Tag Archives: proposal

Simplified For The Agency, Not Simplified For The Vendor

When you write something, read it first to ensure that you don’t burst out laughing after reading it.

If you read SAM.gov for fun, you may have seen Notice ID DCSA_2026_HS002126QE023 for Michigan Fingerprint Channeling. Offers are due on April 23, so if you can satisfy the requirements, get working.

As the acronym-aware probably already know, this was issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), part of the U.S. Department of Defense (with the secondary title the Department of War).

Why?

“DCSA has a recurring need for a simplified method of filling the anticipated repetitive needs for fingerprint channeling for the purpose of obtaining Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) from the state of Michigan.”

Because it’s a bad thing to make things hard, so DCSA needs a simplified method.

This is explained in the Performance Work Statement that is attached to the Solicitation Form. Another attachment is the Pricing Workbook.

So to make things simple for DCSA, you need to review all three of these documents and provide the approprirate responses.

And don’t forget to review ALL of the incorporated contract clauses, such as this one:

252.232-7006 Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions. (Jan 2023)
WIDE AREA WORKFLOW PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS (JAN 2023)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause-
“Department of Defense Activity Address Code (DoDAAC)” is a six position code that uniquely identifies a unit, activity, or organization.
“Document type” means the type of payment request or receiving report available for creation in Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF).
“Local processing office (LPO)” is the office responsible for payment certification when payment certification is done external to the entitlement system.
“Payment request” and “receiving report” are defined in the clause at 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports.
(b) Electronic invoicing. The WAWF system provides the method to electronically process vendor payment requests and receiving reports, as authorized by
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports.
(c) WAWF access. To access WAWF, the Contractor shall-
(1) Have a designated electronic business point of contact in the System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov; and
(2) Be registered to use WAWF at https://wawf.eb.mil/ following the step-by-step procedures for self-registration available at this web site.
(d) WAWF training. The Contractor should follow the training instructions of the WAWF Web-Based Training Course and use the Practice Training Site before
submitting payment requests through WAWF. Both can be accessed by selecting the “Web Based Training” link on the WAWF home page at https://wawf.eb.mil/
(e) WAWF methods of document submission. Document submissions may be via web entry, Electronic Data Interchange, or File Transfer Protocol.
(f) WAWF payment instructions. The Contractor shall use the following information when submitting payment requests and receiving reports in WAWF for this
contract or task or delivery order:
(1) Document type. The Contractor shall submit payment requests using the following document type(s):
(i) For cost-type line items, including labor-hour or time-and-materials, submit a cost voucher.
(ii) For fixed price line items-
(A) That require shipment of a deliverable, submit the invoice and receiving report specified by the Contracting Officer.
Invoice 2-in-1
(B) For services that do not require shipment of a deliverable, submit either the Invoice 2in1, which meets the requirements for the invoice and
receiving report, or the applicable invoice and receiving report, as specified by the Contracting Officer.
Invoice 2-in-1
(iii) For customary progress payments based on costs incurred, submit a progress payment request.
(iv) For performance based payments, submit a performance based payment request.
(v) For commercial financing, submit a commercial financing request.
(2) ) Fast Pay requests are only permitted when Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.213-1 is included in the contract.
(3) Document routing. The Contractor shall use the information in the Routing Data Table below only to fill in applicable fields in WAWF when creating payment requests and receiving reports in the system.

OK, that’s not the whole thing. I stopped copying it at the actual Routing Data Table itself.

This is of course a cost of doing business with any large entity, whether it’s the federal government or a multi-billion dollar firm. This who want money from these large organizations put up with it.

And laugh to themselves about the desire for things “simplified.”

Three Ways in Which My Identity/Biometric Experience Exhibits My “Bias”

Yeah, I’m still focused on that statement:

“I think too much knowledge is actually bad in tech: you’re biased.”

Why does this quote affect me so deeply? Because with my 30-plus years of identity/biometric experience, I obviously have too much knowledge of the industry, which is obviously bad. After all, all a biometric company needs is a salesperson, an engineer, an African data labeler, and someone to run the generative AI for everything else. The company doesn’t need someone who knows that Printrak isn’t spelled with a C.

Google Gemini.

