Episode 26 ✹ How Winning Bid Teams Use Procurement Data as Leverage, with John Witt

The Stargazy Brief ✹ Episode 26

Guest: John Witt, Co-Founder & CEO, Stotles

Topic: How winning bid teams use public procurement data as leverage

---

Christina Carter: Thank you so much for being on the stargazy podcast. For people who don't know you very well, what was the impetus of starting Stotles? What made you think this needs to exist in the world?

John Witt: That's a good question. There was a bit of a stars-aligned moment that occurred. I met my two co-founders in business school, and all three of us had had some maybe nightmarish, maybe wounding experiences in business and government, but definitely the interconnection of procurement, business and government. You come out of university and you're twenty-two, and a lot of people aren't thinking about public sector procurement. Their dream job isn't in public sector procurement. But all three of us had had some of those experiences. When we got together, we liked these dry, dusty, maybe even crusty corners of the market where there is a big problem, but it's not the sexy fintech or e-scooters market.

It's a fundamental economic backbone to the economy. We like being involved in those places. That's what led us to start Stotles. My specific experience is I was an auditor of government procurement processes out of university, and did that for about five, six years. I got steeped in it. It taught me a lot, but I didn't want it to be my life's work, looking back on those processes. I wanted to create forward motion into that part of the economy.

Christina Carter: Speaking of public procurement, are we talking about UK public procurement data specifically, or anything else?

John Witt: In the early days, my experience was primarily US-driven. Federal government, state government, local government, utility providers, all of them regulated by procurement law, and having to audit all those processes around it. Coming to the UK, we all met at London Business School, and then got our first customers in the UK, and then started snowballing from there. A lot of the same principles apply in both economies, but where we started our focus was UK-centric.

Christina Carter: A lot of the people who listen are both in the US and the UK. We have people listening who are working in the federal government in the US, and over here in the UK, a lot of people who are doing public procurement. What are the biggest differences you think in data processes? If I am working in US federal government and I have something I want to sell, and I want to start selling into the UK government, is there some big difference that I should be thinking about, especially where data is concerned?

John Witt: Just to clarify, say for example you're a bid manager or a business development manager or even a CRO in the US trying to sell to federal government.

Christina Carter: No, you are selling to the federal government but you want to start selling to the UK government, because I know a lot of them are trying to do that.

John Witt: On the whole, there will be things you'll have been used to at a lot larger scale in the US. You'll have been used to a lot more fragmentation of data. So the UK actually to some extent will feel a little bit less daunting. That being said, there are geography-specific challenges and data-specific nuances. The idea of a framework agreement in the US is a slightly different shape. A dynamic purchasing system from the UK to the US is a slightly different shape. But also, at the end of the day, it's a matter of not actually having any of this data. It's what you do with it and how you leverage it to drive revenue-driving action. That's where we see the big winners win. Okay, they're navigating the data landscape, but how do they actually organize and drive their workflows as a team around it?

Christina Carter: What do you think would surprise a lot of the people who are running sales teams, BD teams, proposal teams in the UK? What do you think is out there that a lot of them are not really paying attention to, that they should be, especially when it comes to data that's out there?

John Witt: There's a lot of obsession naturally with procurement data because it's the most visible, the most concrete, and the most thought about by government. The government has whole initiatives around it. The Procurement Act drove the central digital platform, all the new objects that come out of pipeline notices. That's all well and good and very necessary. But every time the government standardizes something, it just creates a new frontier of arbitrage on that information. So what does that mean for what people are not paying attention to? What's the next frontier to be ahead of what the government has made mainstream?

That's where we're seeing huge demand on our side from what we call document intent data. It's the hard-to-reach, ugly, unstructured, disorganized data objects. You can think of meeting minutes that a local council has, or strategy documents that an NHS trust puts out, annual reports, FOI requests. All those things are not regulated by public procurement law and thus not structured accordingly. So that's where we spend a lot of time in R&D, ingesting, aggregating, cleaning, enriching, making actionable, and then actually seeing a lot of people get a leading edge against the competition to have meaningful conversations earlier in the buying cycle.

Christina Carter: When you are looking at bid teams who consistently win, what are they doing differently? What data are they looking at? How are they thinking about data?

John Witt: The winners use data to get leverage. The losers use data to do research. If you're talking to someone that's saying, I want to do market analysis and I want to scan the market, and that's the extent of what they're doing, there's a gap there compared to what we're seeing for the folks that are driving forward progress, getting more pipeline, getting more wins. The winners are actually using this data to drive action and decisions much more quickly.

