Most procurement consultants pick a side. They either advise public agencies on how to buy, or they coach vendors on how to sell. The conventional wisdom is that serving both is a conflict of interest.

I have come to believe the opposite. Serving both is the only honest way to do this work.

Every vendor I train sharpens my advisory practice with public institutions, because I see firsthand how the procurement office is perceived from the outside — where its instructions are unclear, where its evaluation rubrics produce unintended outcomes, where its compliance requirements create more risk than they mitigate. Every institutional engagement I lead sharpens my vendor curriculum, because I work inside the rooms where scoring decisions are actually made — and I know exactly which procedural failures lose contracts that should have been won.

The two sides of the table are not in conflict. They are in conversation. A procurement office that understands how vendors experience its solicitations writes better RFPs. A vendor that understands how evaluators score proposals writes better responses. The market gets more efficient. Both sides win contracts that match capability to need.

The problem question: How can government buyers and the businesses that sell to them work together to make the procurement process better for everyone — over the next two years — without bending the rules that keep it fair? 

Three solutions Linton & Thelwell can deliver:

1. Institutional Advisory Engagements  — procurement transformation, governance modernization, ERP advisory, strategic sourcing, cooperative purchasing advisory and organizational assessments for public agencies.
2. Vendor Training and Cohort Programs — structured education for commercial vendors pursuing government revenue.
3. Cross-Sector Speaking and Advisory — keynotes, workshops, and advisory relationships that bring both audiences into the same conversation.

The table has two sides. The work has one purpose.