The Executive Lens on Pricing, Value, and Growth with Charlton Evans

Speaker A: Welcome to if Prices Could Talk, a podcast where we explore how pricing, sales and negotiation drive growth. Brought to you by Holden Advisors. Let's dive in. Welcome to if Prices Could Talk. I'm, um, Evelyn McCauley, your host for today and part of the Holden Advisors team. I'm here with Brian Doyle, our president and CEO. Today we are joined by Charlton Evans, the founder and CEO of N State Solutions, a firm that helps companies navigate FAA certification for unmanned aircraft systems. We're going to get into how Charlton thinks about value in a highly technical, highly regulated space, how he prices it, how he sells it, and what he's learned about negotiation along the way. Charlton, welcome to the show. We're happy to have you.

Speaker B: Hey, thank you kindly. Very happy to be invited.

Speaker A: Absolutely. Wonderful. All right, so I thought we could start at the beginning. You have a unique business offering for folks who aren't in the aerospace world. What does End State Solutions actually do in the day to day?

Speaker B: Yeah, so our tagline is, uh, we certify autonomy. Right. Which is pretty high level, but that is what we do. And autonomy in aerospace is not all that new. I mean, when you get on an airliner today, um, you get past 400ft, George is driving the airplane. Right. And the pilots are supervising that. Um, so that has now translated into a whole lot of tech, uh, offerings, emerging tech offerings that are coming out of Silicon Valley to deliver products with small drones and to fly people around with aircraft that don't necessarily have pilots need. And that's all coming over time. But we are in between those companies and the FAA helping them get certified, helping them get into service so that they can go make revenue with these emerging tech products.

Speaker A: Wonderful. Excellent.

Speaker C: That um, Charlton, we've worked on a, ah, project together that's pretty amazing to think about. There is an automated aircraft that's flying humans around. So, um, what goes into the certification associated with something that has an incredible risk associated with it?

Speaker B: Yeah, so I mean there are baselines for this already.

Speaker C: Right?

Speaker B: Um, certification is by definition an exercise in trust. And that trust is conveyed in most cases through rules. So if you want to create, you want to make a product that is an airliner, like Boeing or Airbus does, you meet what they call part 25 of the FAA regulations and there's a whole lot that's in part 25 so that when you, the flying public goes and gets on that airplane, you have an expectation you're going to get where you're going. Right. I mean it's we, we, we, uh, the flying public in The US Has a high degree of trust and confidence that those aircraft have been designed and certified by the regulator, the faa, to do their intended function safely each and every time. Um, so now the emerging tech world is bringing forward aircraft with a lot of new and novel concepts, different modes of, or means of constructing these aircraft through all carbon fiber or very advanced aerospace composites, um, propulsion, electric propulsion, hybrid propulsion, and this whole regime where the aircraft takes off vertically like a helicopter would, but then transitions to forward flight and flies like an airplane to take advantage of the, the, um, aerodynamics of forward flight versus having to stay on a rotor. Um, so all those things combined and then you wrap that in a huge bubble of, oh, by the way, it's all automated so there's less human interaction, maybe no human interaction. And the accomplishment of that mission to deliver cargo or deliver people or do inspections or whatever the case may be, so that the, the evolution into new aerospace products that have all those changes in new novel designs is where the rules don't necessarily meet the reality of the tech. So there's a tension there that the FAA and, and the industry have to overcome together.

Speaker A: What are some of the most common hiccups you see in that process of evolution between your clients and the faa?

Speaker B: Uh, so the tech world is really fond of failing fast and evolving quickly. And the all regulators, FAA included, are really fond of predictable outcomes and controlled, um, configurations. Right. So the tech world wants to innovate quickly and the regulator wants to make sure that whatever we're putting there is locked down, prescriptive, predictable and well known. So those things manifest, those two cultures manifest themselves in different ways throughout the process. So that's, that's probably the most common thing.

Speaker A: Yep, yep, I understand. Go ahead, Brian.

