>'(a) obviously tailored to the capabilities of a single firm so there was no way to win unless you were them'
For what it's worth, this isn't necessarily corruption at work.
As I've related on HN before, the procurement arms of these agencies are often woefully unequipped for handling anything IT related. It's typically a process made for sourcing completely interchangeable, relatively simple supplies or services seeing terribly complex software or systems dumped into them - not 'shoe-horned' as that would imply an attempt at fitting - simply dumped so that requirements spill on the floor and everything gets jumbled up onto the existing conventions.
Given that, providing an agnostic SOW is a great way to end up with stuck with a lowball bid which makes the most self-serving, word-splitting assumptions possible to stick you with something utterly apart from what you need.
>'(b) so ridiculously vague or out of this world impossible ("We need you to basically rewrite GitHub for us and the budget is $30k") that it wasn't even worth the time.'
Related to what I said above - these requirements are not as hard and fast as they might seem. Writing a defensively worded response, getting your foot in the door to talk with the people who actual request and implement is not a terrible way to start doing real work.
>'Even now where I work, we have to deal with government agencies literally telling us they can't tell us any requirements at all because that would give us an advantage over other firms somehow.'
Right.
It's not unlike any sort of courtship, business or otherwise. You can't just ask outright, you have to make friends and hear the information gush over lunch or volunteer some no-fee consulting and take notes.
Big vendors and VARs have people who do this nearly full-time so it's certainly much harder for a small company, but not impossible.
>'We just have to pitch our product to them and hope that it fits, even though at this point in our development cycle we could (and really, want to) make adjustments, feature additions, etc. to fit them if we were allowed to.'
Something to be aware of, when dealing with a Lockheed terms like 'adjustments, feature additions' are euphemisms for 'one million dollars'. If you're pitching these possibilities and expecting/willing to make them to earn the business then it might pay to be explicit about it.
For what it's worth, this isn't necessarily corruption at work.
As I've related on HN before, the procurement arms of these agencies are often woefully unequipped for handling anything IT related. It's typically a process made for sourcing completely interchangeable, relatively simple supplies or services seeing terribly complex software or systems dumped into them - not 'shoe-horned' as that would imply an attempt at fitting - simply dumped so that requirements spill on the floor and everything gets jumbled up onto the existing conventions.
Given that, providing an agnostic SOW is a great way to end up with stuck with a lowball bid which makes the most self-serving, word-splitting assumptions possible to stick you with something utterly apart from what you need.
>'(b) so ridiculously vague or out of this world impossible ("We need you to basically rewrite GitHub for us and the budget is $30k") that it wasn't even worth the time.'
Related to what I said above - these requirements are not as hard and fast as they might seem. Writing a defensively worded response, getting your foot in the door to talk with the people who actual request and implement is not a terrible way to start doing real work.
>'Even now where I work, we have to deal with government agencies literally telling us they can't tell us any requirements at all because that would give us an advantage over other firms somehow.'
Right.
It's not unlike any sort of courtship, business or otherwise. You can't just ask outright, you have to make friends and hear the information gush over lunch or volunteer some no-fee consulting and take notes.
Big vendors and VARs have people who do this nearly full-time so it's certainly much harder for a small company, but not impossible.
>'We just have to pitch our product to them and hope that it fits, even though at this point in our development cycle we could (and really, want to) make adjustments, feature additions, etc. to fit them if we were allowed to.'
Something to be aware of, when dealing with a Lockheed terms like 'adjustments, feature additions' are euphemisms for 'one million dollars'. If you're pitching these possibilities and expecting/willing to make them to earn the business then it might pay to be explicit about it.