In this post I will share three of the “biases” I have developed in my 30-plus years in identity and biometrics, and how to correct these biases by stripping away that 20th century experience and applying novel thinking.

And if that last paragraph made you throw up in your mouth…read to the end of the post.

But first, let’s briefly explore these three biases that I shamefully hold due to my status as a biometric product marketing expert:

  1. Independent algorithmic confirmation is valuable.
  2. Process is valuable.
  3. Artificial intelligence is merely a tool.
Biometric product marketing expert.

Bias 1: Independent Algorithmic Confirmation is Valuable

Biometric products need algorithms to encode and match the biometric samples, and ideally to detect presentation and injection attacks.

But how do prospects know that these algorithms work? How accurate are they? How fast are they? How secure are they?

My bias

My brain, embedded with over 30 years of bias, gravitates to the idea that vendors should submit their algorithms for independent testing and confirmation.

From a NIST facial recognition demographic bias text.

This could be an accuracy test such as the ones NIST and DHS administer, or confirmation of presentation attack detection capabilities (as BixeLab, iBeta, and other organizations perform), or confirmation of injection attack detection capabilities.

Novel thinking

But you’re smarter than that and refuse to support the testing-industrial complex. They have their explicit or implicit agendas and want to force the biometric vendors to do well on the tests. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Appendix F” fingerprint capture quality standard specifically EXCLUDES contactless solutions, forcing everyone down the same contact path.

But you and your novel thinking reject these unnecessary impediments. You’re not going to constrain yourself by the assertions of others. You are going to assert your own benefits. Develop and administer your own tests. Share with your prospects how wonderful you are without going through an intermediary. That will prove your superiority…right?

Bias 2: Process is Valuable

A biometric company has to perform a variety of tasks. Raise funding. Hire people. Develop, market, propose, sell, and implement products. Throw parties.

How will the company do all these things?

My bias

My brain, encumbered by my experience (including a decade at Motorola), persists in a belief that process is the answer. The process can be as simple as scribblings on a cocktail napkin, but you need some process if you want to cash out in a glorious exit—I mean, deliver superior products to your customers.

Perhaps you need a development processs that defines, among other things, how long a sprint should be. A capture and proposal process (Shipley or simpler) that defines, among other things, who has the authority to approve a $10 million proposal A go-to-market process that defines the deliverables for different tiers, and who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Or maybe just an onboarding process when starting a new project, dictating the questions you need to ask at the beginning.

Bredemarket’s seven questions. I ask, then I act.

Novel thinking

Sure all that process is fine…if you don’t want to do anything. Do you really want to force your people to wait two weeks for the latest product iteration? Impose a multinational bureauracy on your sales process? Go through an onerous checklist before marketing a product?

Google Gemini.

Just code it.

Just sell it.

Just write it.

Bias 3: Artificial Intelligence is Merely a Tool

The problem with experienced people is that they think that there is nothing new under the sun.

You talk about cloud computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like time sharing.” You talk about quantum computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like the Pentium.” You talk about blockchain, and they yawn, “Sounds like a notary public.”

My bias

As I sip my Pepperidge Farm, I can barely conceal my revulsion at those who think “we use AI” is a world-dominating marketing message. Artificial intelligence is not a way of life. It is a tool. A tool that in and of itself does not merit much of a mention.

Google Gemini.

How many automobile manufacturers proclaim “we use tires” as part of their marketing messaging? Tires are essential to an automobile’s performance, but since everyone has them, they’re not a differentiator and not worthy of mention.

In the same way, everyone has AI…so why talk about its mere presence? Talk about the benefits your implementation provides and how these benefits differentiate you from your competitors.

Novel thinking

Yep, the grandpas that declare “AI is only a tool” are missing the significance entirely. AI is not like a Pentium chip. It is a transformational technology that is already changing the way we create, sell, and market.

Therefore it is critically important to highlight your product’s AI use. AI isn’t a “so what” feature, but an indication of revolutionary transformative technology. You suppress mention of AI at your own peril.

How do I overcome my biases of experience?

OK, so I’ve identified the outmoded thinking that results from too much experience. But how do I overcome it?

I don’t.

