in that era of the early nineties. Then, of course, the the past, twenty years, you know, GWOT, shaped and distorted a lot of supply chain, industrial base, in this business. But I think those are kind of the four key areas that really shaped, now where we're trying to go. Makes sense. Now I'd be curious from your perspective. So as you mentioned in your opener, you've worked both the Army acquisition corps as well as in industry as you outlined. Where do you see, in your opinion, the biggest disconnect between policy intent and execution really boots on the ground? Wow. That's a that that's a whole that could be its own, you know, podcast or or webinar, but, you really yeah. The government gets what it incentivizes, not necessarily what it asks for. Right? And so, you know, a policy can ask you look at, like, commercial item preference. That's existed for a while. That's not a new thing that just got invented this year by this administration. Yeah. You know, that that has been part of policy. That's been the preferred policy for, you know, couple decades now. But, again, you get what you incentivize. And so when there's a benefit to if you're talking about golden parts as part of a system, again, there are commercial incentives for those kinds of things. And so, yeah, I think to get back to your question fully is that the the disconnect is, you know, there's really there's two areas where the DOD really interacts heavily with a civilian outside, you know, population, and that's through the acquisition side, and then recruiting. Right? So those are the two places where our kind of insular military, DoD establishment really has to interact with, you know, civilian population, civilian laws, norms, customs, you know. And, arguably, both of them are challenging areas for the DoD. Right? Because their their internal guidebooks, policies, and and systems don't line up one for one with the, you know, the outside industry that's that's moving along, regardless of what the DoD says it wants or is trying to to make happen. It's not cut and dry. I think you have the nail on the head. That could be its own podcast. Probably a series. I'm being. honest. with you. And when we talk about kind of consolidation, let's take kind of the five big primes dominating defense, if you will. How did that shape innovation in your opinion? And I'd be curious, like, what does that mean for your mid tier, kind of your emerging GovCon folks today? What's the impact? Sure. I mean, you'd have to, you know, be dishonest to say that, you know, behavior of the primes, good or bad, does shape a lot of the budget. Right? So when you look at, you know, where does where do the largest r and d programs go, where are the largest, you know, production program when you think of a program of record, you know, major weapons system. Yeah. We can't pretend that the primes aren't there. I do think that there's a little bit of a dismissive, you know, approach to them, acting like, you know, hey. Well, they're just, you know, slow and and bureaucratic and things like that. Well, you know, when you look at the the list of, let's say, administrative requirements of what they have to do, you know, you could line up, you know, a similarly sized company that's purely in the civilian industry. You know, what they wanna sign up for working and operating under those creditors, and that list is not huge. Right? And when we look at the amount of industrial capacity that is resident in those big primes, it really subsidizes, the DoD to a huge extent as far as not having to maintain that organic industrial base. Now arguably, we need to improve and grow our organic industrial base. But the, the fact that we have more than one company that can credibly say they could build a few thousand aircraft, you know, next generation air dominance, things like that. It'd be very hard to find anywhere else in the world that can credibly say they have, you know, free market competition at that peak level. And so I will say, yeah, your other question, alright. What does that mean for, you know, middle market, and then those tier one and tier two suppliers? You definitely you can't ignore and pretend the primes aren't there. So it's kind of a little bit of finding ways to work. by, with, and through. Right? So So sometimes you gotta, play nice. Sometimes you've got to, you know, find a way to be on that team and then really assess when there are those windows where that, you know, middle tier or, you know, start up company can kinda go around a process. And it it's just competition one zero one that everyone learns, you know, if you go to business school is that, you know, orders five forces, things like that. You compete on everything, not just price. Yeah. No. Very true. And going back to maybe a couple comments ago, talk a little bit about kinda how history sets the table for where we are now. You reference World War two, MacMara era, even post Cold War consolidation, if you will. You start to see why today's acquisition