Speaker C: Yeah, Pardon me, Emily. That, that's uh, that's interesting. And when I, when I think about the value that you guys provide, um, there's gotta be a piece of connecting the dots between folks who want to fail fast and folks who like stability. And so how do you insert yourself into that process and be valuable in order to make those two pieces come together?

Speaker B: Yeah, there's an attitude, and uh, I've referred to it as a pioneering attitude and it's actually a personality type. Right. So we need folks who are highly technical, technically savvy, technically capable, but also understand that the prescriptive way of doing business isn't going to work. So we're going to have to find alternative language to the rules that is safe, that produces a safe product while leveraging the current rule set. But getting outside of the prescriptive part of it. So that's a, uh, that's a very, there's some unicornish folks in the business that are both really rigorous in an engineering perspective, but also can wrap their heads around, all right, how do we use the existing rules as they are today, to. And modify them to create a safe outcome with a new and novel product. And that's, that's really kind of where the friction is and where we tend to excel in getting things done.

Speaker C: Yeah. And so how, you know, a lot of times for us we think about, um, when we talk about value, B2B value or B2G value, sometimes, you know, we're talking about government, um, we think about how are you increasing revenue, how are you decreasing cost and how uh, are you minimizing risk for your customers? And so this risk obviously is a really big deal. Um, how do you think about, in the context of maybe how you price or at least how you differentiate yourselves, how do you think about that risk? It's not like you can say, oh well, a, uh, human life is worth a million dollars. And so if this aircraft with four people on it crashes, you'd save $4 million. That's probably not the right way to think about it. So how do you think about it and how do you communicate that to your customers?

Speaker B: Um, there was a project not too long ago where we bluntly conveyed it to the, to the applicant or the client as how many of these can you afford to crash? Right. Like it was not a small airplane, it was in excess of 20 passengers and, and electric propulsion and you know, seeking automated, ah, automated uh, systems completely. And so they wanted to do a full scale, um, prototype and, but build it on some, you know, kind of interim bits and pieces. And we said, okay, well this process is going to be expensive no matter what you do. Right. You've got to build. If you're going to build a full scale prototype, then it's meant to be a demonstrator for the whole configuration and using alternative parts or um, hobby grade elements of it. Like you're increasing the risk of that airplane becoming a smoking hole. Right. And can your company sustain that loss not just from a financial like, hey, we built an expensive thing, but are your investors going to be on board with continuing the process? Uh, is the regulator going to say, oh, that's fine, you know, just build another one, we'll take a look. Again, like it is high stakes across the boards in aerospace, even with the small products. I mean if for no other reason, than a societal acceptance. These drone delivery companies do not want to make the news with aircraft, you know, coming out of the sky unpredictably. So we do de risk um, these processes by guiding the clients through the paths that are going to get them into service, uh, while understanding the, the culture and requirements and motivations of the faa.

Speaker A: I can imagine that a lot of companies really can't navigate that alone either. And in understanding that value proposition you're effectively helping them articulate their own value. But it does make me curious about where the end state solutions value extends beyond certification work. Do you want to talk a little bit about that?

Speaker B: Yeah. It's so de risking the process by understanding it. Right. And understanding the hurdles they face in a clear eyed way. But uh, also in managing that cultural friction between FAA and the engineering staffs of these emerging tech companies. Right. We don't, we don't want, we, we operate in a highly collaborative, high trust environment. And so when companies do have mishaps or missteps or discover things that are, that are not perfect about their products, the FAA expects that. But often the, the companies are reluctant to share that data. Right. Because they're afraid the FAA is going to shut them down or, or, or not understand that there's a developmental process in new and emerging tech. So managing those relationships and managing um, how companies learn to trust the FAA and vice versa is a big part of what we do.

Speaker A: Absolutely. That I think that makes a lot of sense. Brian, go ahead.

