To attract innovation, the DoD is shifting its procurement process. Instead of issuing rigid, 300-page requirement documents that favor incumbents, it now defines a problem and asks companies to propose their own novel solutions.

US Under Secretary of War Emil Michael reveals that the procurement system was so broken that SpaceX, Anduril, and Palantir all had to sue the Department of War to secure their first contracts, a barrier he is now working to eliminate.

When one software vendor dominates a government sector, it creates a "software monoculture." This introduces systemic risk, where a single bug can be forked across dozens of states, simultaneously disabling critical services for millions of people, as seen when a Medicaid eligibility error affected 29 states.

Runaway costs in education, housing, and healthcare stem from government intervention. When the government promises to provide a service (e.g., student loans), it becomes a massive "buy-only" force with no price sensitivity, eliminating natural market forces and causing costs to balloon.

An ideal procurement process identifies the most cost-effective known solution but also allows bidders to propose an innovative alternative. This alternative must be accompanied by a rigorous impact evaluation, turning procurement into a mechanism for continuous improvement rather than a static decision.

The government's procurement process often defaults to bidding out projects to established players like Lockheed Martin, even if a startup presents a breakthrough. Success requires navigating this bureaucratic reality, not just superior engineering.

Following the playbook of healthcare software giant Epic Systems, the most durable competitive moat in GovTech is to have your product's specific features and requirements written directly into state or federal law. This tactic makes your company an essential, legally-mandated vendor, effectively locking out competitors.

Government procurement processes are rooted in a pre-digital, paper-based mental model. They treat software like a physical commodity that must be procured anew for each jurisdiction, preventing them from leveraging software's inherent scalability and leading to massive, redundant development costs.

Construction projects have limited upside (e.g., 10-15% under budget) but massive downside (100-300%+ over budget). This skewed risk profile rationally incentivizes builders to stick with predictable, traditional methods rather than adopt new technologies that could lead to catastrophic overruns.