system is structured the way it is. We hear a a lot, and I'm sure everyone on the call is in the same boat as us, about acquisition reform, but it's not new as we've touched on. It's been on the agenda for decades. Let's be honest. What makes today's reform movement different, if at all? Sure. There's a quote, you can put in my book, for my acquisition, general officer, now retired. But, you know, I don't know if he invented it, but he said it and that's why I heard it was, you know, acquisition reform is the second oldest profession. Right? You know, it goes back all the way. Right? There are letters from general Washington to his quartermasters saying, you're buying the wrong stuff. It doesn't work. It's showing up late. You're wasting money. The idea that there was this inherent certain golden era where we did acquisition perfectly well, we got, you know, the max amount of firepower for the dollar spent. There's no such thing as that, okay. Well, if we just reset the clock for that year and that policy set, then then we're on, you know, easy street. So that's never existed. There have been eras when it has done, you know, better or worse. You know? And so I would say that there's been several you know, the Truth in Negotiations Act. You have Tina, pricing. Right? So on the industry side, huge huge impact to how, you know, are priced and and bid. But, arguably, that was a a great step forward in reform, you know, competition and contracting act, federal streamlining act, talking about, you know, commercial item preference. Yeah. So there has been, you know, kind of generational change throughout, especially really picking up, in the the key to the Cold War era. And I would say that the the current kind of churn and change you know, I I finished my book, manuscript, sent it to the, publisher in January, And I quickly figured out that, you know, this year was not going to be business as usual in any way, from this administration. And so I really kinda had to pull back and say, okay. Well, I need to at least cover some of this. You know, I can't just say, oh, here's something that was used to be, you know, a year ago. And so then I'd spend some some more months, you know, kind of adapting to real time as these things were changing. So I will say one is encouraging, about some of this. There's no sacred cows that, you know, out of parts being upset. And, you know, it's definitely not business as usual. And so I'm I'm very optimistic and hopeful that over the next couple years, some of these policies really take hold, maybe some of them are kinda tossed aside, that the the new normal a year or two years from now is is better than it is now. So I will have to say that the the this approach to wholesale change is is aggressive and optimistic. So the Department of Defense, Congress, we've all turned on the news. We've heard them talk about speed and how procurement cycles currently are really long. Let's call a spade a spade. From your perspective, what is really standing in the way, and where do you think we're gonna see genuine progress on that front? Sure. I think there's kind of two layers to that answer. I mean, so you can prioritize speed and as a, you know, maybe a very valid strategy. I think, unfortunately, when you look at, like, defense policy, especially, like, in the a like, an era based scale, kind of broaden your time scale, you you really don't know the fruits of your labor until, you know, maybe even ten years. Right? So, you know, you look at the big five programs that were fielded in the nineteen eighties, right, you know, the Bradley Davis in, you know, the movie Pentagon Wars, you know, was not a pinnacle of achievement necessarily the day it fielded. Right? And so a lot of. people will look back on those, you know, Apache, the Abrams, the Bradley, and act like the day they rolled off and got commissioned into service that they were the the machine that they are now. They've iterated and adapted. And so, you know, I think that, you know, it is it's it's a it's an aggressive change, you're looking at, you know, reforming JSONs, you know, reforming, budgeting, but it can to really get that speed, there are the trade offs. Right? If you increase if you if you prioritize speed, you are inherently going to have to lower requirements. Right? You maybe don't get to spend two years refining the recipe of a metal for something that's more deflective or whatever. Dan, same thing with price. You know, if you're gonna crash on a problem with a 100 engineers instead of 10, that's a cost increase. So if you prioritize speed, you know, quality and price reasonableness are inherently gonna suffer. Now, again, that could be a strategic, winning concept. Unfortunately, we probably won't really know the results of that for several years down the. road. It's not transactional, as you said. It is consistently evolving. People need to adapt. One thing I personally and folks here at GovDash here, kind of day in and day out from a lot of growth teams, capture