Speaker C: So, uh, Charlton, I, I imagine that when you are involved in these high stakes, um, oftentimes it's with bigger companies too. Um, so they've got negotiators on the other side, maybe a procurement group sourcing whatever you want to call them that's on the other side. Um, how do you negotiate? And we'd love a story or two um, with a procurement group that is probably somewhat non traditional when it comes to this sort of risk and this sort of product or service.

Speaker B: Yeah, we do. You're right. We see enterprise level procurement activity and even if it's just a single point, uh, legal, um, point of contact within the company that is there to protect the interest of that company and oftentimes are, they're very disconnected from what the goals of the program. Right. So they, they're just seeing it in terms of legal language and, and protecting um, the company from either missteps that we make or um, contractual terms that are not favorable to them regardless of what our position is or um, what the goal of the project is. That we're trying to get over the finish line, which is almost always innovative and, and therefore higher risk, both from a financial perspective and just an accomplishment perspective. We generally don't take on work that we can't guarantee will get done. Um, but in so doing we do need terms, both pricing terms and contractual terms that acknowledge that we're a tiny little company. Right. We're, we're a small group or a boutique of experts that can't afford to just not get paid for some period of time. And we also can't afford to have the company, um, use our name with the FAA and crush our reputation along with theirs by asking for things that are kind of on their face, not smart to ask for. So we have reputational risk, we have contractual risk just in size of business and we have financial risk in entering in with companies that, that it's, it's weird, Brian. Like a lot of times it seems like the bigger companies are the hardest to get the pay on time. I have no idea why that is. Um, certainly they pay themselves on time. But so, you know, that's, we, we do, we, we have to, we have to convey to the buyer, be it the procurement, uh, department or the legal division, that their internal customer, their program manager or their director or vice president or CEO has asked us to accomplish this task and what it's going to take to accomplish that justifies why we are asking for these, whatever terms are in the contract or the, uh, compensation. So that's, you know, these are generally very lofty goals and as a result,

Speaker A: those are hard conversations to have for every seller, every organization. But Brian, I want to, I want to just shift for a second. From a Holden perspective, how does what Charlton is describing to what you're seeing with your other clients?

Speaker C: Yeah, it's, uh, that's a great question, Emily. So we do see this routinely. And to answer your question as to why bigger companies don't pay on time and smaller companies do, the reason bigger companies don't pay on time is because they don't have to. So they know that they've got you over a barrel. And they have people who have done the math and they're thinking to themselves, if we pay everybody 10 days late, 30 days late, think of all the money that we will be saving across all tracks. Ah, I used to work, uh, in commercial finance at General Electric, and, and so we would lend money to other parts of General Electric and they would pay us late. Even intra inner division, they would pay us late because they were keeping that for another 10 15, 30 days, whatever, and collecting the interest on that. So um, unfortunately you're not alone in terms of that's, you know, that's what they do. And um, and then the other point you brought up, which is super important, is that whether it be procurement or the legal team and their detachment from the real decision makers, it is so critical and this is what we advise all of our clients to do, that you've got to build that relationship with those decision makers prior to any rfp. You've got to have some kind of relationship so that when the lawyer goes off the reservation and says these terms and conditions have to be the way they are, I will never approve them any other way. You can go back to the decision maker and say, look, we talked about this, we talked about how this is going to be experimental. We talked about how this is different. We talked about how we are uniquely suited, as in State Solutions, uniquely suited to do this for you. And so we're going to have to have some compromise here with your lawyer. Uh, you need to call him or her and, and work this out.

Speaker B: Yeah, well, and we often see it manifest early on in the uh, if there's an NDA discussion, a non disclosure agreement discussion, that, that those same issues can arise and we have to keep the PM couple to keep it sane. Right. From our, from our perspective. Yeah, yeah. I, uh, if I can, I'll, we'll take it down the other road, which is okay when that results in a loss. Right. An opportunity that you don't win because you couldn't get the terms either over price or over. So you've gone through the whole process of, you know, you think everybody's aligned internally, externally, you've identified the client's need, they've acknowledged that, you've identified the solution, they've acknowledged that, you know, we're all in alignment all the way down the road until you hit the T's and season the contract and it's, it's all teed up properly and you can't get beyond that TNC or that term and condition that is a showstopper for you as a small business or some funding piece that they won't sign up for. In either case, if you lose that contract, it's still the best thing that could have happened in some cases, right?