Let me give you an example. We can talk about three pillars. Where we see this most is around the pre-engagement motion, or the capture motion. We're starting to see it a lot more in qualification motions, so bid/no-bid decisions. And then there's the obvious one around drafting or developing a proposal. In that first bucket, around capture or pre-engagement, the winners are taking contract expiries, but actually more and more intent from documents, from FOI requests, from meeting minutes, to automatically extract where their team should go spend time, and organize their business development team, their salespeople, or their bid teams around those engagement opportunities 18 months ahead of a tender coming live. What they're not doing is hunting and pecking around Google, analyzing, running reports. They're using the tech and the data that's available to them to prescribe where they should focus and go do their uniquely human tasks off the back of that.

The big one lately that we've seen a lot of traction on is in qualification. The losers either don't do it, or they spend an absorbent amount of time doing it. So there's that trade-off. That's where we're really seeing a lot of traction of people breaking that trade-off to say, instead of us doing research to qualify things appropriately, or instead of us just not doing it at all because it takes an arm and a leg worth of our day, how can we actually get leverage on this data to prescribe and do the legwork, the heavy lifting, of here are all the things that could be snakes in the grass, here's what we need to think about? And then actually the most important part is leverage takes the form of multiplayer mode versus single player mode. Qualification should not be a single-person decision, in my opinion. If it's a multiplayer decision, how do you actually get multiple people involved with those data points and give them leverage to make better decisions much more quickly?

And then the drafting one is where we see people either submitting vanilla bids or doing tons of desk research to be able to speak the customer's language aligned to the priorities. Where we're seeing people get leverage is taking all that intent data, taking all that research that exists in a corpus underneath the hood of a wider system, and then being able to get first-draft responses that are already aligning the storyboard to what the customer cares about. And then once again, using that leverage to use their human time on things they're uniquely suited to do. That's where we're seeing the winners win. The losers are stuck in spreadsheets, stuck in desk research, stuck in Googling, because they're not using the data to get leverage.

Christina Carter: Do you get a lot of pushback from people nowadays to do that? I feel like in the recent past we had to kind of do it that way. We didn't have a lot of options, and so that's just how we've always done it. So I'm wondering if you get pushback when you try and push people to do it a newer, more streamlined way.

John Witt: I'd say that there is sometimes skepticism, because it's all around behavior change. If you have a tried and true, grooved path of how a business works and the activities that they do time in, time out, even if those are not the optimal activities, that's the default mode of the organization or the team or the person. Where we often see those pushbacks or that skepticism, and where we often see people being willing to engage beyond that skepticism, is when they're missing targets, when their win rates go down, and there's some other business metric impetus for making a change. That's when we see people saying, I'm skeptical, but actually I'm open-minded to the art of the possible. So we try to catch people at that right time where they're open-minded to saying, could I do this differently?

At the same time, what we do to overcome that skepticism is speak in analogies, or draw parallels when we're showing somebody how to do something that creates similarities or commonly recognizable patterns of how they used to do things, but just in a new way that aligns to the old way. So there's a bridging that happens there. As an example, somebody goes and Googles a local council, wants to look at their meeting minutes, pulls down the PDF. It's a 200-page document. They press control-F on IT risks that are spoken about. They then take that IT risks nugget and try to bring it into their bid narrative. How can we simulate that for them, but right in front of their eyes, without them having to do the work, so they feel the comfort and the confidence that the way they used to do it is replicated, but they're getting their time back? That's been a pretty common theme as people are making these changes, particularly outside of tech. In tech, people are more open-minded to it.

Christina Carter: Here in the UK, frameworks are really important for public procurement. When you're talking with revenue leaders and sales leaders, how can you make them feel like frameworks are really worth it? A lot of them see it, they know they kind of want to get on, but they're afraid, or they're not sure if they're going to get anything from it. What are your suggestions?

John Witt: The biggest thing we see here is a bit of a TAM trap, is what I call it. TAM, total addressable market. People view their TAM as, how much of this good or service could I sell in this market? That's all well and good, but where we try to reorient people's mindsets is to more of a TAM-SAM-SOM string. Total addressable market, serviceable addressable market, serviceable obtainable market. Why am I saying that? If you translate that back to frameworks: if you're going out to market in the public sector and you say, I'm selling cybersecurity services, you could convince yourself that the TAM for cybersecurity services in the UK public sector market is pretty massive. But how much of that could you actually address? And then how much of that could you actually obtain? Addressing that is where the framework question comes into play. It's, I can't feasibly address this market because I'm not allowed to play in the market.