work is becoming heavier. There's more data. There's more requirements. There's a lot more documentation. I'm sure everyone on this call had November 10 circled on their calendars regarding CMMC. So even as timelines may be compressing a little bit, how do you see successful companies being proactive in working to adapt and overcome to the current circumstances? Sure. Now I will give again, I'm I'm an unpaid participant here, but a a plug to GovDash is, you know, the way when you can systematize some of the, let's say, you know, compliance features. Right? You know, when you look at alright. You know, this proposal is gonna have, you know, these sections, you know, written those sections before three iterations. The more that you can systemize, let's say, the, block check elements, and then being able to really spend time and intellectual, you know, calories on the really hard part of it, solving, you know, the the hard requirements or, you know, really figuring out how to, you know, fit, you know, 10 pounds in the five pound bag. You know, that that trade off is where, you know, some companies are really going to, you know, excel by systematizing their routine and being able to spend more effort and energy on the really hard questions. Yeah. And there's not a one size fits all. If you're trying to, you know, fit a square peg into a round hole, you know, you're gonna have problems. The ability for configuration, customization, every company is a little bit different, so something does need to fit. Get the nail on the head there. So we've touched a little bit on the system that we've all inherited that continues to change. And, you know, one that we're all trying to modernize and working through that escape. In your book, Buying Power, you describe Buying Power as much more than just a budget. It's influence, it's speed, it's also leverage. What is Buying Power look like for a GovCon company moving into 2026? Sure. You know, I think there's there's an idea that, you know, again, only the the big primes or a Silicon Valley, you know, VC funded company can really take advantage of, like, IRAD investment and really having, you know, their own skunk works that's kind of, you know, subsidized to some extent through overhead and things like that. You know? But, you know, I would say it's the opportunity, especially for the, you know, middle and and lower market there, is to look at, you know, opportunities to how can they replicate that or what can they do. Right? So you you know, if you can't afford to have your own skunk works, you know, building, you know, vehicles on the side for no profit for ten years. Okay. But, you know, what how can you mimic that to some extent to have have that, you know, toolbox or that, you know, kind of, you know, garage of projects that are kind of started. You know, a a similar thing. I I talked to a lot of, you know, engineers right now, even at Honeywell, and I'll say, hey. I don't need a full WBS. That's, yes, backed out program, you know, design full ten year qualification program. Yeah. Sometimes I need that kind of PowerPoint level concept, which I know people criticize, you know, the paper tiger or, you know, a concept being only PowerPoint deep. But, you know, having a few of those ready to go, so that way when a surprise industry day pops up or, you know, an RFI comes out, you know, you're able to lean forward and say, okay. We've got something that's, you know they're asking for a b c, and we've got kind of b and a half already kind of drafted over here. Being able to internally turn to your your technical team or your solution architects and and say, okay. You know, we've got let's pull this one out of the playbook, and now put our resources there. I think having that kind of toolkit of several, concepts, the offerings that are started but not finished is is really how you can mimic that kind of IRAD, you know, Scumquorx Yeah. concepts. I mean, if you don't have any foundation built, it's really difficult to be proactive, especially if something's coming out of left field. So let. me ask a separate question kind of through a different lens that may interest a couple different people on this call based on the companies they come from. So let's say you're not one of the big five. Let's say you're more of a growth stage defense contractor, not a prime. How do you think folks can strategically position, whether it's to partner or to compete, given that landscape a little bit more effectively than maybe they're doing so today on November 20? Yeah. I would say that, you know, business development and I I do talk about that in my book a little bit about the difference between sales, yeah, and business development. And, you know, they're really in in The US defense industry, they are not the same concept. I mean, yes, there are definitely some companies that do, I'll say, more of, like, retail or GSA level commodity items, and that is more of a more like sales in a in a commercial industry. You know? But we talked