Speaker A: Absolutely.

Speaker B: Meaning, ah, we lose that opportunity, but then we don't suffer having a bad client or terms and conditions that we can't live with. Right. The risk is too.

Speaker A: Oh, certainly, certainly. One thing that that actually brings up for me is I am under the impression you work across commercial and government, and I'm wondering how that all looks between the two markets. How does pricing differ, how the negotiation differ? Talk to us a little bit about that.

Speaker B: So end State Solutions has only done commercial work to date, um, because, man, I really enjoy writing out contracts in a, in a unrestricted, uh, unconstrained environment.

Speaker A: I see.

Speaker B: However, my previous, uh, work was with a federal contractor that did a whole lot of DoD work. And, and we, we, we work with companies that do both. And I can tell you that one of the big challenges is that the financial constructs of government contracting, be it Department of Defense or federal, are very hard to adapt to the commercial. Right. So that's. We, we don't have to disclose best pricing to anybody because we're purely commercial. So as soon as we get into the federal realm, um, and we have to give the government best available, that immediately puts a constraint. Right?

Speaker A: Absolutely, absolutely. That's. And, and I think that that's often a tricky, tricky situation. Brian did mention to me the other day that you also maybe were doing some international negotiations. Talk to us a little bit about that.

Speaker B: Some, Some, uh, some international. Oh, yes, yeah, we have several international. Have had and have international customers today. And uh, you know, again, thankfully with the, with the commercial segment, we, uh, can almost always find terms and pricing that works for them. Um, we did pitch and Brian helped out with a project that we pitched internationally that we didn't win. Um, but I'm super confident in the pricing that we conveyed to them that we couldn't have done it well for any less. Um, we did apparently lose on pricing. So, okay, whoever won, and we actually know the folks who won, so we should check back in with them and see how it's going. But, um, if they beat us on price and they accepted the terms of that particular client, good on them and go forth and prosper. Because I think it would have been a train wreck if we'd won, um, with any less pricing or with accepting some of the T's and C's that were proposed by that particular. So that part of the, part of the. My big issue, especially as a tiny company with International, is who, how do I reach out and, and who do I reach out to to get paid if they don't pay? And, and if, and if, if there's legal action and the venue is overseas, you know, how are we going to manage that? Right, right. So it's, it's a big, There's a step function in doing work with, with Government agencies outside, outside the U.S. or companies, uh, that are based outside of the U.S. mhm.

Speaker C: Yeah. It's not the difference between Massachusetts and Delaware in terms of this, this where you're taking legal action. It could be place where the rules are very, very different. And do you even understand what the rules might be?

Speaker B: Right, right. Or how do you get representation there? You know, you have to have those things teed up in advance.

Speaker C: Right? Yeah. Yeah. And you make uh, an interesting point about that deal that you said, hey, here's our pricing and you didn't win and that was okay. And it, it is, it can be so difficult when you've put all that effort, I know you put a ton of effort into that particular deal and negotiation and to have the fortitude to say, you know what, I'm going to feel worse if I win this at a lower than I do if I just walk away. And so you, you have to walk away. And it's, it's hard, it's, it's a very difficult decision. But sometimes you have to know where that line is and you say, gosh, I'm not going below that.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, that was the case in this case and we didn't want to be the dog that caught the car. Right. And uh, you know, have, have bigger problems and uh, maybe still challenges getting paid for the bigger problems. So you know, anyway, internally we spent um, in man hours and, and just financially around 40k chasing that opportunity. And that's in the, in the commercial world that's not that much. Maybe in the, in the government world that's nothing. But it was still an expensive lesson learned for us and I think we did walk away with lessons learned and, and the ability to negotiate as well or better on the next big opportunity.

