Government Contracting Insights

As more services move online, the public sector necessarily holds -- and uses -- far more data, much of it personal. Episodes like the 2018 SingHealth cyberattack are a reminder that public trust depends not just on convenience, but on strong governance and security. In practice, the boundary between “public” and “private” delivery is blurred. Many frontline and “last mile” services -- especially in social support -- depend on trusted external partners that have community relationships and specialised expertise. The challenge is that, today, when agencies need to share data with such partners, they often have to rely on consent or a common-law “public interest” basis, which can be slow and legally uncertain even for clearly public-spirited programmes. These amendments aim to create a clearer statutory framework for sharing data with trusted external partners, while importing familiar PSGA-style safeguards -- such as documented, scoped authorisation by the responsible Minister or delegate that specifies the purpose, the partner(s), and the data to be shared, and does not override other legal or contractual restrictions. On accountability, the intent is also clearer: external partners remain subject to the PDPA for personal data, and the amended framework would add offences and deterrents so that individuals handling shared government data in partner organisations face consequences for unauthorised disclosure or misuse, including for non-personal data that the PDPA would not cover. The key challenge will be implementation. Government agencies generally have more mature governance, training and cybersecurity processes than many smaller partner organisations. If more sensitive data is to be shared to improve service delivery, there should be commensurate investment in partner capability -- clear minimum standards, practical support, and proportionate compliance expectations -- so partners are not given new responsibilities without the capacity to carry them out safely. https://lnkd.in/gDwY4Btb

Last month, GOI introduced a fantastic set of reforms to help startups secure more Defense contracts. Our Defense Budget is ~₹6.8 Lakh crore out of which approx. ₹1 Lakh crore is spent on operations, maintenance & sustenance (called ”Revenue”) i.e. to keep existing equipment in battle ready state. The updated 2025 version of the Defense Procurement Manual (DPM) replaces the 2009 version; these guidelines cover procurement of spare parts, consumables, software, system upgrades & (any) services. There are 4 key provisions which stand to benefit non-PSU contractors who bid for these Revenue contracts: (1) Removal of the DPSU NOC requirement - catalyst for competition & makes it easier for private contractors to apply (2) Reduction in Liquidated Damage (LD) for experimental projects - catalyst for R&D & private contractors would now be willing to take on experimental project work (3) 15% “Growth of Work” cushion - much needed; this means that the tender process does NOT need to be re-run for a few % deviation in costs (4) Delegation of power to CFAs (Competent Financial Authority) - often, the bottleneck in procurement is approval from above which this reform fixes This reform will provide a massive tailwind to India’s private A&D industry - especially for Indian startups & non-PSU contractors in MRO, components & other ancillaries. 👍 In the short term - a thousand flowers will bloom. But, the learning from the West will hold true in the long term - a select few will emerge as major Primes (cutting across domains) e.g. Raytheon Corp, Lockheed Martin etc The short term momentum will come from indigenization & winning domestic contracts; the long term moat can be created only through exports i.e. winning global contracts through superior technical capability. This is exact the 2047 goal taken by the Govt - to 10X our Defense exports from ₹26K crore today to ₹2.6L crore - ambitious, but small steps are underway 😄 #india #defense

Southern California is the launch pad for the defense tech boom 🚀 I spoke with Wendy Lee of the Los Angeles Times about the latest venture capital trends in LA. The biggest takeaway: the defense tech revolution is booming in SoCal. Venture capital investments in greater L.A. more than doubled quarter-over-quarter to $5.8 billion in Q2’25 alone, with defense tech companies capturing the majority of that funding. Global defense tech funding hit $11.1 billion in just the first half of 2025, already surpassing all of 2024's $8.2 billion total. Leading the way is Anduril, the poster child for defense tech success. The company recently raised $2.5 billion at a staggering $30.5 billion valuation. They doubled revenue to $1 billion in 2024 and landed major contracts like a $99.6 million U.S. Army command-and-control prototype. But Anduril isn't alone. Shield AI commands a $5.3 billion valuation with $267 million in FY 2024 revenue, while Epirus reached unicorn status at $1 billion after raising $250 million in March 2025. SoCal has been America's defense and aerospace heartland since World War II, with giants like NASA JPL, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing providing decades of expertise and infrastructure. World-class engineering universities like Caltech and USC Viterbi School of Engineering create a constant pipeline of top-tier talent. Combined with generations of specialized aerospace expertise, the region offers engineers who understand both cutting-edge technology and the unique demands of defense applications. Proximity to critical military testing facilities like Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake and easy access to the Central Valley for drone testing. Companies get manufacturing infrastructure and supply chain access at costs well below Silicon Valley – without sacrificing talent or expertise. Perhaps most importantly, the greater L.A. area has cultivated a unique culture that embraces "hard tech" manufacturing over software. This represents a fundamental ideological shift from Silicon Valley's consumer tech focus, attracting entrepreneurs genuinely committed to national security missions rather than the next social media app. The convergence of historical aerospace expertise, strong universities, substantial investment capital, proven role models like Anduril, and a culture embracing defense innovation has created a self-reinforcing ecosystem. Top talent and capital will continue to flock to SoCal's defense tech sector. Read more about how SoCal is leading the defense tech revolution in Wendy's piece for the L.A. Times (in comments).