about when you're looking at trying to seed something for, you know, the next year's budget or, you know, that next requirement that's being drafted now that's not, you know, published and finished, Yeah. That is a developmental, you know, human intelligence based process. And so I would tell people that it is a travel sport. Right? It is not, hey. Let's hunker down, and we're gonna make the best widget ever, and then we're gonna, like, erupt out onto the scene with a fully baked completed thing. It's just, alright. You know, here's the purchase order. Go inside of here, government. Right? It's a travel sport going to the industry day events, you know, going to, you know, the the trade shows. And I know a lot of companies, you know, especially smaller companies will say, hey. Can we we can't afford a booth at a USA? Totally valid. Yeah. But having somebody even, you know, walking the floor, conversating, talking with the primes, looking for those openings, again, I'd say you have to be aggressive, and outbound if looking for those those chances to where you can line up where your company has something, and you find that gap. And, yeah, I think that's what I would encourage folks is you can't just kind of coast and wait. You gotta really, you know, sprint after it and get and go to where the action, is. I don't know if you have trademarked travel sport, but I will shamelessly be stealing that analogy moving forward. Yeah. So let's. maybe paint a different picture, if you will. Let's take a maybe a little future. And, obviously, we're gonna paint it in pencil and not pen. Watercolors, if you will. So if we're looking ahead, what capabilities or, let's say, cultural shifts, if you will, are really gonna define the next generation of contractors that are going to win? Cool. That that's another podcast series question there. Yeah. Yeah. This is, the stump that jump. Alright. But so, you know, yeah, I'll I'll stick to the more hardware based companies, which is where I come from. Right? So, services, you know, contractors, great Americans doing great stuff. You know, that's probably where I had the least amount of experience in-depth. So I won't pretend to be able to answer, yeah, for them inherently, but, you know, on the the hardware based side, it is, you know, right now the message is speed. Right? So that is, you know, what has been on the whiteboard for a while that is that, you know I'll pass forward and say, if all of the requirements that are gonna be this next like, the critical technology area list. Right? Maybe this got, you know, dropped down from 14 down to six. You know, I don't think any of those six areas are a total surprise. Right? So if you're in the hardware business of, you know, drones, UAVs, that kind of stuff, like, no no one's in that business surprised like, oh, really? The DoD's still focused on that? Yeah. Yes. They certainly are. Right? It's still there. It's gonna be a priority. And so I would say taking stuff that's been on the whiteboard or on the back burner for a while, you know, how do you get, you know, that breadboard prototype, you know, some level of physical prototype, you know, start the roadshow, get it submitted to the different, you know, industry days and and shows, you know, hard hardware speaks. You know, having a a live demo is, you know, always better than a hardware presentation. Yeah. And so that's where I would say that difference is gonna be the companies that can get that fast and dirty prototype. And I I feel like a lot of companies have seen it where you've got a really bespoke, like, well developed solution maybe that, yeah, you get you got the back ticket that's been developing. And then you'll see, you know, an award or, you know, somebody that gets, you know, from, you know, a certain, like, a manager or a soft element or somebody will buy that product from a competitor and you look at, like, oh, our thing is way better than theirs. Okay. Well, if you did that, you know, customer knew that you even existed, know that you had this thing. Right? You had this thing developing and selling for five years. Well, if they didn't know about it and they were at that moment to buy and they saw this competitive beauty product, even if it was, you know, two TRL levels below yours, okay, well, you know, that's how you got to get that or get it out, get it public, you know, inside of our little, you know, industry. Yeah. I mean, people don't read minds, and people wanna see the proof in the pudding. I mean, one of the kind of best practices we do daily or GovDash is let's do it live. People wanna see what it's. going to look like, boots on the ground to help make the day to day a little bit more palatable and easy, if you will. So I've got a couple kind of fun questions, if you will, given your background, out, if you're open for them. I know I've been throwing some zingers at your way, but there's not much I. think you can it. answer here. So let's take one procurement with myth, excuse me, that you wish maybe