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. I mean it's, I refer to it as tuition. Um, it was, ah, you went to an out of state school for that one. That tuition was kind of high. But you know, sometimes you got to learn it cost you something, whether it's money or time or both.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, well, and I don't think it'll be the last big opportunity like that. And next time around we won't have to spend 40k because we'll, we'll have a good baseline to start from in the next negotiation.

Speaker A: So I totally, uh, different question for you that I've been, I've been kind of percolating on here, which is, you know, sometimes when you're working with or uh, selling into high tech, there's a huge amount of, of change just internally with your prospects or customers and change in the buying center and the decisioning process and all of that can be really tough and really messy. How do you think about the buying center within your customers? How do you manage it? How do you know who's making the decision and how do you guide your customers through that? Because I'm guessing that there's some education that you're also doing throughout the sales

Speaker B: cycle it you do. And, and I think the best way to mitigate those risks is to have really good paper going in. Right. Don't, don't settle for discounted pricing when you know you're taking on risk of a lot of change going in. Don't settle for terms and conditions that leave you open to off ramps that you didn't expect or are undesirable. Um, so that when those we, we have one company that I think is under its fourth name and, and they're, and it's not because they're failing, it's because they're growing so fast that they, they keep splitting out divisions and renaming. Um, and I know, I don't know who is signing the invoices, approving uh, the invoices but we're getting paid and we're getting paid what we went in to get paid and we're getting the job done for the them despite the churn internally. And a large part of that is because of the contracting and pricing efforts that went in on the front end. So you know, again, more reasons to don't accept um, terms and conditions or pricing that doesn't meet the value of what you're producing for that company right up front because it's only going to get harder later.

Speaker A: Absolutely. So who is your typical decision maker when you're working with a customer who's in that role?

Speaker B: We tend to land in the uh, director, uh, VP strata of decision makers, um, occasionally with the CEO of smaller companies. But ah, one of our former clients, Chevron for example, there's a director of a division and his motivations are to get this project done um, at the, within the budget that, that he's been prescribed to do it in that we all agreed to. Right. So it's constrained, it's constricted, the goal is clear and uh, his internal um, motivations and agenda are driven by his success in the organization. So that's, that's part of our buyer Persona.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And you must work with engineers and legal procurement. How are you brought in to your customers? Is it through engineering?

Speaker B: Um, no, it's typically through it may be through somebody in the hierarchy up in, higher in the hierarchy of engineering, a VP of engineering who has been also given the regulatory approval.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: Because that wasn't baked into their original, um, org chart. Right. So they either brought somebody and hired somebody for that and now they need help, or that engineering lead is like, whoa, I got it. I've got our widget here. But no idea how to tackle the faa or actually more commonly they've run up against some friction point with the FAA that they are now stuck on. So the pain is even more acute.

Speaker A: I see, I see. All right, what kind of, what kind of friction? Tell us about that.

Speaker B: Well, unanticipated, um, complexity and what they've got to demonstrate to the FAA to get a given approval. So the FAA in many ways is still operating around exemptions and waivers, which are all pretty unique. Right. They've actually systemized some of the exemption waiver process because it's been so common. So they got buckets that the waivers and exemptions fit in. So that makes it a little more predictable. But there's still exemptions and waivers. So new rules are being published. Those new rules are going to be a reflection of what's going on in the exemptions and waivers to a large degree. So companies will now have a, ah, clear roadmap when the rule gets published. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they understand how to navigate that roadmap any better than waivers and exemptions. So it's, it's Aerospace is hard.

Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I think certainly. Brian, tell us a little bit about your point of view here.

