What Tech Vector should cost and why. Comparable pricing bands, NorthAI's approach, anchor tiers, and the discount discipline that protects the raise narrative.
The shift from hours to outcomes, from labor rates to unit pricing, is what transforms your economics. Same expertise. Same capabilities. Different pricing model. Completely different economics. Price for sustainability at the current scale, not projected scale. Your pricing is sustainable when it's profitable at the current customer count.
The easiest way to price a new productized service in a federal context is to calculate analyst hours, apply a loaded rate, and present the result as a "fixed-price equivalent." This approach fails in two ways. First, it anchors the buyer's expectations to a labor relationship, not a value relationship. When the buyer sees a $75,000 quarterly price and does the math on "that's about 500 analyst hours," they start negotiating on hours, not on value. Second, it anchors NorthAI's own thinking to a capacity ceiling. If the price is built on hours, the maximum revenue is constrained by the number of analysts available. If the price is built on value, the ceiling is the market, not the headcount.
Book 1 Ch 13 names the alternative: price on the unit of value the buyer receives. For Tech Vector, the unit is not an analyst hour. It is a technology intelligence universe on a named area, delivered quarterly, with a follow-up call. That is the thing the buyer is buying. The price should reflect the value of that thing, benchmarked against what comparable intelligence products cost, adjusted for NorthAI's current stage.
Annotation key: Research-grounded = derived from public filings, press releases, or verifiable market research. Estimate = range inferred from published valuation multiples, market positioning, and product tier analysis. Not directly verifiable from public sources.
| Comparable | Product type | ARR / annual contract | Per-agency pricing (estimated) | Source reliability | NorthAI relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Govini (Ark Platform) | Federal strategy intelligence platform; unclassified defense acquisition analytics | $100M total ARR at $1B valuation (Oct 2025) | $150K-$500K per agency per year (estimate, implied from per-seat SaaS model at DoD scale) | Research-grounded ARR from Bain Capital press release. Per-agency pricing estimated. | Direct comparable. Same buyer set (DoD program offices, OSD components). Govini is 2-3 years ahead of NorthAI on maturity and authorization. NorthAI's L2 entry price should be below Govini's floor. |
| Vannevar Labs | Federal AI decision support; $80M ARR at $575M valuation (Series B) | $80M ARR at Series B (2023) | $200K-$600K per agency per year (estimate, consistent with defense AI platform pricing) | Research-grounded valuation from PR Newswire. Per-agency pricing estimated. | Relevance as a ceiling, not a peer. Vannevar has classified adjacency and a broader capability surface. NorthAI is not competing at Vannevar's price point at L2. |
| BGOV / Bloomberg Government | Federal procurement intelligence; GSA Schedule tracking, contract awards, budget data | $30K-$80K per organization per year (user seat model) | $30K-$80K per organization (published GSA pricing bands) | Research-grounded GSA MAS pricing is public record. | Floor reference. BGOV is unclassified procurement data, not technology intelligence. NorthAI's value proposition (corpus depth, technology-specific analysis) should command a premium over BGOV. If NorthAI is pricing below BGOV, something is wrong. |
| Jane's Information Group (defense intelligence) | Structured defense intelligence subscription; order-of-battle data, equipment profiles, threat assessments | $50K-$300K per organization per year (estimate) | $50K-$300K (estimate from published subscription tiers in defense procurement vehicles) | Estimate based on market positioning. Not directly comparable (Jane's is OSINT structured data, not AI-analyzed corpus). | Useful framing anchor. Jane's buyers and NorthAI buyers overlap significantly. A buyer paying $120K/year for Jane's is a buyer who has a budget line for structured defense intelligence. That is the line NorthAI wants to be on. |
| GSA MAS SaaS median (federal-focused, 54151S SIN) | SaaS subscription products listed on GSA Multiple Award Schedule for IT | Varies widely: $20K-$500K per agency depending on user count and product category | Median for mid-market federal SaaS: $75K-$150K per agency per year (estimate from published GSA pricing data) | Estimate GSA pricing is public but product-specific. Range inferred from comparable SaaS products in the IT category. | Vehicle-relevant reference. Once NorthAI is on GSA MAS (Phase 2 or 3 goal), this is the pricing band the contracting officers will use as a reference point. Pricing should be set with eventual GSA MAS pricing discipline in mind from day one. |
The structure below is NorthAI's recommended pricing architecture for the Tech Vector L2 SKU. It is not the only defensible structure; it is the one that aligns best with federal acquisition patterns, the ConMon cost allocation problem, and the gross-margin target of 60-75% at L2 maturity.