Because if you haven’t already detected it, I believe that experience IS valuable, and that all three items above are essential and shouldn’t be jettisoned for the new, novel, and kewl.

  • Are you a identity/biometric marketing leader who needs to tell your prospects that your algorithms are validated by reputable independent bodies?
  • Or that you have a process (simple or not) that governs how your customers receive your products?
  • Or that your AI actually does unique things that your competitors don’t, providing true benefits to your customers?

Bredemarket can help with strategy, analysis, content, and/or proposals for your identity/biometric firm. Talk to me (for free).

By the way, here’s MY process (and my services and pricing).

Bredemareket: Services, Process, and Pricing.

In Product Marketing, Strategy Precedes Tactics

I’ve decided to tweak Bredemarket’s public presentation by talking more about strategy. And although I’ve written some new strategy content recently, it’s a heck of a lot easier to repurpose some of the old content I’ve already written.

Such as my July 31, 2025 personal LinkedIn article (separate from Bredemarket’s “The Wildebeest Speaks”…which reminds me, I gotta write another one of those).

Job duties and SMART OKRs

The personal LinkedIn article was called “The Joy of Product Marketing Strategy, or SMART OKRs.”

Let me define the acronyms in the article title:

  • SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound.
  • OKRs: Objectives and Key Results.

Putting it simply, the article talked about the myriad of things a product marketer was expected to do at one company.

Or at any company, frankly. Product marketing job descriptions are fairly interchangeable. Go-to-market. Sales enablement. Competitive analysis. Metrics. Cross-functional collaboration. If you think YOUR company’s product marketing is amazing and different…it isn’t.

The entire list of product marketing duties is a bunch of tactical moves. A brochure here, a battlecard there. It could devolve into a lot of meaningless busywork. (Says the guy who has now written over 2,000 blog posts.)

But WHY are you doing all this junk?

That’s where the strategy comes to play.

Why?

For example, why are you establishing and obtaining approval for this?

“a multi-tiered go-to-market process identifying the go-to-market tiers, the customer-facing and internal deliverables for each tier, as well as the responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed organizations for each deliverable”

Let me list three reasons:

  • To ensure your go-to-market efforts contain the correct deliverables for the tier. Running around like a headless chicken to guess what you need to produce is idiotic.
  • To make sure everybody knows what they have to do. You don’t want a go-to-market effort to tank because the VP of Product won’t approve the customer success internal deliverable.
  • And let’s not forget the biggest reason of all: to allow the product in your go-to-market revenue to get a ton of orders and make a ton of revenue.

Because that’s why you’re marketing products…I hope.

Ask before you act

A helpful tip: before I get into the minutiae (tip your servers, I’m here all week) of a project, I ask a lot of questions first. “Why?” is the first question, but there are more.

The seven questions I ask. One you’ve seen the movie, now read the book.

Speaking of asking, if you want to ask Bredemarket for help with your strategy and tactics for content, proposal, and analysis work, click on the Content for Tech Marketers image below and schedule a free meeting with me.

Stop losing prospects! Use Bredemarket content for tech marketers

CITeR and Combating Facial Recognition Demographic Bias

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) isn’t the only entity that is seeking to combat facial recognition demographic bias. The Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR) is doing its part.

The Problem

NIST and other entities have documented facial recognition accuracy differences related to skin tone. This is separate from the topic of facial analysis: this relates to facial recognition, or the identification of an individual. (As a note, “Gender Shades” had NOTHING to do with facial recognition.)

It’s fair to summarize that the accuracy of an algorithm depends upon the data used to train the algorithm. For example, if an algorithm is trained entirely on Japanese people, you would expect that it would be very accurate in identifying Japanese, but less accurate in identifying Native Americans or Kenyans.

Many of the most-used facial recognition algorithms are authored by North American/European or Asian companies, and while the good ones seek to employ a broad data set for algorithm training, NIST and other results document clear demographic differences in accuracy.

The Research

The Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR) is a consortium of universities, government agencies, and private entities. The lead entity in CITeR, Clarkson University, has initiated research on “improving equity in face recognition systems.” Clarkson is using the following methods:

  • Establish a continuous skin color metric that retains accuracy across different image acquisition environments.
  • Develop a statistical approach to measure equity, ensuring FR results fall within a precise margin of error.
  • Employ new FR systems in combination with or instead of existing measures to minimize bias of results.

