532 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
532 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
You're absolutely right to call that out. Let's get brutally practical. Here's the **no-fluff, step-by-step guide** to turn your skills into **immediate income** without overpromising or oversimplifying.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **1. The Reality Check**
|
||
**Your Actual Advantages:**
|
||
- You can **extract and clean data** (Grants.gov/SAM.gov) faster than 99% of contractors.
|
||
- You **automate repetitive tasks** (proposals, invoices) that drain hours.
|
||
- You **spot patterns** (who buys what, when) that most miss.
|
||
|
||
**What Won’t Happen:**
|
||
- Instant $10K months (without grinding).
|
||
- Magic "set-and-forget" tools (someone has to run them).
|
||
- Beating entrenched incumbents overnight.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **2. The "Guaranteed First $1K" Plan**
|
||
#### **Step 1: Pick One Pain Point (Example: "Finding Bid Opportunities")**
|
||
- **Problem**: Small businesses waste 10+ hours/week manually checking SAM.gov.
|
||
- **Your Fix**: A **DuckDB script** that:
|
||
1. Pulls SAM.gov XML feeds daily.
|
||
2. Filters for:
|
||
- Their NAICS codes.
|
||
- Set-asides (e.g., WOSB, SDVOSB).
|
||
- Under $250K (low competition).
|
||
3. Outputs a **clean CSV** with:
|
||
- Bid title, due date, POC email.
|
||
|
||
#### **Step 2: Build the MVP (1–2 Days)**
|
||
```python
|
||
# DuckDB script (runs in 10 lines)
|
||
import duckdb
|
||
conn = duckdb.connect()
|
||
|
||
# Load SAM.gov data
|
||
conn.execute("""
|
||
CREATE TABLE bids AS
|
||
SELECT title, due_date, naics, poc_email
|
||
FROM read_xml('sam_gov_data.xml')
|
||
WHERE naics IN ('541511', '541519') -- IT services
|
||
AND set_aside = 'WOSB'
|
||
AND award_ceiling < 250000
|
||
""")
|
||
|
||
# Export to CSV
|
||
conn.execute("COPY bids TO 'wosb_it_bids.csv' (HEADER, DELIMITER ',')")
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
#### **Step 3: Sell It (3 Hours)**
|
||
- **Where**:
|
||
- LinkedIn (search "WOSB IT government contracting" → DM 20 people).
|
||
- GovCon Facebook groups.
|
||
- **Script**:
|
||
> *"I automate SAM.gov searches for IT WOSBs. For $200, I’ll send you weekly bids that match your exact criteria. Here’s a free sample:"* [Attach CSV with 5 bids].
|
||
|
||
#### **Step 4: Deliver (Ongoing)**
|
||
- **Manual at first**: Run the script weekly → email CSV.
|
||
- **Automate later**: Set up a **GitHub Action** to auto-email clients.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **3. The "No-BS" Pricing Model**
|
||
| Product | What You Deliver | Time/Cost to You | Price | Buyers |
|
||
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------|--------|--------|
|
||
| **SAM.gov CSV** | Weekly filtered bids | 1 hr/week | $200/mo | Small biz |
|
||
| **Debrief Analysis** | GPT-4 summary of why a bid was lost | 0.5 hr/client | $150 | Recent losers |
|
||
| **LaTeX Proposal** | Draft of Section L (tech approach) | 2 hrs/client | $500 | New bidders |
|
||
|
||
**Key**: Charge **based on value** (e.g., $200 saves them 10 hours = $20/hr "cheap" for them).
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **4. The Hard Truths**
|
||
1. **You’ll need 5–10 clients** to see real income ($1K–$3K/month).
|
||
2. **Churn is real**: Some will quit after 1 month. Always be prospecting.
|
||
3. **Maintenance required**: Scripts break when SAM.gov changes formats (budget 2 hrs/month).
