In federal contracting, organizations often believe they are losing opportunities because of pricing, incumbency, or evaluation bias. In reality, many losses trace back to weak pursuit alignment established long before a proposal is written. When opportunities do not truly fit strategy or execution capability, teams are forced to compensate late
In federal contracting, growth is often measured by how many opportunities an organization is tracking. But seasoned contractors know that real progress comes from bid selectivity, not volume alone. When teams pursue too many opportunities without discipline, resources are diluted, proposal quality suffers, and win rates stagnate. Focusing on the
In federal contracting, growth conversations often start with how many opportunities are in the funnel. But experienced contractors know that volume alone does not drive results. pipeline quality is what determines whether business development effort translates into awards, margin stability, and execution success. Organizations that focus on quality over quantity
Winning a federal contract is a milestone, but it is not the finish line. Post-award execution determines whether the promises made during capture and proposal translate into performance that meets agency expectations. Many contracts that look strong on paper struggle during execution because assumptions made before award do not hold
Price is one of the few proposal elements that evaluators can compare directly, yet it is also one of the easiest to misinterpret. Competitor pricing often shapes evaluator expectations, tradeoff discussions, and perceived risk, even when price is not the highest-weighted factor. Contractors who understand how these signals function are
Recompetes represent some of the most complex and competitive opportunities in federal contracting. Incumbents bring experience, customer familiarity, and operational insight, while challengers must overcome established performance narratives. Recompete intelligence is the structured analysis that helps contractors understand this dynamic and make informed decisions before committing significant resources. When applied
Federal contracting success depends as much on self-awareness as it does on solution quality. Competitive posture describes how well a contractor is positioned relative to competitors before committing resources to a pursuit. It reflects strengths, weaknesses, relationships, pricing flexibility, and execution credibility within a specific competitive environment. Understanding this posture
Federal contractors are often surprised when proposals that appear comparable receive materially different evaluation scores. Proposal scoring variability refers to the differences in how evaluators interpret and score similar content, even when proposals are compliant and technically sound. Understanding why this occurs is essential for reducing risk and improving consistency
Pricing decisions in federal contracting extend well beyond direct labor rates. Indirect rate exposure represents one of the most overlooked yet consequential risks in proposal pricing. When indirect assumptions are misaligned with contract structure or execution reality, contractors face increased evaluation scrutiny and downstream performance challenges. Understanding this exposure early
In many federal acquisitions, price is evaluated alongside realism, not just competitiveness. Evaluators are tasked with determining whether proposed costs reflect a feasible and executable approach. A cost realism narrative provides the explanation that connects numbers to reality, helping evaluators understand how pricing supports performance rather than undermines it. When
Hinz Consulting is a proposal, capture, and business development consulting firm. We help customers, including Fortune 100 clients, win Government contracts in every market.
