Federal Capability Search · Company Database
Type the work the way you’d actually describe it — “systems engineering support for fighter aircraft sustainment programs” — and the platform reads back the companies with the strongest federal evidence behind that description. No NAICS code to guess and no capability statement to take on faith: 3,047,746 demonstrated capabilities, read off 1,011,617 federal awards, ranked by how many of those awards there are and what they were worth.
Included starting with the Emerging plan. There are two kinds of number on this page and we label every one: the corpus figures just below are real, measured against the platform’s own published figures. The product screens further down are real captures of the running platform, over a fictional company set that is safe to publish.
What The Corpus Shows
Every one of those capabilities is a company that demonstrably performed that work — not a NAICS code it happens to hold, and not a line from its own capability statement. Read from the government’s own record and never asserted without the award that proves it. Measured 4 September 2026.
The Workflow
Every step below runs off the exact same search surface and evidence tables the rest of the platform reads — nothing here is a simplified demo path.
No NAICS code to guess and no boolean syntax to learn. Type the scope the way a program manager would describe it, and the platform understands related terms on its own. Quote a phrase only when you need an exact match — a program name, usually; a capability description is almost always better left unquoted. Add a second, narrower term in the optional Secondary box to see who demonstrates both without losing everyone who only demonstrates the first.
Most search tools hand you a single invented number and ask you to trust it. This one shows the two facts that actually decide the order — how many federal awards demonstrate the capability, and what they were worth — right on the row, named after the exact words you searched. Highest award count leads; matched dollars break the tie. Add a Secondary term and the list doesn’t blend the two capabilities into one score: where the second term is worth grouping on, it splits into two labelled groups, Both first, then Primary only, each ordered the same way. Nobody who only matches the primary is dropped — just banded below. When grouping would tell you nothing — the second term matched nobody, or almost everybody — the list stays whole and says so on screen instead.
The Capability tab mid-search, running the platform's own worked example: a plain-English Primary term, a narrower Secondary beneath it, and the ranked answer below. Each row names the two facts the order is built from — how many federal awards demonstrate the term you searched, and what they were worth — and, where a company also demonstrates the Secondary, how many of those awards overlap. The list is split into labelled groups: Both first, then Primary only further down, each ordered the same way.
In this image: companies are fictional and dollar figures are illustrative. Agencies, buying offices and codes are the real federal record; any contract number shown is altered so it resolves to nothing.
Prime portfolio, contract count, average and largest award: real numbers pulled straight from the federal record, sitting beside the match, never folded into it. A capability match tells you they’ve done the work. The scale beside it tells you whether they can do it again, at the size you need — and the strip omits itself entirely on a company with no aggregate on file, rather than printing a fabricated zero.
Open any row and you land on that company’s own record, where the same evidence is laid out in full: every capability it has demonstrated, ranked by how much federal work sits behind each one.
The company record behind a result row: the KPI strip across the top — prime portfolio, contract count, average and largest award — and below it every capability the company has demonstrated, ranked by the federal work behind each one, with the award count and dollars beside every bar. This is the same evidence the search ranks on, laid out in full for one company.
In this image: companies are fictional and dollar figures are illustrative. Agencies, buying offices and codes are the real federal record; any contract number shown is altered so it resolves to nothing.
What You Actually Get
Two facts, not one invented number. Evidence, not a company’s own marketing.
Describe it once, in plain English, and see companies with real federal evidence behind it — ranked by what they’ve done, not a black-box score.
Or see how the whole platform works first →Common Questions
No — it understands related terms on its own, and every word in your description has to match somewhere in the evidence, not just one of them. Put a phrase in quotes only when you need the literal words together, which is usually the right call for a program name and usually the wrong call for a capability description — quoting too much narrows the search further than most people mean to.
From the federal award record — FPDS descriptions and, where a Performance Work Statement or similar scope document was available, the document’s own language. Capabilities are read out of those government documents with AI assistance (Claude, by Anthropic); every count and every dollar behind them is then computed from the federal record — deterministic, and the same answer if you run it twice. None of it comes from a company’s own capability statement.
Because a single invented number hides more than it tells you. This search is ranked on two facts you can check yourself — how many federal awards demonstrate the capability, and what they were worth — shown right on the row instead of compressed into a score nobody outside the platform can verify. If a company shows no evidence for something, that means the platform hasn’t found it yet, never that the work wasn’t done.