Annual subscription for the standard quarterly deliverable. Fixed-price, firm-fixed-price (FFP). Priced per organization, not per seat. One universe pack per quarter, follow-up call included. Invoiced annually.
One-time FFP fee for initial scoping: technology area selection, named account list, depth dial, time horizon configuration. Includes one 90-minute kickoff call with a NorthAI analyst. Non-recurring.
Time-and-materials (T&M) for work outside the standard SKU boundary: additional named accounts beyond 5, technology area changes mid-contract, buyer-specific format requests, rush deliverables. NTE ceiling set at contract signing.
The three tiers below are informed by the comparable pricing table above and anchored to the cost structure for delivering Tech Vector at L2 sustainably. All figures are draft ranges pending founder validation. The "federal-only" tier assumes a higher procurement complexity and a longer sales cycle, which are priced into the delivery overhead.
| Tier | Buyer profile | CLIN 0001 (annual base) | CLIN 0002 (onboarding) | CLIN 0003 NTE (annual cap) | Total annual range | Gross margin target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government-Org | Smaller DoD components, FFRDC-adjacent offices, defense-adjacent federal agencies without dedicated S&T intelligence budgets. Budget authority typically in the $50K-$150K discretionary range. | $60K-$85K / year | $8K-$12K (one-time) | $15K NTE | $68K-$100K (Year 1 including onboarding) | 55-65% |
| Enterprise | DoD prime integrators (defense prime R&D divisions), large OSD program offices, major defense-adjacent research institutions. Budget authority typically in the $150K-$500K range for intelligence tools. | $120K-$180K / year | $15K-$20K (one-time) | $35K NTE | $135K-$200K (Year 1 including onboarding) | 62-72% |
| Federal-Only | Mission-critical S&T programs with dedicated intelligence budgets. DARPA program offices, OUSD R&E components, major acquisition commands with active technology assessment programs. Budget authority $500K+ for intelligence tools. | $200K-$280K / year | $20K-$30K (one-time) | $50K NTE | $220K-$310K (Year 1 including onboarding) | 65-75% |
Pricing discipline in the first 12 months of a productized service sets the reference price for every subsequent contract. Federal acquisition has a long memory. A contracting officer who paid $60K for Tech Vector in Year 1 will cite that price as the market reference in Year 3, even if the product has matured significantly. Discounting sends a signal about the product's real price, and that signal is sticky.
First-contract beta pricing is the only legitimate discount. The terms: a named customer at the Government-Org tier accepts a 20% discount on CLIN 0001 in exchange for a written feedback commitment (minimum 3 structured feedback sessions during the contract term, written feedback memo at contract close). The discount is documented in the contract as a beta pricing term. It is not available after the first contract. It is not available to a second buyer who asks for the same terms. First contract only.
The purpose of the beta pricing term is not to make the first sale easier. It is to create a documented feedback obligation that accelerates the iteration cycle. If the buyer will not commit to structured feedback in writing, they do not get the beta discount. If the buyer commits to feedback and does not deliver it, the discount does not apply to any renewal.
| Buyer situation | Why it is not a discount reason | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| "Our budget for this is limited." | Budget constraints are a scope conversation, not a price conversation. If the full-price Tech Vector Standard tier does not fit the buyer's budget, the conversation is about tier selection (Government-Org vs. Enterprise) or scope reduction (fewer named accounts, shorter depth dial), not a discount on the same scope. | Confirm which tier fits the buyer's budget. If no tier fits, the buyer is not ready to contract. Do not discount to force a contract that the buyer cannot afford to sustain in Year 2. |
| "We might be able to expand the relationship if the first contract works out." | Future commitment is not a current discount justification. The commitment discount is for multi-year contracts signed now. Verbal future expansion is not a contract. | If the buyer is signaling expansion intent, offer the multi-year structure at the 10% commitment discount. That converts future intent into a current contractual commitment. That is worth a discount. Future intent alone is not. |
| "We know someone at a peer organization who might also want this." | Referral value is not a discount mechanism. Federal agencies do not have a financial stake in referrals. A referral is a courtesy, not compensation. | Thank the buyer for the referral and follow up with the peer organization directly. Do not discount the originating contract in exchange for the referral. The referral is a sales lead. Treat it as one. |
| "The pricing seems high relative to [unrelated tool]." | Comparison to an unrelated tool is not a market comparable. BGOV is a procurement data subscription. Tech Vector is a technology intelligence deliverable. They are not comparable, and accepting the comparison anchors the price to the wrong reference. | Reframe the comparison. The relevant comparables are structured defense intelligence subscriptions (Jane's, Govini at comparable maturity), not data tools. Walk the buyer through the comparable pricing table above to set the correct reference frame before any price discussion. |