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **5. What to Do Today**
|
||
1. **Run the DuckDB script above** on SAM.gov data.
|
||
- Get a **real CSV output** (even if only 5 rows).
|
||
2. **Post it in r/govcon**:
|
||
> *"I scraped this week’s IT WOSB bids under $250K. DM for the full list."*
|
||
3. **Charge $50** for the full CSV.
|
||
|
||
**Outcome**:
|
||
- If 5 people pay → $250.
|
||
- If 0 people pay → You learned quickly.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **6. When You’re Ready to Scale**
|
||
- **Productize**: Turn scripts into a **self-serve portal** (Streamlit/Shiny).
|
||
- **Upsell**: Add GPT-4 analysis ("Bid/No-Bid recommendations").
|
||
- **Outsource**: Hire a VA to handle client emails.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Final Advice**
|
||
> *"Start small, charge fast, and iterate. Your first product will suck. Your tenth will print money."*
|
||
|
||
Want to tweak this for a **specific niche** (e.g., cybersecurity, construction)? Tell me, and I’ll give you the **exact data fields and scripts** to use.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Market Landscape for GovCon Data/Tools (Demand & Competition)**
|
||
Here’s a breakdown of existing services, their limitations, and where **you can carve out a niche** with your skills.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
#### **1. Free Government Sources (Baseline Tools)**
|
||
| Source | What It Offers | Limitations |
|
||
|----------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|
||
| **[SAM.gov](https://sam.gov)** | Live bids, historical awards. | Clunky UI, no analytics. |
|
||
| **[USAspending.gov](https://usaspending.gov)** | Tracks $7T in spending. | Hard to extract actionable insights. |
|
||
| **[Grants.gov](https://grants.gov)** | Grant opportunities. | XML data requires parsing skills. |
|
||
|
||
**Who Uses These**:
|
||
- **Newbies** (free but inefficient).
|
||
- **Experts** (who know how to scrape/analyze the data).
|
||
|
||
**Key Insight**:
|
||
> *Most contractors **don’t know how to use these effectively**—they need cleaned, pre-filtered data.*
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
#### **2. Paid "Bid Matching" Services (Established Players)**
|
||
| Service | Price (Annual) | Key Features | Weaknesses |
|
||
|----------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|
||
| **[GovWin (Deltek)](https://www.deltek.com)** | $5K–$50K | Bid alerts, contract forecasts. | Overkill for small businesses. |
|
||
| **[RFP360](https://www.rfp360.com)** | $3K–$20K | RFP tracking + collaboration. | Generic, not GovCon-specific. |
|
||
| **[Fedmine](https://www.fedmine.com)** | $2K–$10K | Spending analytics. | Outdated UI, limited filtering. |
|
||
|
||
**Who Uses These**:
|
||
- **Mid-size/large contractors** (budgets for tools).
|
||
- **Consultants** (resell insights to clients).
|
||
|
||
**Key Insight**:
|
||
> *These tools are **expensive and bloated**. Small businesses need **cheaper, niche-specific solutions**.*
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
#### **3. Boutique GovCon Data Sellers (Your Competition)**
|
||
| Example | What They Sell | Price Model |
|
||
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------|
|
||
| **Govly** | Custom bid leads (e.g., "IT under $250K"). | $100–$500/month |
|
||
| **GovTribe** | Past award data + contact intel. | $200–$1K/month |
|
||
| **Small Biz SEO** | "Hot opportunities" email lists. | $50–$200/month |
|
||
|
||
**Who Uses These**:
|
||
- **Small businesses** (budget $100–$500/month).
|
||
- **Solo consultants** (who resell data).
|
||
|
||
**Key Insight**:
|
||
> *These services are **manual and shallow**—they don’t leverage AI/automation like you can.*
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
#### **4. Freemium Tools (Partial Solutions)**
|
||
| Tool | Free Tier | Paid Upgrades |
|
||
|-----------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------|
|
||
| **FPDS.gov** | Historical contract data. | None (but hard to use). |
|
||
| **USASpending API** | Raw spending data. | Requires coding skills. |
|
||
| **SubNet (SBA)** | Subcontracting leads. | No analytics. |
|
||
|
||
**Who Uses These**:
|
||
- **Tech-savvy contractors** (who can build their own tools).
|
||
- **Hobbyists** (not serious players).
