Upstream Engagement: Why "Shaping the Requirement" is the Only Viable Capture Strategy

In the commercial sector, the sales process begins when the customer acknowledges a need. In the defense market, waiting for the customer to formally announce a need—via a Request for Proposal (RFP)—is not the beginning of the sales cycle; it is the end of the competition.

Among founders and non-traditional entrants, the concept of "shaping" often carries a stigma. It conjures images of smoke-filled rooms, "Beltway Bandits" leveraging old networks, and improper influence. It feels like lobbying—a "pay-to-play" system designed to rig the game for incumbents. Consequently, many firms choose the "honorable" path: they wait patiently for the RFP to appear on SAM.gov. They invest significant capital in a compliant, technically superior proposal.

And they lose.

They do not lose because their technology is inferior. They lose because the requirements were structurally biased against them. By the time an RFP is released, the specifications, evaluation criteria, and contract vehicle have often been written to describe the incumbent's existing solution. The 18-month "shaping" campaign that defined those variables occurred before the solicitation was ever public.

Ethical shaping is not about rigging the system; it is about de-risking innovation. It is the proactive, technical process of educating the government on the "art of the possible" so they do not inadvertently write a requirement for obsolete technology. If you are not writing the homework assignment, you will likely fail the test.

The Structural Inertia of the Program Office

To understand why shaping is a strategic imperative, one must first deconstruct the environment of the customer: the government Program Manager (PM).

A PM is rarely an "innovator" in the Silicon Valley sense. They are a risk manager. Their primary objective is not to discover the most disruptive technology; it is to deliver a threshold capability on schedule and within budget, without triggering a bid protest or a Congressional inquiry.

The PM operates under three crushing structural constraints:

1. The Incumbent's Gravity: The easiest path for a PM is to extend the existing contract or write a new requirement that mirrors the status quo. The incumbent has spent years entrenching their specifications into the program's architecture. Buying the "known-good" (even if obsolete) solution is career-safe. Buying a "game-changing" (but unproven) technology introduces integration risk, schedule risk, and political risk.

2. The Knowledge Gap: The pace of commercial innovation in AI, autonomy, and cyber far outstrips the DoD’s ability to train its acquisition workforce. A PM cannot write a requirement for a capability they do not understand. If they don't know that edge-compute can solve their bandwidth problem, they will write a requirement for more bandwidth—favoring the legacy satellite provider over your edge-AI solution.

3. The Budgetary Lag (PPBE): The money for the program was likely programmed 24 months ago based on threats and technologies that existed then. The PM is often trying to buy today's technology with yesterday's requirements document.

Without industry engagement, the PM defaults to inertia. They will copy-paste requirements from the previous contract. The RFP will demand legacy specs, and the warfighter will receive an inferior solution. Shaping is the only mechanism to break this cycle.

The Shaping Playbook: Education as Strategy

Shaping is a disciplined campaign of technical education and alignment. It moves the government from "Problem Unaware" to "Solution Aligned." It is executed through specific, high-value maneuvers.

1. The "Evangelist" RFI Response Most startups view a Request for Information (RFI) as a low-probability sales lead. This is a tactical error. An RFI is a cry for help. The Program Office is admitting they do not know how to structure the acquisition and is asking industry to define the parameters.

• The Trap: Sending a generic marketing slick or a 3-page capability statement.

• The Strategy: Treat the RFI as a technical masterclass. Do not just sell your product; educate the PM on the architecture of the solution.

• The Execution: Submit a response that defines the state of the art. Explain why new architectures (e.g., containerization, open standards) reduce long-term costs. Provide a Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS)that demonstrates exactly how to ask for the right solution. If you can convince the PM to include a requirement for "open architecture," you have just ghosted the proprietary incumbent out of the competition.

2. The "Artifact of Alignment" (The Solution White Paper) Successful shaping happens before the RFI. It requires proactively identifying a champion and arming them with the internal documentation they need to start a new program or justify a new requirement.

• The Trap: Waiting for permission to submit an idea.

• The Strategy: Drafting an unsolicited, 2-page White Paper or Quad Chart that maps your technology to a specific Combatant Command (COCOM) priority (e.g., "INDOPACOM Contested Logistics").

• The Execution: This document must look and feel like a government briefing. It should not pitch "features"; it should pitch "operational outcomes" (e.g., "Reduces sensor-to-shooter time by 40%"). This is the artifact your champion walks down the hall to their leadership to secure funding. You are essentially ghostwriting their internal justification.

3. The Technical Demo (De-Risking via Proxies) A PM is unlikely to believe a founder's claims of performance. They need validation from a trusted third party.

• The Trap: Pitching "vision" at a generic Demo Day.

• The Strategy: Targeting the "Shadow Stakeholders"—the engineers at FFRDCs (Federally Funded R&D Centers like MITRE or Aerospace Corp) and Service Labs (AFRL, NRL, ARL).

• The Execution: Request a technical deep-dive with these entities. This is not a sales meeting; it is a peer review. Open the hood. Show the API. Prove the TRL (Technology Readiness Level). When a MITRE engineer tells a PM, "We've vetted this architecture, and it's viable," you have de-risked the innovation. The PM now has the "top cover" to write a requirement that includes your capabilities.

4. The Open Standard Gambit The most effective way to displace an entrenched incumbent is to change the rules of the game regarding interoperability.

• The Trap: Attempting to replace a monolith with another monolith (Vendor Lock).

• The Strategy: Championing the Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA).

• The Execution: Demonstrate to the PM how writing a requirement for "open APIs" or specific data standards (which your tech happens to natively support) increases competition and reduces vendor lock-in. You position your firm not as a "threat" to their program, but as the "enabler" of their open architecture mandate. This forces the incumbent to either open up their proprietary system (which is costly and difficult) or lose on technical acceptability.

The Moral Hazard of Passivity

Let us be clear about the stakes. If you, the founder with the superior, 10x solution, fail to do this "upstream" work, the outcome is predetermined. The PM, facing deadline pressure and career risk, will default to the incumbent. They will issue an RFP based on 10-year-old specifications. The incumbent will win. And the warfighter at the tactical edge will be sent into a near-peer conflict with obsolete gear.

Ethical shaping is a form of national service. It is the industry's duty to ensure the government writes requirements that allow for the best solution, not just the safest one. It is not about buying lunch for a General; it is about providing the intellectual capital required to modernize the force.

This is the difference between activity and progress. Most firms wait for the exam; winning firms write the questions. At DualSight, we provide the Stakeholder Influence Mapping to identify the right decision-makers and the Strategic Narrative Engineering to build the artifacts that shape the battlefield before the RFP is ever released. We turn "lobbying" into "problem-solving."

SCHEDULE A CALL