The Gap After Award: Why GovCon Teams Are Set Up to Struggle

Everyone talks about winning the contract. Almost no one discusses what happens afterward.

The award announcement goes out. The kickoff is scheduled. The team is assigned.

But between that win and actual performance, there’s a vast, messy gap — and most delivery teams walk into it with little support, little context, and a quiet clock already ticking.

The Proposal Team Disappears — and So Does the Context

The people who helped write the proposal usually aren’t the ones delivering it. And if they are, they’re already juggling something else. The team standing up the work often inherits a PDF, a vague handoff, and a few assumptions.

They don’t know what the client requested in the Q&A.
They haven’t heard the internal debates over scope.
They’re not aware of the risks that were accepted to stay price-competitive.

So they start behind, and the government doesn’t wait for them to catch up.

Kickoff Meetings Aren’t Enough

The kickoff meeting gives the illusion of alignment. Slide decks. Introductions. A timeline no one questions out loud. The COR nods. The contractor nods back.

Everyone leaves thinking the other side is clear on what needs to happen next.

But the nuance isn’t in the slides. It’s in the tone. In the unanswered questions. In the priorities, the client didn’t say directly, but fully expects the team to understand.

Most delivery leads walk out of that meeting without a roadmap, just a start date and a lot of pressure to look organized.

Delivery Teams Aren’t Trained for Startup Mode

Standing up a federal contract isn’t like plugging into an existing workflow. The early weeks are chaotic. Systems access is delayed. Stakeholders are unclear. Expectations shift.

The delivery team isn’t just executing — they’re translating vague language into real work. They’re figuring out how the agency operates. They’re tracking burn, which refers to the rate at which budgeted resources are being used, without precise forecasting. They’re dealing with a COR who might not even want the contract in the first place.

But no one told them how to navigate that.

So they improvise. And that’s where the risk starts.

Leadership Doesn’t See the Cracks Early Enough

From the outside, it looks fine. The team is staffed. Hours are logged. The mission is in motion.

But inside, the lead is guessing. Updates are vague. Check-ins feel flat. The team is technically doing the job, but the client can sense that something is off.

There’s no performance issue yet—just a feeling.

By the time leadership becomes aware of it — in a CPARS comment, a passive-aggressive email from the COR, or a missed deliverable — the gap has already done damage.

What’s Missing Isn’t More Tools — It’s Orientation

Most firms can address this issue with better templates or a more comprehensive kickoff deck. That’s not the problem.

The real issue is that most delivery teams:

• Don’t know what the government client cares about most

• I don’t understand how minor missteps, such as misinterpreting a requirement or missing a deadline, affect the odds of recompete.

• Don’t feel confident asking for clarification early.

• Don’t get coaching on how to lead without overstepping your boundaries.
  
  And without that orientation, even strong teams lose control of the relationship.

Performance Starts Before the First Deliverable

The government starts evaluating the contractor the moment the award is made, not when the first milestone is submitted.

They’re watching how the team communicates, how questions are handled. How proactive the contractor seems. Whether they follow up. Whether they notice what's not being said.

If your delivery team isn’t ready to manage that from day one, it won’t matter how solid your technical solution is.

You’ll win the work.
You’ll stand it up.
And you’ll quietly lose trust.

That’s the gap after the award. And if you don’t close it fast, it closes in on you.