Doing business with the U.S. Military

There are always questions regarding how a company would introduce a product into the U.S. military marketplace, and for those who have tried to do so, many of these attempts have been met with bewilderment, frustration and resignation. Case studies and examples abound across a wide range of technologies, not just for textile products.

Such examples come as a result of:

1. A misunderstanding of the defense procurement system, or
2. An unclear understanding of the federal budget cycle, or 
3. A lack of a clear knowledge of requirements, or
4. Not having a complete picture of the competition.

More often than not, failure can be attributed to elements of all the above. Without having all of these four pieces, the probability for success is greatly diminished.

A new approach

Much has been written and presented by the Advanced Textile Association (ATA) on how to do business with the U.S. military. As I reflect on this body of material, it seems that much of it is prescribed as a set of procedures that can be followed with a set menu of agencies, such as the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the Army Combat Development Command at Natick, Mass., and others. 

This approach seems to miss some of the most critical early elements and assessments, and assumes there is already a demand for a particular product, and what follows is a way to introduce said product. The underlying assumption is that all that is needed is an awareness on the part of the U.S. military, and success will follow.

Much earlier, there needs to be a deeper and broader understanding of the current trends and pressures of defense procurement. At this writing, there isn’t a defense budget for federal fiscal year 2026. So, as the government is operating under a Continuo. US Resolution (CR) for the foreseeable future, we must all know the implications of this reality. Unfortunately, this has become more of a way of doing business than is the traditional budget cycle. 

Critical points

It’s worthwhile to examine a few of the topics that impact a company’s ability to engage successfully with the military:

Realistic market analysis. We must honestly ask if there is a need or requirement for our product. While it may seem to us that we have the next “great idea”, it may also be the case that the military does not have a requirement for such a product. This can be frustrating, as industry is often ahead of the procurement process with a better way, and will require some strategic patience. This step requires some brutal honesty, hopefully before significant investment of internal resources to the development process.

Federal budget cycles. Most companies I know do not have a clear view of federal budget cycles. As of this writing, we are in the 2026 federal fiscal year, which will take us through September 30^th, 2026. Given that we are in October of 2025, there is already nothing we can do to influence a product placement between now and September. 

Realistically, the federal government is already developing the broad outlines of the budget for fiscal year 2027, taking the budget from October 2026 to September 2027. The reality of this is that even with the introduction of product this month (October 2025), it is very challenging to assume any funding in the near term. 

Typically, there needs to be a minimum of two budget cycles for a product to be funded and introduced. Defense procurement officials are seeking new ways to collapse these timelines, but for the most part, those initiatives will be applied to larger, more strategic programs.

Knowing requirements. This is by far the most frustrating element. We’ve all heard the refrain, “but there is no requirement.” This frustration, by the way, is shared internally by procurement officials, even when they believe your product would be of value. Without the “requirement,” they are unable to commit resources. As implied in the previous paragraph for improving the procurement process, this is the step that is in sharpest focus. It is the military’s requirements process that has always been the longest and most bureaucratic. 

Relative to knowing the current requirements, there are sources that can be accessed. DLA publishes expected demand levels for commodities that come under their resourcing and can include uniforms and apparel for all the services. The Army’s Combat Development Command will occasionally publish a Broad Area Announcement (BAA) that will state any new technologies being sought. There is even a set of “Shark Tank” reviews that have been introduced to provide early funding to new ideas and innovative technologies. 

Many of these opportunities are published on SAM.Gov, the DOD Procurement Toolbox, and other related sites. These sites will require some patience to navigate but can provide valuable insights. Finally, one must be able to adjust to the requirement, even if it does not perfectly conform to your product specifications. 

Knowing the competition. This seemingly obvious step is no different than the examination you would take for the introduction into the commercial market; however, for this marketplace, it can be a bit more opaque to gather the required information. 

It is especially important to discern a competitor’s “past performance” on current or previous contracts. When awarding programs, procurement officials hold past performance as an equally important criteria as price. If there is a strong history for a competitor to have provided a similar product by meeting budget, delivery and quality, it will be challenging to disrupt that relationship.

Strategic patience. This element deserves substantiation. Even while there have been some recent case studies for defense procurements being implemented in months rather than years, that reality remains the exception and is not yet the normal way of doing business. Yes, there are some serious discussions in Congress and in the Pentagon for meaningful reform, but this will take years to develop and spread. My experience has been that few companies fully accept this reality. 

In brief, entering into the U.S. military market is not for the faint of heart. A company needs to be willing to make this a strategic priority and dedicate the necessary resources for success. Importantly, it may require some external advice or a willingness to assign staff to learn the process through training and attending military conferences and trade shows, or, perhaps, even hiring a staff member dedicated to this effort. 

Whatever approach you select, success can be transformational for a company. Winning government contracts can mean a significant source of revenue that’s profitable, predictable and could change the direction of your company in the long term.

Ron Houle is president of Pivot Step Consultants LLC.  He served more than 24 years in the U.S. Army, with his last position in Legislative Liaison in the Pentagon. He has been involved in government and military procurement for more than 20 years.