would die. So if you could retire one myth about defense procurement that contractors may or may not still cling to, what would it be? Yeah. I think there's probably too much focus. I'd say the one of the easy buttons to push, especially with, you know, the Adrian and CAPTURE is to say, hey. It's also probably an easy button for the government to push is that, okay, we lost on price. Right? So of all the evaluation factors, well, they came in cheaper. So there's nothing we could have done. Right? On the company side, you know, on the industry side or on the government side, maybe it's it's easy to say, okay. Well, we're gonna go with the the lowest price. But I would say really is that really the decision factor? And I would argue yeah. It's a personal anecdote that I think it's usually not even though it's maybe stated as the the deciding factor. Yeah. I really think that the other evaluation criteria are maybe unfairly rated lower than they probably are. You know, and then, you know, I'd say that there's no such thing ever as apples to apples. So even if you're really talking about, you know, similar size of military vehicle to military vehicle, you know, it it it the immediate thing that's ever always gonna get assessed is, alright, where are the differences? Right? So if they are 50% common, 60% similar on requirements, where are you prioritizing, your differentiating factor? And let's talk about this. Yeah. The other one being the the best offering does not always win. Right? There it is a complex system of, you know, collisions of information, who has the right information when, and did you, focus on the right win themes, you know, did somebody else maybe had the best win theme available to your product and your offering, but somebody else's just hit harder. It landed better. And, you know, the idea that you can win always with the better technology, That's unfortunately not true. It's whose score you get to pull the best or heard the best. And so, those are maybe some of the different areas that I'd like to, you. know, I think that's, about. that's valid and, a pretty sharp answer for a couple questions I'm throwing at you on the fly here. Another one, and I think other people will be interested. to hear this. This is actually a personal question of mine. So what's one lesson you took as an infantry officer, excuse me, or even in the acquisition corps, if you will, that contractors, you know, may totally overlook? Skills you've had, how do you apply them now? I'm sure you've got a plethora of stories. We won't put you on the spot there, but I'd be curious. Sure. You know, I think an area that's, is similar. So, you know, as a young infantry officer, you know, I got to do the fun stuff, got assigned to, you know, airborne infantry battalion, deployed to Eastern Afghanistan, and I was a platoon leader. I had a little platoon, you know, operating base. Right? So, you know, the it'll have, like, 25 of us, you know, in in that whole region. And, yeah, I think the the lesson we learned is, you know, how can you narrow down, decision levels as low as you can? And I mean this on the business side. Right? So, yeah, the military options are not needing to do that. Right? How do we get that decision pushed down to the lowest, most on the ground person that we can? And I think a lot of companies, especially that maybe it's a a risk area, as the company gets bigger and bigger, some of that decision space moves higher and higher up the. chain. And, you know, when you look at, you know, in a, you know, procurement environment, you know, contracting position, you know, how many, you know, teaming decisions, things like that, you know, just get absorbed up to, like, you know, the highest corporate level to really make that teaming decision when, you know, that the program manager who just, you know, was a, you know, a an intel officer in this organization that's now trying to buy this suite of software tools is now at your company. And they're saying, hey. Here's the most important, you know, criteria, or we really need a team with this company. You know? And once it gets, you know, three or four sites removed up a few floors and, you know, you got a a chief whatever officer that has to review that, you know, using a different lens. And so that would be a thing I would say, a lesson from, you know, kind of infantry is, you know, find ways to power down decision space to the lowest, level you can. Still applicable, I'm sure, with, kinda how you operate on a day by day basis, if you will. I'm sure through an a different office lens. But, Is your so there are two other topics I wanna touch on before we kind of open up the chat for q and a. One is gonna be talking a little bit about industry's role in acquisition. So the strategy really. suggests, you know, industry needs to be let's call it a cocreator, not just a vendor. You know, from your vantage point, what is cocreating with the DoD really look like in practice? Especially for some of these smaller firms