Speaker C: Yeah, I, you know, I was just thinking about the, uh, we've talked a lot about the terms and conditions and the paper and those sorts of things. And I learned something from a client, um, in the, in the last two weeks that I had never heard of before. So they, they had, um, they are a big supplier. They are also in aerospace. And what they were getting was somebody, one of their customers needed quick work and so they were coming to them with a quick request and saying, basically, sign here and then we'll work out the details of the project, A, uh, fast follow and then you guys will get the project. And so the sales group of course was thinking to themselves, oh my God, this is manna from heaven. You know, just out of nowhere. Fantastic. Uh, yeah, here's. This is a two page thing. This just says, you know, we're going to do business, uh, outside of normal channels, blah, blah, blah. Okay, got it. Sign this, send that back, let's talk about the deal and what was happening was that piece of paper that they were signing were terms that were superseding the Master Services agreement. And so they were not in a favorable way. They were signing up for 90 uh, day payment terms instead of 45. And they were signing up for some other things. And then the deal all came together and they gave it to legal and legal would look at it and say hey, I don't like this or, or other folks, I don't like the pricing, I don't like this. Let's see what kind of value trade offs give gets is what we call them that you can, you can go back and forth on. And then all the terms were already set. So they negotiate any of the terms. They could only negotiate on the price which is not what we would advocate. And, and it was a uh, it felt like a little slight of hand that they had seen more than once. But the legal team was getting it too late to do anything about it. And it was the sellers who were signing this thing that looked legit on at face value.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, the details absolutely matter.

Speaker A: Right, well there's huge cost of that too.

Speaker B: We, we've experienced a similar problem but it was system generated, not nefarious legal department generated. Um, I don't know if anybody else out there has ever dealt with a company that uses COUPA as their, their supplier interface. Yes, but so at, actually at your um, with your guidance and through Collective 54, some of our pricing structures um, generally are fixed fee and generally our payment in the beginning of the month in which work is done. Right, that's one of our standards. Right. Well the client accepted that, that maybe the contracting went through that way. But then the Koopa system didn't acknowledge the T's and C's that were in our contract because it's so structured.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: We would submit an invoice 30 days in advance for payment coming up in the, in the upcoming month where we're doing work. But the Kuba system wouldn't see that. It would say look I, I need to pay them 30 days later. So it was effectively pushing our, our system into you know, a 60 day payment where we're supposed to be paid in the month where we're doing the work. So um, it really frustrating and it was hard for even the, the, the, the our customer, our operational customer to get into their own system to figure out how to get it fixed. It was super frustrating. So I don't know if other procurement systems or supplier management systems are similar, but that was just one example where the system didn't acknowledge the T's and C's that we all signed up for.

Speaker C: Interesting. Yeah, I hadn't heard of that.

Speaker B: Uh, it's a horrible thing.

Speaker A: We've encountered that actually at, uh, Holden. And it's difficult because there's so much churn and so much friction all the time with every stage of procurement, especially as a supplier, where it feels like a no win against especially large companies where the cost of time is pretty high, actually. And so sellers end up getting into this scenario, like Brian talked a little bit about, where there's some uncertainty, there's desperation, there's fear, and procurement has their own fear. But, you know, we all, we all make, um, some probably judgment errors in all of that at times. But one of the things that I wanted to, if that's okay, switch gears too, is we've been talking a lot about aerospace, and I realized that we did not touch on this in the beginning. You went from being a pilot in the Marine Corps, if I'm not m. Mistaken, to helping companies get their FAA certification. And I. Yeah, which effectively makes you an expert. And we didn't talk about that yet. And I would love to hear about that path and all of the things that you've learned along the way and how they impact your outlook today in terms of how you help your customers.

Speaker B: Yeah. So, uh, I, I'll, you know, try to keep it, um, tight here. Um, we're not doing an autobiography on the podcast, but, yeah, I, I learned to fly alongside, uh, my dad when I was in my teens and always wanted to be a pilot, fly military jets, and I was able to realize that dream. So I ended up in the Marine Corps as a Harrier guy. Um, roughly same time Brian, that you were, you were flying in the Air Force, right? Give or take.