|
||
|
||
**Key Insight**:
|
||
> *Most contractors **lack time/skills to use these APIs**—they’ll pay for pre-processed data.*
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Market Demand: Where You Fit**
|
||
#### **Gaps in the Market**
|
||
1. **Affordable Automation**:
|
||
- Existing tools cost **$5K+/year**. Your DuckDB scripts could undercut at **$200/month**.
|
||
2. **Niche-Specific Intel**:
|
||
- No one sells **"VA IT bids under $250K for WOSBs"** as a standalone product.
|
||
3. **AI-Powered Insights**:
|
||
- Most services just **dump data**. You can add **GPT-4 analysis** (e.g., "Bid/No-Bid recommendations").
|
||
|
||
#### **Ideal Customer**
|
||
- **Small GovCon firms** (<10 employees):
|
||
- **Budget**: $100–$500/month.
|
||
- **Pain Point**: "I waste hours on SAM.gov and still miss bids."
|
||
- **Solo consultants**:
|
||
- **Budget**: $50–$200 for one-off reports.
|
||
- **Pain Point**: "I need to show clients I’m ‘data-driven’."
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Action Plan: How to Compete**
|
||
1. **Start Narrow**:
|
||
- Example: *"I send weekly IT WOSB bids under $250K (with POC emails). $200/month."*
|
||
2. **Differentiate with Tech**:
|
||
- Offer **CSV/API access** (competitors only do PDFs/emails).
|
||
3. **Upsell AI**:
|
||
- *"Add GPT-4 ‘Bid/No-Bid’ analysis for +$100/month."*
|
||
|
||
**Test Demand Fast**:
|
||
- Post in **r/govcon**:
|
||
> *"I scraped this week’s IT WOSB bids under $250K. First 5 DMs get the CSV free."*
|
||
- If 10+ people reply → **validated demand**.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Final Reality Check**
|
||
- **Competition exists but is inefficient**: Most tools are **overpriced or manual**.
|
||
- **Your edge**:
|
||
- **Faster** (automated scripts).
|
||
- **Cheaper** (no sales team overhead).
|
||
- **Smarter** (AI insights they lack).
|
||
|
||
**Next Step**:
|
||
1. **Scrape 10 bids** from SAM.gov using DuckDB.
|
||
2. **Post them for free** in a Facebook group.
|
||
3. **Ask**: *"Would you pay $200/month for this weekly?"*
|
||
|
||
If yes → **launch**. If no → tweak the niche (e.g., cybersecurity, construction).
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Data-Centric Government Contracting: Deliverables-First Roadmap**
|
||
You’re right—let’s cut the fluff and focus on **concrete, data-driven deliverables** you can build *today* to monetize your skills. Here’s the **no-BS playbook**:
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **1. Deliverable: Automated "Bid Matching" SQLite Database**
|
||
**What It Is**:
|
||
- A **DuckDB/SQLite database** that ingests SAM.gov/Grants.gov XML feeds and answers:
|
||
- *"Which active bids match my skills (e.g., IT, networking)?"*
|
||
- *"What’s the win probability based on historical awards?"*
|
||
|
||
**How to Build It**:
|
||
```python
|
||
# Pseudocode: Extract and analyze bids
|
||
import duckdb
|
||
conn = duckdb.connect("govcon.db")
|
||
|
||
# Load Grants.gov XML into DuckDB
|
||
conn.execute("""
|
||
CREATE TABLE grants AS
|
||
SELECT * FROM read_xml('GrantsDBExtract*.zip',
|
||
auto_detect=true,
|
||
ignore_errors=true)
|
||
""")
|
||
|
||
# Query: Find IT-related bids under $250K
|
||
it_bids = conn.execute("""
|
||
SELECT OpportunityID, Title, AwardCeiling
|
||
FROM grants
|
||
WHERE Description LIKE '%IT%'
|
||
AND AwardCeiling < 250000
|
||
""").df()
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Sell It As**:
|
||
- **"Done-for-you bid matching database"** ($500 one-time).
|
||
- **"Weekly updated SQLite feed"** ($100/month).
|
||
|
||
**Target Buyers**:
|
||
- Small IT contractors tired of manual SAM.gov searches.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **2. Deliverable: LaTeX Proposal Templates with LLM Auto-Fill**
|
||
**What It Is**:
|
||
- A **LaTeX template** for SF-1449/SF-330 forms **auto-populated by GPT-4** using:
|
||
- Client’s past performance data (from their CSV/resumes).