It's a natural thing that people often forget, because they see a big shiny number. They see a lot of tenders that match what they do, but they're not realizing that tender volumes dropped 20% over the last year, more stuff's running through frameworks. So then they ask the framework question. A lot of times what we advise people to do is take more of a SAM approach, serviceable addressable market, by looking at the potential frameworks that are being used to buy the thing that you sell, and then shrinking down to which of these frameworks are the route to market that give you the most addressable, actionable market.

How would you do that? That's where we typically work with our customers to say, you sell cybersecurity services. The latest version of G-Cloud is where we're seeing the most purchases of these types of services. What is in there? What's the magnitude of that? And is it enough to substantiate you putting in the compliance costs, the application costs, the maintenance costs every year you have to do that again? Or is the activity within there for what you sell low enough that it's not even worth your time? The serviceable addressable market maybe is 5% of the total addressable market in that framework. And then there's the decision of, if it's not enough, or if it is enough and it doesn't outweigh the return on investment to go after it, how can you find the channel partners to give you access to that market? I just think that TAM trap is a lot of times what we see people run into, where they're like, there's this big TAM, how do we go after it? Well, there's not actually much you can get unless you get on the framework. So go run the TAM or the SAM on the frameworks themselves.

Christina Carter: This might just be my personal opinion, but I don't think getting on the frameworks is really that difficult. So if you really think it's worth getting on there based on what you just said, I would say just get on there. It takes some work, but I feel like it's a lot more scary if you've never done it before than it really is.

John Witt: The bigger cost is assuming the framework is going to drive your business forward. It's not.

Christina Carter: No, absolutely not. It's just a place to, it's like being on G2 or something. You're on there, but it's obviously different from G2, you're not going to sell more necessarily just because you're on G2. You have to do other things on top of it.

John Witt: For sure. I always view it as, you've got your license to drive, but you're not necessarily able to, you don't have a car, you don't have the ability to actually use the road. That's where a lot of the things we just talked about around leveraging the data to actually know how to make use of those frameworks is where we see a lot of the ROI happen.

Christina Carter: Based on the data that I've seen, I know that incumbents are unsurprisingly a lot more likely to win contracts. What data do you see around that? Do you see people know that something is going to be won by an incumbent no matter what? What is the data telling us there?

John Witt: We did a supplier benchmarking survey. We do these every year to get a pulse on what suppliers and vendors are experiencing, seeing, feeling, running up against in the public sector market. One of the questions on there revealed a pretty relevant answer here. Over half of all the respondents said that they generate 60% of their revenue from repeat customers or existing customer accounts that they're expanding into. So generally it confirms the feeling and the suspicion that a lot of us have, that overcoming an incumbency is a hardwired process that you would need to short-circuit to actually get in there.

How do people then decide whether they're going to go combat the incumbent, or how do they decide how they would go combat the incumbent? The if and the how are two different questions. The if is more of a qualification decision that we see. There's this expiring contract for unified communications services in 18 months. It's held by Gamma Telecoms. And I provide what I think is a better unified communications service and I want to go after this business. How can you get a read on how well Gamma is doing? That's where we see people looking at spend data of actual activity against contract, or document intent data where sometimes these incumbents show up as a risk factor in their local council meeting minutes. Those are nuggets that help you position yourself for takeaway business and unseating the incumbent.

More or less, people are having to make that decision to say, is there a compelling reason why we think we can win this, as opposed to just tossing our hat in the ring? A lot of people just by default say yes, even though there's an incumbent there. But if we look at the stats, there's a 60% chance that the incumbent will stay around if it's a renewable contract. That's mostly what we're seeing in terms of the if and the how. Generally the sentiment that we're seeing across all suppliers, SMEs, mid-market, even in enterprise, is that the incumbent factor is a real thing, which is not surprising. That's not public sector specific. You would see that in the private sector as well. It's a natural phenomenon and actually sets up for more potential competition in a good way, but it forces people to have to beat what the existing precedent is. I only see that as an incentive for people that get better products, get better services, and actually have to do the hard work to prove that they can provide better outcomes for the government.