The Gulf crisis just created the biggest startup opportunity in a decade. Five things Silicon Valley leaders need to understand right now: 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀. Iranian drones hit three AWS facilities. The Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea both data chokepoints are closed. The security frameworks behind the Gulf’s AI partnerships were built for chip export control, not for protecting buildings during a war. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲-𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. The Pentagon set a $13.4B AI budget for FY2026 which is the largest in U.S. defense history. $130B+ in VC has flowed into defense-tech startups since 2021. → Palantir’s Maven system ran intelligence across five combatant commands → Anduril ($30.5B valuation) — Lattice OS selected as the Army’s fire control platform, Arsenal-1 factory producing autonomous systems at scale, OpenAI partnership for counter-drone AI → Shield AI ($5.3B) — Hivemind autonomous piloting completed AI vs. manned F-16 combat maneuvers → Epirus ($1.5B) — directed-energy counter-drone systems integrated with Anduril’s Lattice, directly relevant to Gulf drone defense → Saronic ($1.5B) — autonomous naval vessels applicable to Strait of Hormuz patrol → Hermeus ($1B+) — hypersonic aircraft for ISR and rapid strike → Ares Industries — Y Combinator’s first weapons company, building low-cost anti-ship missiles → Ursa Major ($2.5B) — rocket propulsion for supply chain independence Early-stage investors in this space are looking at generational returns. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 𝘄𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲. Every hyperscaler is now rethinking geographic risk. That creates massive demand for: → Sovereign cloud infrastructure (hardened, government-grade, physically defensible) → Multi-region failover and edge computing platforms → Satellite backup connectivity (Aetherflux, Astranis) → Underground and modular data center designs → Cybersecurity for critical infrastructure against nation-state actors → Alternative compute capacity for displaced AI workloads (CoreWeave, Vultr) Startups solving resilience at the infrastructure layer will command premium pricing from both governments and hyperscalers. This is the next $100B+ category. 𝗚𝘂𝗹𝗳 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴. Sovereign wealth funds holding $2T+ in U.S. assets are reviewing commitments. The Stargate UAE mega-campus, Amazon’s $5.3B Saudi cloud all in limbo. But post-conflict, these governments will double down on tech diversification away from oil. Startups that maintain Gulf relationships now while diversifying their own risk will be first in line when capital flows resume. The Gulf’s structural advantages with sovereign capital, energy, ambition haven’t disappeared. But the risk has permanently shifted. Rapid de-risking without full retreat.