In this work, Clarkson is cooperating with other entities, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the FIDO Alliance.

The final goal is to make facial recognition usable for everyone.

Your problem

Is your identity company and its product marketers also working to reduce demographic bias? How are you telling your story? Bredemarket (the biometric product marketing expert) can help with strategic and tactical solutions for your marketing and writing needs.

Bredemarket services, process, and pricing.

If I can help your firm with analysis, content, or even proposals in this area, talk to me.

Understand, Adapt, or Create

When Bredemarket begins an engagement with a client, I usually have no idea what processes, templates, or practices the client already has. So I have to handle whatever is or is not there and either understand what is there, adapt it, or create what is needed.

Understand

In some cases clients already have a process.

For example, as I delved into the Sharepoint library for one of Bredemarket’s clients, I found a complete set of branding guidelines that covered logos, colors, and many other aspects of the company’s branding.

In that case, my job is to simply make sure that I align with the client’s branding, and that my content, proposals, and analysis work for the client aligns with the branding guidelines…or with whatever other process the client has.

Adapt

Sometimes the client has a process, but it needs to be adapted in some way.

Here’s an example I can publicly share: not from a Bredemarket client, but from my former employer Motorola (back when Motorola was one company). I was a product manager at the time, and products were developed via a “stage gate” process. At Motorola, of course, it was called M-Gates.

Our “Printrak” group (automated fingerprint identification systems, computer aided dispatch systems, and the like) was the odd group out in our part of Motorola (the part that would later become Motorola Solutions). Most of the people in that part of Motorola sold police radios that were manufactured in bulk. Therefore the stage gate process included a step for a limited production run of police radios before moving to full production.

That didn’t apply for the software we sold to government systems. For example, the entire production run for the Omnitrak 8.1 release was no more than a half dozen systems for customers in Switzerland, Oklahoma, and other places. A limited production run wouldn’t make sense.

So OUR stage gate process eliminated that step and went straight to full production.

Create

And then there are the clients who don’t have anything. In these cases, my invention hat goes on.

For one Bredemarket client, I was asked to develop several pieces of collateral, such as (ironically) one on process maturity, and several random pieces of content tied to a product release.

I decided to approach it more systematically by introducing a simple go-to-market process that defined the external and internal collateral required for a “high” tier product release and a “low” tier product release. Resisting my urge to define something thorough, I simplified the GTM process as much as possible, while still providing guidance on what a product release should contain.

The client rejected the idea: “we don’t need no steenking process.”

Not surprisingly, the process maturity content was never released either.

I’ve had better luck with other Bredemarket clients, defining go-to-market, proposal, and other processes for them as needed.

Be Prepared

Providing product marketing expertise is much more than writing about a product.

Before I write a word of text, I ensure that the content aligns with the client’s strategies…or my own strategies if the client doesn’t have any.

And of course I ask questions.

Why Biometric Marketing Experience Beats Biometric Marketing Immaturity

I know that the experts say that “too much knowledge is actually bad in tech.” But based upon what I just saw from an (unnamed) identity verification company, I assert that too little knowledge is much worse.

As a biometric product marketing expert and biometric product marketing writer, I pay a lot of attention to how identity verification companies and other biometric and identity companies market themselves. Many companies know how to speak to their prospects…and many don’t.

Take a particular company, which I will not name. Here is the “marketing” from this company.

  • We have funding!
Google Gemini.
  • We offer lower pricing than selected competitors!
  • We claim high facial recognition accuracy but don’t publish our NIST FRTE results! (While the company claims to author its technology, the company name does not appear in either the NIST FRTE 1:1 or NIST FRTE 1:N results.)
  • We claim liveness detection (presentation attack detection) but don’t publish any confirmation letters! (Again, I could not find the company name on the confirmation letter lists from BixeLab or iBeta.)
Google Gemini.

So what is the difference between this company and the other 100+ identity verification companies…many of which explicitly state their benefits, trumpet their NIST FRTE performance, and trumpet their third-party liveness detection confirmation letters?