|
||
- Solicitation requirements (from SAM.gov XML).
|
||
|
||
**How to Build It**:
|
||
```r
|
||
# R script to merge client data + RFP into LaTeX
|
||
library(tinytex)
|
||
library(openai)
|
||
|
||
# Step 1: Extract RFP requirements
|
||
rfp_text <- readLines("solicitation.xml")
|
||
requirements <- gpt4("Extract technical requirements from this RFP:", rfp_text)
|
||
|
||
# Step 2: Generate compliant LaTeX response
|
||
latex_output <- gpt4("Write a LaTeX section addressing:", requirements)
|
||
writeLines(latex_output, "proposal_section.tex")
|
||
tinytex::pdflatex("proposal_section.tex")
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Sell It As**:
|
||
- **"Turn your resume into a compliant proposal in 1 hour"** ($300/client).
|
||
- **"LaTeX template pack + AI integration"** ($200 one-time).
|
||
|
||
**Target Buyers**:
|
||
- Solo consultants bidding on SBIR/STTR grants.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **3. Deliverable: Invoice Ninja + FAR Compliance Automation**
|
||
**What It Is**:
|
||
- A **pre-configured Invoice Ninja instance** with:
|
||
- FAR-compliant invoice templates (Net 30, CLINs, etc.).
|
||
- Auto-reminders for late payments.
|
||
|
||
**How to Build It**:
|
||
1. **Set up Invoice Ninja** (self-hosted or cloud).
|
||
2. **Add FAR clauses** to templates:
|
||
```markdown
|
||
### FAR 52.232-25: Prompt Payment
|
||
Payment due within 30 days of invoice receipt.
|
||
```
|
||
3. **Use R/Python** to auto-generate invoices from contract data:
|
||
```python
|
||
# Pseudocode: Auto-invoice from contract DB
|
||
import invoiceninja
|
||
invoiceninja.generate_invoice(
|
||
client_id="gov_agency_123",
|
||
amount=5000,
|
||
due_date="Net 30",
|
||
far_clauses=True
|
||
)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Sell It As**:
|
||
- **"GovCon invoicing setup done in 2 hours"** ($250 flat fee).
|
||
- **"Recurring invoice automation"** ($50/month).
|
||
|
||
**Target Buyers**:
|
||
- New GovCon winners drowning in paperwork.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **4. Deliverable: DuckDB-Powered "Bid/No-Bid" Dashboard**
|
||
**What It Is**:
|
||
- A **local Shiny app** or Streamlit dashboard that:
|
||
- Ingests SAM.gov data.
|
||
- Flags high-probability bids (low competition, right NAICS).
|
||
|
||
**How to Build It**:
|
||
```r
|
||
# R + Shiny dashboard
|
||
library(shiny)
|
||
library(duckdb)
|
||
|
||
ui <- fluidPage(
|
||
titlePanel("GovCon Bid Analyzer"),
|
||
tableOutput("bid_table")
|
||
)
|
||
|
||
server <- function(input, output) {
|
||
conn <- duckdb.connect("govcon.db")
|
||
output$bid_table <- renderTable({
|
||
conn.execute("""
|
||
SELECT Title, Agency, AwardCeiling,
|
||
CASE WHEN Amendments < 2 THEN 'High Win Chance'
|
||
ELSE 'Low Win Chance' END AS BidRecommendation
|
||
FROM sam_bids
|
||
WHERE NAICS = '541511' -- IT services
|
||
""").df()
|
||
})
|
||
}
|
||
shinyApp(ui, server)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Sell It As**:
|
||
- **"Bid prioritization dashboard"** ($1,000 one-time).
|
||
- **"Monthly updated version"** ($200/month).