that maybe don't have the political or the financial structural leverage that some of these really large products have. Yeah. There's there's an aspect of you know, we I think there's some fair criticism of, you know, like, the, you know, being and holding door, right, of, you know, things on their ship that rotates out to industry and things like that as, you know, administrations change hands. There's kind of this, you know, can be this revolving door, and that gets criticism. Yeah. But I think there's an area or there's a lot of miss misunderstanding that when you look at, you know, congress or even some of the the higher, tiers of, you know, defense acquisition, either there's this belief that maybe there's, like, this hidden basement somewhere of a bunch of experts in that one little niche area that are just turning out information and providing that. You know, again, there are there is a congressional research service and things like that. But, you know, we look at a lot of these areas even that are very ambitious and huge. You look at, you know, AI. Right? So that's, I know, a huge overused term, but, you know, everyone knows it's a fundamental game changer. You know, but the there there's not, you know, 2,000, you know, Stanford grad school AI experts in a basement at the Pentagon or, you know, in the halls of Congress churning out, position papers and ideas for their leadership to say, okay. Here's we assess the whole market. Here's the best thing to go after. And so, you know, from the industry side, you know, how do you, you know, cocreate it? It it gets it's that that, providing that information and and it's that kind of duty and responsibility to, inform your buyer. And, again, that goes back to that that long sales cycle. You know, you might have to be planting seeds a couple years ahead for that next requirement. And either there's just not a a basement full of experts somewhere. And so if you're if you're present you know, let me just say we'll say that we're the experts at this technology, you know, on your company's website. Okay. Then what are you doing to bring along your buyer? Right? People talk about that in a kind kind of consultative, you know, selling practice. Okay. Well, you know, apply that to defense. Alright. How are you bringing on that, r and d you know, government funded r and d center? How are you seeding your information there? Working with traders, things like that. How are you informing your buyer of why your thing is better and why, you know, their 15 page of RFP is not really encompassing the breadth of the challenge? Yep. It's not transactional. It's a long season, and to steal your own words, it's a travel sport. Absolutely. So kind of last question, and then we've got a couple questions in the chat I'll read off for you here. Let's talk a little about. the new role of commercial technology. The strategy repeatedly emphasizes, you know, commercial solutions. Do you think, in your opinion, Department of Defense is prepared to accept some of the trade offs that come with true commercial acquisition? You know, like, let's especially focus on data rights, configuration control, even life cycle costs. Pretty broad question, but I'd be curious to get your take. Yes. That is that is gonna be a huge challenge. And, you know, I I definitely can't say that the the current approach or policy to it is incorrect or anything. It goes back to the the original trade off. You know, you look at something, you know, very yeah. There's a famous, also story from a a acquisition geo that the army was gonna buy a bunch of concrete solves. Right? And there was a reason why, you know, they they needed this very special boutique kind of, you know, certain kind of concrete solve that was gonna be that was gonna fit all these requirements and everything. And and they found a concrete saw that, let's say, met, you know, 90% of them or whatever. It was gonna be a fit. You know, commercially available concrete saw. So, yeah, the army only needed, like, 250 of these concrete saws for the next, you know, five to ten years. So this is gonna be kind of a one time buy kind. of thing. And, you know, so they and they were gonna put it through some amounts. It wasn't commercial offering. There was gonna be some amount of a mill standard kind of testing. They're gonna kinda do a delta of all testing. But, you know, they figured out that they were actually gonna the DoD was gonna have to spend more money on the tech manual development. Right? Because they they had commercial, you know, users got that came in the box for the recovery. solve. Right? But they turned that into, you know, a a technical manual, being this here, they're gonna spend more on tech manual development than they were on the entire body of 200 concrete salts. And so that's one of those problems where it's like, okay. You're gonna buy a commercial. Great. Sounds good. You're gonna cut down that entire kind of EMD and an early stage development cost in time for your process. Great. Okay. But