Christina Carter: Are there any specific signals to look out for? If you are wanting to go for a specific service and you think you can unseat the incumbent, are there signals? With US federal government ones there are really specific signals you can find. Is it the same with the UK?

John Witt: Yes, there are. For example, if something's coming out to market and the application window is one day long or one week long, the buyer's not giving anyone a lot of time to potentially unseat or win this. The other one we see, and this is a lot of what we do with AI enrichment in our platform, is to say, government's going out to buy this thing, let's say it's firewalls. Go look back at all the history and surface how many times they've switched firewall providers. If they've had the same firewall provider for the last five contracts, there's probably a default or a tendency to just choose that again. If there's a switch every single time, there's more of an aptitude to do it. So that's a lot of what we're surfacing in specific data points.

The other thing as well is how they chop up frameworks into lots. That might be an indicator of how specific they're being about certain products or services to drive specific service providers towards specific things. G-Cloud's the main culprit of this. Everything around G-Cloud is to provide keywords of your products and services that are only discoverable for you. You tell the buyer to search this thing, they only find you, you're the only one they're selecting. So if you see very specific words or very specific products or language that are vendor-specific, we often keep people on the radar for those.

Christina Carter: I have a background in both enterprise commercial but also public sector bidding. The biggest difference that I see in pushback with pre-RFP conversations is they're like, look, we're public sector. We can't take them out to dinner. We can't have those conversations like we can in commercial. What is happening pre-RFP, pre-ITT in public sector to get them to realize that, hey, we're good people, you should trust us, we have a good software, we have a good product, service, whatever it is? What can you do in public sector that's working pre-RFP?

John Witt: It probably depends on who you're talking to. Let's create two forks in the road here. Talking with procurement people will generally bump you into that answer more than if you're talking with a business decision-maker, a CIO, a CTO. So putting the procurement agents and procurement staff to the side for a second, talking with these folks generally will be the first positive move that you can make in generating that pre-engagement. But then it comes down to some pretty tried and true business development principles. Are you annoying? People don't want to talk to annoying people. Don't be annoying. Are you relevant? Are you talking about things that they care about, things that are keeping them up at night? Are you timely? Are you value-add? Those things are not public sector specific. They're not incongruent with normal human behavior. If you focus on those underlying principles, it generally leads people down the right path.

Then it's the question of how do you do those things, or how do you position yourself to be relevant, timely, value-add? And again, that comes down to data as leverage. If I know that this CTO just was grilled at the meeting minutes for this local council because there were some cybersecurity risks that were shown as vulnerabilities, that's probably keeping that CTO up at night. How can you make sure that you're at the same event that she's at, and accidentally bump into them, and say, I heard about this, are you guys doing all right, what are you thinking? You're going to a place where they're expecting to be approached. You're doing it at a time when they're under pressure to fix a problem. You're doing it in a way that's led by curiosity, not by jamming a solution down their throat. These aren't rocket science things. It's a little bit of people aren't willing to do the hard yards to put themselves with the right person at the right message at the right time.

Christina Carter: It is difficult to do. If you don't know what's happening, you can't do it. So the Procurement Act of 2023, what's really changed since then? It came out and they said it's going to change everything. But has it changed anything, really?

John Witt: There are specifics that have changed, obviously. But more or less, the engagement or perception from the private sector, from our supplier survey, has moved from last year people saying we're optimistic, to this year saying we're frustrated. A lot of that is driven by this idea that the door is open and it's right there, but there's a wall you have to jump over to go through the door. And in fact there are now two walls emerging. The first wall is, like I said, tender volumes are down 20%, frameworks are being utilized. I need to go through the rigmarole of market access. Do I need to get on this framework or not? How can I know that? Obviously we help people with that. But if you didn't know Stotles and you didn't know how to do that, you'd be thinking market access is blocked. The second of those walls is basically, I view budget and political constraints as more burning issues for the public sector than prioritizing SMEs. It's a nice thing and it's a good goal, but it usually always takes a second seat to, we need to figure out who the Prime Minister is, or we have this big budget deficit that we need to solve. That budget deficit and pressure rolls down to the departments, and the departments then have to make hard decisions, and the easiest, cheapest decision sometimes is just don't change anything. So I think yes, transparency is up, there's a centralized digital platform. But what does that do for a supplier that's trying to access the government market? All it does is give everyone a new level of baseline data, and then the winners find a way to get ahead and the losers don't.