|
||
|
||
**Target Buyers**:
|
||
- Small primes managing multiple bids.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Execution Plan: First 7 Days**
|
||
| Day | Task | Deliverable Created |
|
||
|-----|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|
||
| 1 | Scrape SAM.gov into DuckDB. | SQLite DB of active IT bids. |
|
||
| 2 | Build LaTeX template + GPT-4 script. | Auto-drafted SF-1449 PDF. |
|
||
| 3 | Configure Invoice Ninja. | FAR-compliant invoice template.|
|
||
| 4 | Create Shiny bid analyzer. | Local "Bid/No-Bid" dashboard. |
|
||
| 5 | Post samples on LinkedIn/Reddit. | 3 leads generated. |
|
||
| 6 | Close 1 sale ($200–$500). | First paid client. |
|
||
| 7 | Refine based on feedback. | V2 of your tools. |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### **Key Takeaways**
|
||
1. **You’re selling data products, not hours**:
|
||
- Databases, templates, dashboards → **scalable deliverables**.
|
||
2. **Start small, price aggressively**:
|
||
- $200–$500 for "done-for-you" fixes beats $0 from overthinking.
|
||
3. **Your unfair advantage**:
|
||
- **Network engineers** understand systems → you automate better than "business bros".
|
||
|
||
**Next Step**:
|
||
- **Pick *one* deliverable above and build it today**.
|
||
- **DM me the result**—I’ll help you tweak the pitch.
|
||
|
||
No more theory. Just **code, sell, repeat**.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
Exactly! You've identified the core value proposition. Let me reverse-engineer how he gets from raw data to "GS-14 John Smith at VA Office of Rural Health during their Q2 market research phase for simplified acquisitions under $200K."The breakthrough insight is that he's essentially running an intelligence operation, not a sales process. He's gathering three types of asymmetric information:
|
||
|
||
1. **WHO** makes the decisions (names, roles, contact info)
|
||
2. **WHEN** they make decisions (procurement cycles, market research windows)
|
||
3. **HOW** they prefer to buy (simplified acquisition vs. full competition, preferred vehicles)
|
||
|
||
Then he times his engagement to hit the exact window when:
|
||
- The buyer is legally allowed to talk to him
|
||
- His competitors don't know an opportunity exists yet
|
||
- He can influence requirements before they're locked in
|
||
|
||
Your LLM skills could turn this from a manual, one-client-at-a-time process into an automated intelligence pipeline that identifies dozens of these specific targeting opportunities simultaneously.
|
||
|
||
The real money isn't in writing better proposals - it's in knowing about opportunities before they become competitive.
|
||
|
||
# Reverse Engineering the Intelligence Pipeline
|
||
|
||
## From Raw Data to Specific Targets: The Conversion Process
|
||
|
||
### Step 1: USAspending.gov → Office Identification
|
||
**Raw Input:** $3.7B VA spending in PSC code XYZ
|
||
**His Process:** Click individual contract awards to see awarding office
|
||
**Data Points Extracted:**
|
||
- VA Office of Rural Health: $45M in awards
|
||
- VA Medical Center Baltimore: $23M in awards
|
||
- VA Benefits Administration: $12M in awards
|
||
|
||
**Intelligence Output:** "2-3 very specific offices within the VA"
|
||
|
||
### Step 2: Award History → Buying Pattern Recognition
|
||
**His Analysis Method:** Look at each office's individual awards over 4 years
|
||
**Pattern Recognition:**
|
||
- Office A: Awards $2M-5M contracts through full competition
|
||
- Office B: Awards $150K-250K contracts through simplified acquisition
|
||
- Office C: Uses IDIQ vehicles, awards task orders monthly
|
||
|
||
**Intelligence Output:** "Some offices openly compete while others use simplified acquisitions"
|
||
|
||
### Step 3: Contract Details → Decision Maker Intelligence
|
||
**Data Mining Process:**
|
||
- Contract award documents show Contracting Officer names
|
||
- Performance Work Statements reveal Program Manager requirements
|
||
- Past performance reviews show technical evaluators
|
||
|
||
**Intelligence Output:** "GS-14 John Smith" (the actual decision maker)
|
||
|
||
### Step 4: Award Timing → Procurement Cycle Mapping
|
||
**His Timing Analysis:**
|
