Silas™ vs Deltek GovWin IQEvery claim, with the date we checked it.

Through the pursuit

After you bid

Seven stages of the federal pursuit after it is found. Silas holds six. Price is scored a tie rather than a win: their Labor Rate Analysis is the better instrument on rates specifically, and ours is the better one on a written basis of estimate. Those are different jobs and we are not going to pretend otherwise.

• Positioning. “Market-Leading Government Contracting Intelligence” for “U.S. and Canadian contractors” (quoted 2026-08-06).
• Market coverage. U.S. federal, U.S. state, local and education, and Canadian markets (quoted 2026-08-06).
• Research. “Market analysis research” across all three markets, and “Contracts & Task Orders” research (quoted 2026-08-06).
• Rates. “Labor Rate Analysis” as a named, published capability (quoted 2026-08-06).
• Trial route. A published “Try GovWin IQ for FREE” route (quoted 2026-08-06).
• Price. No figure published. Re-checked 2026-09-07 and still not published; the product page had moved to /products/govwin/federal/, which is why quotes here are dated rather than trusted.

Silas will not, by default, emit a customer-facing proposal that fails its own fact check. Not flag it. Not soften it. Not hand it over with a caveat in a sidebar. It stops, and it tells you which claim it could not stand behind.

• The compliance judgement is deterministic. The green, yellow or red call involves no language model at all, so it cannot drift between runs and two people reviewing the same solicitation see the same answer. Check it in thirty seconds: run it twice and compare the matrices. This is the only claim on either page a sceptic can falsify without trusting us.
• Unsupported claims are refused, not softened. When the evidence is not there the system returns a refusal pointing at the specific gap, so a missing past-performance reference shows up as a blocking question during the bid, while you can still go and get it.
• The refusal is recorded. Declines are persisted alongside the decisions, so “why didn’t we bid this” and “where did this number come from” are both answerable a year later.
• A connector that cannot work fails loudly. Where a data source has terms we will not quietly work around, the connector breaks visibly rather than substituting sample data that looks real. We would rather it break than lie.

We would rather hand you a refusal you can act on than a document you cannot defend. That is the whole product argument, and it is the one thing here you can make us demonstrate on a call.

Breadth conceded without qualification. If discovery across all three markets is what you are buying, buy theirs.

• No state, local, education or Canadian coverage. This is the whole comparison for most buyers, which is why it is stated in the lede of the comparison as well as here.
• No market forecasting. Silas does not tell you where the market is going. It reasons about the solicitations in front of you.
• Silas does not resell or integrate GovWin IQ data. If you subscribe to GovWin IQ, that stays a separate subscription. We will not imply otherwise to make an integration story sound better than it is.
• No self-serve signup and no billing. Delivered as an engagement. You cannot start one this afternoon.
• No published third-party security attestation. If your vendor review gates on a SOC 2, gate us out and tell us. That is useful information and we would rather have it early.
• It will not take controlled material. Silas reads and drafts with AI models, so CUI, classified and export-controlled content must never go into it.

• Incumbent resolution. The incumbent resolved from several independent public sources rather than one, with a confidence score reflecting how well those sources agree, and the contract history assembled behind that name.
• Recompete risk. Derived from the award history rather than from the posting date, so a pursuit that matters next year appears while there is still time to shape it.
• Award monitoring. Awards monitored back against what you actually bid, win or loss detected automatically, and the protest window and debrief tracked with escalating reminders.
• Pricing basis. Priced against what comparable federal work was actually awarded for, filtered by industry and product-or-service classification, carried through to a basis-of-estimate document.
• The record. A tamper-evident record of what was decided, on what evidence and when, with a human’s override protected from being reverted by the next run.

• Eighteen glossary entries, of which twelve cite the governing FAR or DFARS part by number, and all of which link to one another on first mention. Counted from content/glossary/ on 2026-09-07. This site previously said seventeen entries and eleven citations; both were stale.
• Three decision quizzes that name the regulation behind each outcome: FAR 15.101-1, FAR 15.101-2, FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.101-2-70 on the LPTA one; FAR 52.204-21, DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7021 and 32 CFR 170 on the CMMC one.
• Read those before you book anything with anyone, us included. They are the only way to audit our standard of citation without talking to us.

The rule that produced this section: count the corpus, never recall it. A figure repeated across three pages is still one source, and if that source was a note rather than a directory listing, all three pages are wrong together.