now what other levers do you pull to get that field in right? Again, tech manuals is just double one. You are might have been you know, when you look at mill standard testing, You know, you look at the double edged sword of right to repair. It has been talked about a lot. Okay. So then, you know, when you need that little, you know, tiny piece that goes inside of a larger system, yep, they can be three d printed and, you know, the maintainer at the forward edge of the battle needs to, you know, build that part to put it in. I don't think any of you disagree that, you know, troops in combat should be able to use whatever means they have to get their equipment up and running. And, you know, I I don't think there's any even big prime that would argue with that. Absolutely. Let's let's allow that, support that, and encourage that. Now the question gets to yeah. I think we talked about, you know, ahead of time is also, you look at, you know, a a different software tool. Okay. So if if they're behind on schedule updating with you know, so the the giddy user has, hey. Here's all the requirements I want for my next build, my next release. I want these functions added or whatever. If that prime is behind schedule, making the changes that the government has directed, Yep. Now can the government take their code base and, you know, hand it to a competitor and say, you know, that again, these companies are competing in the commercial space too and say, hey. Well, you're behind in your build schedule. So we have the we have to repair our software. Here, let's go ahead and give that to, you know, your commercial competitor. Let's give them a chance to do it. So that's where again, some of this commercial approach is a double edged sword, and that's what we've gotta be watching for. And, again, that's on industry to help inform, that that those trade offs. And, you know, I'd say the last big thing on that is it's no secret that most of these large program of record programs are are really the the company gets their payback in that life cycle sustainment. Like, that's not a deep dark secret. You know, they they fund a lot of the or, you know, have skin in the game on the front end with IRAD and things like that, and then they slowly over time make their money back. And so if the intent is, you know, hey. We're gonna, you know, buy it now and then we're gonna be able to repair it or you're we're gonna have your competitor repair the part. Now that that flyaway cost, that initial bill is gonna be much higher because the company has to make their margin on at the that time of delivery rather than over time. So, again, that's a a tactical and strategic decision, that isn't wrong, but it does have follow on effects and impacts. Yeah. How do you support the mission, and what can of worms are you opening up when we explore, as you said, kind of these trade offs or that double edged sword? So I'd like to shift to kinda q and a, and we've got a a actually, a question from Alyssa here. Thanks for jumping on. Nice. to see you again. Please fire away if there are any other questions from the chat, kinda open mic here. So Alyssa said, Wesley, what do you see as the defense, you know, war department's stance on updating the training that, you know, contracting officers, CORs, contracting specialists receive that helps them understand procurement alignment with all the changes to the FAR and shift in buying vehicles. She referenced CSO, OTA, that have occurred so far in 2025? And there's a follow-up question there, but I'll pause there and let you answer that first of two. Sure. I would say, you know, maybe, send a send a fruit basket to your friendly neighborhood, KO. They're they're probably not okay. Right? Yeah. They are, completely reacting to contact. I've got a a fraternity brother that's, unlimited, warrant KO, the the government agency. And so we do chat occasionally, and, they are I'd say, generally, you know, they're they're trying to wrap their heads around some of these changes quickly also. And, plus, I would say that, you know, the idea of where they're conducting actions on behalf of US government. Right? So, you know, there there's some risk. You know, when a when a company says, hey. You know, hey. We think we can meet this new, contract type objective and and things like that. Yeah. But the the a lot of people say, hey. The govies don't share enough of the risk, and they just get to push that on the industry. But I would say that, yeah, the these KOs really are shouldering a lot of that and trying to react to contact as this develops. But, you know, the term, like, the training, things like that. You know, I I do think the world of, like, DAU does put out some quality, training classes and and products there. I I just, went a few months ago to, to UNC Chapel Hill for an executive, education course for, a lot of DCMA, you know, regional commanders and and and senior leaders. And I would say that they were heavily, like, engaged in this. Right? Hey. And, you