Speaker C: I, Yeah, I was, uh, So I was flying jets between 92 and 01.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. So I, I, I was in the fleet, um, basically 90, uh, nine through 003, something like that. Anyway. Did a tour in a gun squadron.

Speaker C: That's what you're telling everybody. You're a young man.

Speaker B: Right, Exactly. So I got to live my dream, which was amazing. And, um, that led to, uh, other things. Like I did, uh, a tour in Iraq as a joint terminal air controller, a joint tactical air controller, and, um, got a whole lot of video feed from drones as a result.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: So that's where I got plugged into the, uh, automated or autonomous aerospace piece, was as a consumer of that product of all the video and that landed me with a, with a contractor, uh, called In Situ, that was building drones for Department of Defense. And along that journey I got grabbed by the scruff of the neck and we started the commercial division, which was two guys, um, who got, and I got plucked in front of the, uh, FAA and said, hey, we're going to certify this drone and to do work for ConocoPhillips in Alaska. And that's where I got my first exposure to certification work. Right. Or, or any kind of real regulatory work outside of the rules I had to learn as a pilot, the operation. And it was a, it was a fantastic, um, super serendipitous experience where I was, I had a lot of great mentors, some of which we still work with today through End State Solutions in our company. And um, we really, really had opportunities that were once in a lifetime. And I've just, you know, been I, it was good luck, good timing, good people, and springboarded from that to this basically.

Speaker A: Well, you know, one of the things we talk a lot with our clients about is becoming a trusted advisor and the value of that to their customers and that there is inherent financial value in that. How do you.

Speaker B: Yeah, we struggle to describe that.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's.

Speaker B: It's, it is, it's intangible, but it's, it is definitely, um, it's not, it's hard to quantify, but, you know, it's. Access to the FAA isn't just having, you know, experts in the FAA on speed dial. It's that you got the relationships built through trust. That they answer the phone when you call and you can ask them questions even off the record. Right. That you couldn't do otherwise. But there has to be a super high trust relationship there. And um, for every champion that we have in the faa, there's a host of other people who are less progressive, less, um, pioneering. Right. And getting through these, uh, very emerging tech, new and novel types of programs. The, the regulator, culturally is not programmed to say yes to new and novel stuff. They're actually motivated to say no or I want more data. So it's all built on trust. And when we call the folks in the faa, they know we're not bringing them stupid ideas. You know, we're not going to propose something that is unachievable or unsafe or, you know, just. We're not going to throw our, ourselves against a wall of things that just aren't, uh, rational or achievable. So when we come to the FAA with a problem, we also come with a Solution and our, uh, clients benefit from that, right?

Speaker A: Oh, certainly, certainly. And you know, I, I have to think that being in the military probably teaches something about effective negotiation towards a common goal. Do you have any stories or anything that you've learned from your, from your experience in the military about negotiating effectively? And then I'll ask the same question to Brian.

Speaker B: Yeah, just, um, I think it goes. So I, I was, uh, I graduated from the Naval Academy in 1994 and I have a Bachelor of Science in English as a result. So I have a BS in English. Can't be denied. So, um, but I, I value that because really all the negotiations are about clear and collaborative communication. Right. Be it negotiating with the procurement department, the end user buyer, or the faa. So a lot of it is how you convey the message. So I would say that, that that was my takeaway is in the military and in the corporate world, you've got to communicate upstream and sometimes manage upstream as well as communicate downstream. And when you're doing new and novel projects, that requires a whole lot of universally conveying what we're trying to do, why it's a good idea, and how we're going to get through this otherwise seemingly impossible task.

Speaker C: Yeah, right. And from, from my perspective, just to add to what Charlton said is, um, a lot of my experience was overseas. We flew routinely to, to different countries. And so you'd be, um, interacting with foreign nationals who, um, a came with a preconceived notion of American, ah, military, good, bad, whatever. And also they had different norms, they just had different procedures. And so what you had to do was figure out what was important to them, what they wanted, um, was part of any sort of communication, whether it be negotiation or otherwise. It's like, what's important to these guys? What are they trying to achieve? And then the second aspect of it was, um, the style in which they are used to communicating. And so if you want to talk about opposite ends of the spectrum, the military is typically very direct. Um, the language is very tight. The first thing you learn in pilot training, practically, Charlton, is like, this is how to talk on the radio in the most succinct way possible.