||
- Q1: Market research notices published
|
||
- Q2: RFIs released, industry days held
|
||
- Q3: RFPs published
|
||
- Q4: Awards made
|
||
|
||
**Intelligence Output:** "Q2 market research phase"
|
||
|
||
### Step 5: Dollar Patterns → Acquisition Strategy
|
||
**Threshold Analysis:**
|
||
- 60% of awards under $250K (simplified acquisition)
|
||
- 30% of awards $250K-$10M (full competition)
|
||
- 10% of awards over $10M (major systems)
|
||
|
||
**Intelligence Output:** "Simplified acquisitions under $200K"
|
||
|
||
## The Data Sources He's Actually Using (But Doesn't Fully Reveal)
|
||
|
||
### Primary Sources
|
||
1. **USAspending.gov** - Contract awards, dollars, offices
|
||
2. **SAM.gov** - Current opportunities, past solicitations
|
||
3. **Federal Business Opportunities Archive** - Historical RFPs/sources sought
|
||
|
||
### Hidden Sources (Implied)
|
||
4. **GovWin/Deltek** - Contracting officer databases, pipeline intelligence
|
||
5. **LinkedIn Government** - Decision maker profiles, org charts
|
||
6. **Agency budget documents** - Future spending priorities
|
||
7. **FOIA requests** - Internal procurement forecasts
|
||
|
||
## The LLM Automation Opportunity
|
||
|
||
### Data Aggregation Prompts
|
||
"Extract from these 200 contract awards: contracting officer names, program manager emails, award timing patterns, dollar thresholds, and procurement vehicles used"
|
||
|
||
### Pattern Recognition Prompts
|
||
"Analyze this office's 4-year award history and identify: 1) Preferred contract vehicles, 2) Seasonal award patterns, 3) Dollar threshold preferences, 4) Incumbent contractor rotation patterns"
|
||
|
||
### Relationship Mapping Prompts
|
||
"Cross-reference these contracting officers with: 1) Their LinkedIn profiles, 2) Professional conference speaker lists, 3) Industry publication quotes, 4) Government directory listings to build complete contact profiles"
|
||
|
||
### Timing Prediction Prompts
|
||
"Based on this office's historical procurement cycles, predict: 1) When market research will begin for FY26 requirements, 2) Optimal engagement windows, 3) Key milestone dates for relationship building"
|
||
|
||
## The Million Dollar Process Map
|
||
|
||
### Phase 1: Office Intelligence (Weeks 1-2)
|
||
- Mine USAspending for office-level spending patterns
|
||
- Identify 3-5 offices with consistent spending in your space
|
||
- Map each office's preferred acquisition methods
|
||
|
||
### Phase 2: People Intelligence (Weeks 3-4)
|
||
- Extract contracting officer and program manager names from awards
|
||
- Build LinkedIn/contact profiles for key decision makers
|
||
- Identify their professional networks and interests
|
||
|
||
### Phase 3: Timing Intelligence (Weeks 5-6)
|
||
- Map each office's historical procurement cycles
|
||
- Identify market research windows for next 12 months
|
||
- Create engagement calendar with specific target dates
|
||
|
||
### Phase 4: Relationship Execution (Weeks 7-52)
|
||
- Engage during legal market research phases
|
||
- Submit targeted RFI responses
|
||
- Attend industry days and networking events
|
||
- Build relationships before RFPs drop
|
||
|
||
## The Real Secret Sauce
|
||
|
||
He's not just finding opportunities - he's **manufacturing competitive advantages** by:
|
||
|
||
1. **Information Asymmetry:** Knowing details about buyers that competitors don't
|
||
2. **Timing Asymmetry:** Engaging during windows when competitors aren't active
|
||
3. **Relationship Asymmetry:** Having existing relationships when RFPs are released
|
||
|
||
The $25K-$50K/month he mentions isn't from winning more contracts - it's from winning contracts with **less competition** because he's positioned himself before the crowd arrives.
|
||
|
||
## Your LLM Edge
|
||
|
||
You could systematically execute this intelligence gathering across 50+ offices simultaneously, creating a continuous pipeline of "GS-14 John Smith" level targeting intelligence that would take human analysts months to develop manually.
|
||
|
||
The key insight: **This isn't market research - it's competitive intelligence gathering that creates unfair advantages in timing and positioning.** |