know, the party rewrites. Right? They they had a seat at the table. They were engaged in that process. And, you know, I'd say it's it's gonna be a lot of, adapting over the next, you know, year to two years as things get shaken out. You know, it's one thing to say, okay. We got rid of JCIDS or, you know, we got rid of this bar clause. Yeah. Okay. Well, you know, it got put in there for a reason at some point. And so then okay. What is the new acceptable standard? And so you look at the the army is doing a large restructure that at least is trying to adapt to this with the new PAEs, trying to get more of the stakeholders under one roof. Again, you know, we'll see over time if if that works. You know, one of the, you know, acquisition, stories, right, is the program manager is driving the bus, but every other person on the bus has a brake pedal. Right? So the the one off agency here gets to kind of vote in. Now they only have a brake pedal, though. They they have nothing to do to help your product or your program go faster. All they can do is hit the stop. button. And so we will see if kind of moving more of the acquisition folks at least on paper. You know, is it just reshuffling the shares, or does this really move, more of the folks into you know, put them all at least on the same bus? And we'll see if if that works. Another good analogy. And the second piece, and you touched a little bit on this, referencing Defense Acquisition University. And, obviously, you know, they're gonna offer stuff around acquisition, technology, logistics. You think they're keeping up to speed, changing at the pace that's required to really educate folks to handle these changes and be proactive enough? Yeah. I will I I have not had any direct, you know, contact or or interaction with, you know, a DAU executive, as they are doing a name change, and and shuffling, you know, as from the the the DRP and a lot of the changes. Yeah. They're humans dealing with the same challenges. as they adapt to a very fast moving, you know, government environment, which is kind of maybe this little bit it's not the reason why this is such a, serious problem. Right? Most of the people on the defense industry side are used to the government being kind of this slow moving, slow changing entity to now they are, you know, kind of just blazing ahead with making changes, you know, left, right, and center. And that is definitely, you know, a challenge to keep up with and react to and then lean ahead and plan more and more. But I will say, you know, I think the role of, you know, the acquisition executives, they're still part of, the in the government side, you know, at DAU and the the policy making organizations. And so, you know, I I think there are some real, you know, experts in the room and some graveyards that are answering phone calls probably late at night to to get some direction. So at this point, I'm still optimistic. Yep. I think it's a solid answer. I think we all are hopeful and, you know, optimism is good. Any closing kind of statements, thoughts on your end? I've got some remarks for folks that took, you know, a good piece out of their day to to come and join us here today. But floor is yours, sir. Yeah. Oh, thank you. Yeah. Again, I I will make a plug that as the guys moving faster, changing, trying stuff out, there there's gonna be some policies that don't work that, you know, just by nature, there's gonna be some some passwords that overcorrected now the other direction. But, you know, I'd say that I really encourage, you know, GovCons to, you know, to lean forward with some of the tools, you know, like GovDash or, you know, similar other AI tools and things and trying to, you know, kinda break their frozen middle also. Right? Yeah. Because I know the government has this frozen middle layer. Well, a lot of good times, you don't have to be that big to start to get that frozen middle of, well, this is how we did it last time. This is how we did the last bid. Yeah. There's value from taking for that, but, I think that you really gotta, you know, find ways to, to break out of that. Yeah. The need to be proactive, to innovate, and think what's lying ahead is now more present than ever. It's what we're seeing on a day to day basis. I think we'll close things, you know, out here. Wesley, Wesley, I wanna thank you for sharing your perspective, kind of valuable insights, couple stories. Really appreciate you and everybody who joined the call for spending part of their day here. If there's anything we discussed today that resonated, Wesley and I are both pretty easy guys to get a hold of, CallText, Carrier Pigeon. We're both pretty active on LinkedIn there. Yeah. If you're exploring ways to make capture proposal work a little bit better, please feel free to reach out. You know, GovDash is always happy to be a resource. Thanks again everyone for taking time, and we're looking forward to seeing folks hopefully again at another GovDash live session. Thanks again, Wesley. Appreciate it.