Christina Carter: What we're seeing right now is a lot of buyers in public procurement are using AI to evaluate our responses. What are you seeing? Are you seeing them use AI when they're evaluating?

John Witt: I've seen a little bit of it. It comes in two flavors. One is the setup of an opportunity and a procurement. There's some use of AI to draw together requirements, draw together documentation. Then there's the actual evaluation of bid responses to those tenders, that we've heard a little bit about. It's hard to speak to specific data points or instances of where that's actually happening, because I have none. I just hear rumors of it. So I think it's out there, but nothing specific that we've seen.

But in terms of how people should deal with that and respond to it, we are seeing some tactics that are leading to positive responses on bid submissions. Whether that's because of humans reading or AI reading it, the principles are probably similar. There's just some stuff around the edges that help. If you prepare something in a certain way, models are designed to ingest information a certain way. So there are some things you can do that will not violate the principles of what a human wants to read, but they can optimize for what an LLM might want to read.

Christina Carter: What are a couple of those things?

John Witt: A lot of the time we find that specificity and statistics will only help, because there's credibility and substantiation behind a claim that we're making. That generally would be a positive thing to do if you're writing something a human's reading. The other major one we've been hearing about is, tools or models generally will weight earlier content in a section most heavily. So if you front-weight your major claims, there's a potential optimization to happen there.

Christina Carter: So front-weight your proof points.

John Witt: Almost sometimes answer first, respond to the question and then support with detail. And the other ones we've heard around are, again, a principle that you should deploy when a human's reading, like ensuring that you don't have internal contradictions, because AI sniffs that out faster than a human. Somebody told me, mirror the evaluation criteria as explicit headings. I don't know if I necessarily believe it. Maybe it doesn't hurt. But if you're trying to develop a bid response and you're guessing whether a human's going to be reading it or AI is going to be reading it, you probably just follow the same set of core principles that optimize how a human might interpret information, and ensure that you're not burying the lead story of what you want to do, you're not hiding statistics, you're not having internal contradictions. All those things are fundamental principles you should do whether AI is reading your bid or not.

Christina Carter: My only thing with that, and maybe this isn't that big of a difference, but I think we'll find out a year from now if it is. When I would respond for a human to read it, I would answer the question in the first sentence, yes we do whatever it is, and then I would talk about the benefits, here's what you're going to get out of it, and then I would do the proof point. But now I think that needs to be switched. It needs to be the proof and then the benefit.

John Witt: Yeah. And there are ways that we can test this ourselves. You can run two versions of responses through, and you can use the models that you have to score your response and give you an opinion of how that response might fare if you simulate AI reading a bid within a government buyer. So you can back-test these things. Obviously you don't know what models they're using or what they're prompting those models to do. But as long as you're not violating the principle of a human reading this thing, it's generally a safe place to be.

Christina Carter: Front-weight your proof points. But also, I'm wondering if you are going to start tracking, if we can see a procurement team is purchasing an AI tool to evaluate, then be able to almost speak to that. Do you think that's going to be a future thing that we're going to have to worry about? Or is that going a little bit too far?

John Witt: There may be a world. The same principle would apply, there'd be a way to see if somebody procured AI tools to evaluate by procurement teams. Again, that would need to meet the thresholds to be published, or they need to have explicitly mentioned it. There may be times where they buy that as part of a larger technical AI overhaul program, so you wouldn't have the visibility there. But you could be on the lookout for those signals. If you're saying, in my qualification report, when I'm going to qualify an opportunity or go bid on it, make sure that at least I've asked the question about that buyer to say, have they ever mentioned or do we have any whiff of them purchasing AI tools to evaluate bid responses? If so, consider that in our AI-drafted bid response. So there are ways to do that. But you're right, the prevalence of it is probably a little bit lower in the early stages, because government's adoption of AI is a little bit laggard behind the private sector.

Christina Carter: At Stotles you have access and have organized data in such a way that you're seeing things in a way that I think most people probably aren't. Do you think there's a data point that would maybe surprise people? Or do you think there's a myth around something that people just believe in when you're talking to teams?