I recently spoke on a Defense Tech Panel in the Russell Senate Office Building. Here are 5 non-intuitive defense tech Investment Risks I shared: 1) Peace Risk 2) Maginot Line Risk 3) Stockpile (O&M) Risk 4) Contracting Risk 5) Weapon Warfare Fit Risk > “Peace Risk” – Deterrent quantities are less than combat quantities. If the business case for the platform you’re funding or building requires a war to break out with a high turnover of units due to combat losses, you must assess the likelihood and timing of that war. Alternatively, if your technology gives an adversary strategic pause, you must understand the minimum viable quantities DoD will purchase (and implied revenues). That's what they will buy. > “Maginot Line Risk” – Few flag officers tasked with fighting the next war were promoted because they had some brilliant strategic or tactical insight that fundamentally reshaped warfare. Instead, they were promoted for doing exceptionally well in their Military Occupational Specialty that likely hued to established and proven tactics.  This is a feature, not a bug, of the system. Bet the country technologies need a lot of proof, especially for front line operators. If your startup technology only works under a new paradigm of warfare, will the Generals and Admirals tasked with using it actually deploy it in a novel way? In the absence of the forcing function of combat, do you trust Flags to see its potential and order their traditional forces to entirely retrain to an unproven combat approach? > “Contracting Risk” – Government Procurement can stay insane longer than your startup can stay solvent. A one year delay in an appropriation is just another Monday in Washington. For startups with 12-18 months of runway, it is existential. Is that promised Congressional approp going to your company and not someone else, even if you did all the leg work? How do you know? > “Stockpile (O&M) Risk” –The Operations & Maintenance part of the DoD budget exceeds the R&D and Acquisitions budgets…combined. A lot of massed, swarming technology would be awesome on Day One of a conflict. But if that conflict is 5 or 10 years off, what is the likelihood USG is going go buy massive quantities, store them indefinitely (and where?), then devote resources to keep them maintained and current? > “Weapon Warfare Fit Risk” – Many hard tech companies claim “dual use.” However, government customers need very different things than the commercial sector. Commercial cross-overs may not be sufficient in the crucible of combat. The go-to-market and product development motions for commercial and government customers are so different, you will end up running two different P&Ls to service both. The resources required may only be available once you have solid traction in one or the other.   In short, know the risks you are buying! Deep appreciation to Nate Walton and Thomas Hendrix for hosting and inviting me.

3 Hard Lessons I Learned in My First 6 Months of Running My Own Construction Services Firm After more than two decades in transportation and construction management, starting my own firm has been the most challenging and eye-opening phase of my career. Even with years of leadership experience, nothing fully prepares you for running a business where you handle everything—operations, finance, people, and growth. Six months in, here are the three lessons that stand out: 1. Cash flow is harder than you expect—even with a good plan I built a financial model that covered four months of payroll before the first invoice would be paid. On paper, it worked. In reality, the first payment landed at the end of Month 4, and those final weeks were extremely stressful. The bigger truth: cash flow management never stops. Every hiring decision, travel expense, and operational cost must be intentional. Growth requires cash, and balancing opportunity with financial discipline becomes a daily responsibility. 2. Getting vehicles and insurance as a new business is surprisingly difficult In large companies, getting a truck is simple—call your fleet partner and it shows up. As a new business with no credit history, it was the opposite. Every major provider declined. Merchants Fleet was the only company willing to help, and only by using my personal credit. Thankfully, they offered a good deal on electric trucks. Later, I learned some dealerships will lease 3–5 trucks to new firms without established credit. That information would have saved weeks of effort. Insurance was even tougher. Premiums were far higher than expected. But when you’re starting out, you take what you can get and keep moving. 3. Relationships aren’t just important—they're everything In big firms, relationships help win work. In a small business, they determine if you even get the opportunity. Without a large brand behind you, you are the value proposition. Clients hire you for your reputation, integrity, and track record. Internally, relationships matter just as much. Being transparent about goals, challenges, and direction builds trust and ownership. This has already shaped the culture of our young firm in a positive way. Final Thoughts Entrepreneurship in the construction services market is not for the faint-hearted. It’s tough, unpredictable, and humbling but it’s also incredibly rewarding. Every challenge teaches you something new. Every small win feels like a giant leap. If you’re considering starting your own firm: prepare for surprises, stay financially disciplined, and invest deeply in relationships. They will carry you further than you think. And if you’re already on this journey you’re not alone. We’re all learning as we go, one decision, one setback, and one breakthrough at a time. #Entrepreneurship #Construction #CEI #ConstructionManagement #LessonsLearned #Leadership EOS Engineering