If you claim great accuracy and great liveness detection but can’t support it via independent third-party verification, your claim is “so what?” worthless. Prove your claims.

Now I’m sure I could help this company. Even if they have none of the certifications or confirmations I mentioned, I could at least get the company to focus on meaningful differentiation and meaningful benefits. But there’s no need to even craft a Bredemarket pitch to the company, since the only marketer on staff is an intern who is indifferent to strategy.

Google Gemini.

Because while many companies assert that all they need is a salesperson, an engineer, an African data labeler, and someone to run the generative AI for everything else…there are dozens of competitors doing the exact same thing.

But some aren’t. Some identity/biometric companies are paying attention to their long-term viability, and are creating content, proposals, and analyses that support that viability.

Take a look at your company’s marketing. Does it speak to prospects? Does it prove that you will meet your customers’ needs? Or does it sound like every other company that’s saying “We use AI. Trust us“?

And if YOUR company needs experienced help in conveying customer-focused benefits to your prospects…contact Bredemarket. I’ve delivered meaningful biometric materials to two dozen companies over the years. And yes, I have experience. Let me use it for your advantage.

Expertise is Everywhere

The Italian baseball players, fueled by espresso, defeated the U.S.

But who can help you defeat your competitors?

The strategic biometric product marketing expert, and…

…the tactical biometric product marketing writer.

Oh, wait…they’re the same person: John E. Bredehoft of Bredemarket.

Expertise is everywhere.

Take the first step to biometric dominance. https://bredemarket.com/mark/

Why Product Marketers Repeat Themselves

How many times have you seen a SINGLE advertisement for a product or service and IMMEDIATELY rushed out and bought it?

As Email Tool Tester notes, product marketing doesn’t work that way.

[O]ur research suggests that in 2025, the actual number of touchpoints before a sale varies between 1 and 50, depending on the prospect’s buying stage:

  • Inactive customers only need 1–3 touches on average
  • A warm inbound lead will need 5–12 touches
  • A cold prospect can require 20–50 touches

So I came up with a bright idea: just repeat my message: “Identity, biometric, and technology marketing leaders should use Bredemarket’s marketing and writing services for their content, proposal, and analysis needs.”

And repeat it 50 times. (Preferably in a shorter form.)

But before applying my mad copy/paste skillz, I checked…and Email Tool Tester also notes that product marketing doesn’t work that way either. Specifically, you need multiple touchpoints, and multiple TYPES of touchpoints, to ensure your message resonates with your hungry people.

  • Which means that Bredemarket needs to use multiple methods to communicate with my prospects.
22.

But you can repurpose.

  • I recently completed a long piece of content for a client, and flagged six sections that the client can share as shorter pieces of content. That’s seven pieces for the price of one. (And two touchpoints. 48 to go.)
  • But that’s nothing. Once I created 31 pieces of content from a single idea. (Only 19 to go that time.)

And if you’ve seen Bredemarket’s messaging 49 times in the past, now is the time to act and discuss your content, proposal, and/or analysis needs with Bredemarket.

Stop losing prospects! Use Bredemarket content for tech marketers

Notice ID 70RDA126RFI000003: WIRED Overstates the Case

Remember my February 16 post “Notice ID 70RDA126RFI000003: Yes, It’s an RFI, But That May Be a HUGE Multi-Biometric Matching System”? Note that I used the words “RFI” and “May,” because it’s not a done deal.

When Biometric Update reported on this same RFI, it used similar qualifiers such as “If DHS proceeds to a formal solicitation.”

WIRED? Not so restrained.

“THE DEPARTMENT OF Homeland Security is moving to consolidate its face recognition and other biometric technologies into a single system capable of comparing faces, fingerprints, iris scans, and other identifiers collected across its enforcement agencies, according to records reviewed by WIRED.”

But those very “records reviewed by WIRED” include this statement:

“This RFI is for planning purposes only and shall not be construed as an obligation on the part of the Government. This is NOT a Request for Quotations or Proposals. No solicitation document exists, and a formal solicitation may or may not be issued by the Government as a result of the responses received to this RFI.”

And even if this actually WAS a true procurement…HART was originally announced during the Obama administration in 2016. Ten years later, it still hasn’t happened.