John Witt: I come back to the supplier survey that we had recently, and we're doing a webinar on this next week to talk through all the results. One of the main things that caught my eye is that 92% of respondents are using AI to draft their bid responses. There are two sides to that coin. That stat is strong and hefty. The other side of that, though, is the data point that we're seeing about the most successful winners in UK public sector. They're doing all their work to win things before the draft actually begins. So, okay, 92% of people are using AI to draft bid responses, that's all well and good, but that actually isn't the largest force multiplier on getting a win. What separates the winners from the losers is how rigorously they qualify things and how rigorously they're actually pre-engaging in their capture motions. That's the biggest determinant of winning something. The drafting ends up being, if you've done a good job pre-engaging, if you've done a good job qualifying, drafting generally takes care of itself. So it's a bit of a funny contradiction on that stat, because people heavily weight on AI and drafting, but there's so much more to the story that exists prior.

Christina Carter: That does not surprise me at all that that is what makes you win. Of course what you're going to write is going to be so much more compelling because you've had that. As opposed to, I don't know you very well, so the proposal I'm going to write for you is going to be what I can find about you on the internet.

John Witt: That's why context matters in all of this. Context matters in giving you leverage. If you have the data to have the context to get leverage to qualify this opportunity as hard as possible, know that the incumbent has won this the last five times. Great, you're not going to have a loss on a bid that you're not going to pursue. Context in your drafts matters. If you're writing a draft and you don't know that they've had a big cybersecurity attack that happened last week, that's going to be a problem, because your bid is going to be blind and not speak to things that are on their mind when you're bidding on a cyber contract. It's all context. It's how can you get as much leverage as possible to bring that context into your early business development conversations, the qualification decisions, and then the drafting as well.

Christina Carter: There's so much there. If people are listening to this, if your process isn't really baked in at the very beginning with the data and the signals of when to reach out and who to reach out to, that's the first thing you should fix.

John Witt: For sure. A lot of what we're focusing on now is this idea of, data without action is worthless. Data without action is hallucination. The first thing we focus on is, what is the business process that you're trying to deploy to make sure you have a systematic machine that's going to find, qualify, action, and win ops? And then how does the tech implement and support that? That's where we see a lot of people saying, I just want all this data. Great, you can have all this data, but if it's not relevant, if it's not actionable, it doesn't mean anything. A lot of our work is around, what's the systematic business process? How does that plug into your existing stack? What are the roles and responsibilities of the people involved in that process? And then what are the workflows that make that process go? We call that the revenue engine. This revenue engine that powers your public sector business only works if you've thought about process, as opposed to just throwing a bunch of data at your business development teams.

Christina Carter: On the qualification piece, a lot of the sales leaders, revenue leaders I speak to genuinely want to bid for everything they possibly can. They're like, we don't turn down business. We have an ITT, we have an RFP, we have to respond. But you said a really good qualification gate helps you win more. I'm sure you run into the same question with sales leaders. What do you tell them? How do you convince them to be better at qualification?

John Witt: Most often I try to draw a parallel to something they're very comfortable with and know and love or hate. They sometimes view the bidding motion as being different than their typical sales funnel. So how can you draw that parallel for them, to say, if you had a sales rep whose win rates were 5% on their deals, would you keep that rep around? Would you continue to pursue that rep's opportunities? Probably not. You want a rep closing 30, 40% of their sales-qualified leads. So why would you allow things to come through a bidding funnel that only have a 5% chance of winning? A lot of times, because they see a shiny object of, here's a tender, it says what we do, we'd be fools not to go after it, they forget that that bid funnel is very similar to a standard sales funnel that isn't RFP-driven. So what do they care about there? They care about qualification. Why would they not use similar frameworks like BANT, budget authority need timeline, or MEDDPICC, to evaluate bid ops in the same way?

Christina Carter: This has been a great conversation. I have learned a lot. I'm thinking so much about how I'm going to listen back to this and change what I suggest to my clients. So I appreciate it. People hearing this also learned a lot. Where can they find you? Where can they learn more about you and Stotles?

John Witt: Stotles.com. We have a robust resources hub that talks about everything from case studies to research. We have a whole engine that can help people find opportunities that are out there in the market, absolutely free. We also publish a lot of white papers and webinars to help people get resources to know how to find, qualify, and action opportunities. But we're also open to talking. A lot of the experience that we're seeing is based on a large number of conversations of people struggling with government. We're seeing the winners' frontier tactics and we're trying to help people bring those into their workflows. So always open to a conversation. Join one of our webinars. The next one is about the UK supplier benchmarking survey, next Tuesday. You can learn a lot.

Christina Carter: Very cool. I'll have all the information linked in the show notes. Thank you so much.

John Witt: Awesome. Thank you.