Executive Order 14005 Just Reshaped $850 Billion in Defense Contracts. Here's Your Playbook. While everyone's chasing AI contracts, a seismic shift in procurement rules is creating immediate opportunities for American manufacturers. EO 14005 and the latest NDAA amendments aren't just policy updates. They're forcing the entire defense industrial base to pivot toward domestic production. The numbers tell the story: • Domestic content threshold: 60% today, 75% by 2029 • DoD waivers down 15% since 2021 • $14 billion in new U.S. manufacturing investments • 5-20% price premiums for domestic products. I've tracked every major DFARS update since the EO dropped. The pattern is unmistakable: Foreign suppliers are getting squeezed out. American companies are capturing contracts they couldn't touch two years ago. Three Immediate Opportunities: 1. Critical Materials Gold Rush The FY2024 NDAA Section 803 mandates 20-30% price preferences for domestic rare earths, semiconductors, and defense electronics. One Alabama supplier went from $3M to $47M revenue just by pivoting to domestic titanium processing. 2. Shipbuilding Supply Chain Section 1024 closed the naval vessel loophole. Every component—steel, propulsion, electronics—must meet domestic thresholds. $2.3 billion in submarine industrial base investments are flowing. If you can forge, cast, or machine to mil-spec, there's work waiting. 3. Rapid Prototyping Fast Track FY2025 NDAA Section 804 created middle-tier acquisitions for domestic tech, 18-month development cycles instead of 6 years. Small businesses with cleared personnel are winning these hands down. The Compliance Trap (And How to Avoid It): Higher thresholds mean more audits. CMMC requirements are expanding. Foreign ownership rules are tightening. But here's what competent contractors are doing: • Pre-audit supply chains NOW one Chinese chip can kill a $50M contract • Partner with established primes as certified domestic suppliers • Document everything MIAO waiver reviews require extensive justification Action Steps for Next 30 Days: Map Your Supply Chain: Every component, every supplier. The 60% threshold is today's reality. Target NDAA-Funded Programs: Counter-drone, shipbuilding, critical materials. These have dedicated domestic preference funding. Get ITAR/DFARS Ready: If you're not compliant, start now. The paperwork takes months. The Hard Truth: This isn't temporary. The bipartisan push for domestic production will outlast any administration. Companies clinging to foreign suppliers will lose market share to those who adapt. One contractor told me: "We spent $2M reshoring from Mexico. Won $67M in new contracts within 18 months." The math is simple. The execution is hard. But the opportunity is massive. By 2030, these rules could redirect $50 billion annually to domestic suppliers. The question isn't whether to pivot—it's how fast you can move. Your competitors are already reshoring. What's your timeline?

Small business subcontractors should know that a prime contractor operating under a small business subcontracting plan “may not prohibit a subcontractor from discussing any material matter pertaining to payment or utilization with the contracting officer.” This restriction is set forth in the SBA’s regulations at 13 C.F.R. 125.3(c)(1)(iii). A similar restriction appears in the FAR’s small business subcontracting plan clause, FAR 52.219-9. In my experience, although many primes comply with this restriction, it’s not uncommon for a prime contractor to include a provision in its draft subcontract agreement prohibiting the subcontractor from communicating with the government about the subcontract. Sometimes these provisions require the prime’s prior consent to communicate with the government or only allow the subcontractor to respond if contacted by the government, but not to initiate communication. In other cases, they just impose an outright ban without exceptions. In my view, when a prime is operating under a subcontracting plan, provisions like these are contrary to the FAR and SBA regulations to the extent they prohibit the subcontractor from communicating with the government regarding payment or utilization. Prospective subcontractors would be wise to keep their eyes peeled for these impermissible restrictions in draft subcontracts and be prepared to push back before signing on the dotted line. https://lnkd.in/gvykba7Z

Your P&L says you made $80k last month. Your bank account has $11k in it. Both of those numbers are correct. Most contractors I work with think profit and cash are the same thing. They're not even close. Profit is an accounting concept—it happens the moment you send an invoice. Cash is what you have when someone actually pays you, minus what you've already spent to do the work. Here's the pattern I see constantly: You finish a job on Friday, bill the client for $45k, and your bookkeeper records a profit. Feels good. But you paid your crew and bought materials three weeks ago. The client has Net 30 terms, so you won't see that $45k until mid-next month. Meanwhile, you've already started two more jobs and written checks for $30k in labor and materials on those. You just made money on paper and went broke in real life. The timing is what kills you. Construction front-loads costs. You pay for everything before you bill, then wait 30-60 days to collect. If you're growing, every new job widens the gap. I've seen profitable companies fail because they couldn't fund the float between paying out and collecting. Three things to fix today: Start billing in chunks—weekly or bi-weekly progress billing, not at completion. Send the invoice Tuesday morning, not "when you get to it" Friday afternoon. Collect deposits that actually cover your first-half costs, not token 10% deposits. If the first three weeks of work cost $18k, your deposit should be $18k. Know your number: count the days from when you spend money to when you collect it. If that's 50 days, you need 50 days of cash reserves before you take the next job. You can be profitable and go under. The timing gap is what decides if you make it.