Speaker B: On brevity, baby, I'm a fan.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker C: Do not add another word. Usually if you got a little long winded, the instructor pilot would get on the microphone and he would say, disregard. And it would have the tone and it would be like, I'm sorry, I have an idiot in the plane with me. He's going to try again in a moment. I mean, it was you were trained like that. And then, and so if you're negotiating or communicating the military man, you better be tight. And if you're particularly up the chain of command where people have even less and less time for you, it's got to be tight. Then you would go to another country with potentially almost always a culture that was not direct communication. And so it may require three cups of tea, it might require sitting around. And um, I can remember trying uh, to get the jet refueled in Italy. And I had somebody with me who was screaming into the radio that the fuel truck has to come over and, and why aren't they here yet? And like that is never going to work. Like we got, we need to go have a conversation with these guys. And by the way, I, I pulled my novel out of my, my bag and I'm like, and I'm going to sit here and read my book and chill out because that guy's going to come when he feels like coming.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: Um, but the next time I needed something from him, he was my buddy because I had worked on his schedule that one time. So it's, there's some give and take, whether it be in the military or different countries or you know, negotiating with different companies. However.

Speaker B: Yeah, when I showed up here in the Columbia River Gorge, Pacific Northwest, I showed up basically straight from the desert in Iraq as Major Evans and quickly found that I could, without even knowing it, leave a trail of bruised feelings, tears and hatred and discontent behind me if I interacted at work the way I interacted as Major Evans in Iraq. So yeah, there was a learning curve,

Speaker C: that's for sure.

Speaker A: I can understand that. I was, I, I have a family member who's uh, an who prior to retirement was uh, an incredibly high ranking Air Force official. And since, um, has become a wonderful negotiator with me and with my, my young children. Because he looks at it in a way of like, okay, here's what I need and here's what you need and I'm going to listen to you and then I'm going to respond with my non negotiables. And sometimes that means that there's going to be some tears, but that's okay too. We'll get somewhere together. And I always thought it was great because it's so non emotional. And that's one of the things that's really hard about negotiation is that it, it can be very emotional. Like Brian just described, hot tempers and lots of big feelings and having that sort of like, hey, here's what I, here's what I need to have happen. And some things I can control and some things I can't. But what do you need to have happen? I think is very valuable and I think it's very, very military.

Speaker B: Um, I think you can build a success loop on that too. An upward spiral where if you're winning contracts that make sense for both parties and the buyer journey is emotional, but if you keep it rational and you win good contracts, it gives you the standing to remain unemotional the next negotiation and you win another one. So there becomes kind of a basis of like, all right, this is going to be hard. I get it. It always takes longer. There's always terms that, uh, we don't necessarily can't agree with. That's fine. We've got other work going on and if this one doesn't work out, we'll win the next.

Speaker A: Absolutely. All right. Is there. I realized that we're almost running up against time. I didn't know if there was anywhere else you wanted to go here other than. I would love to hear if there is anything you wish more folks knew about N State or about the aerospace.

Speaker B: Well, I happy to plug what we do, but honestly, um, we really haven't talked about what Holden had, has done for us. Um, just in the way we do our business, which has been pretty foundational. I mean, and part of it's through Collective 54, but part of it's through our direct work with Holden. And I'm. I'm not getting paid to say this, but I will say that the, the, uh, the way we have reperceived our own value based pricing and what we're bringing to the clients and then how to actually execute on that and propose contract language and, and compensation language that makes sense to our clients and meets our goals has been largely attributable to you guys. So, uh, can't thank you enough. So, huge, huge bonus there for, for us. Awesome.

Speaker C: Uh, thank you, Charlton. That's great. That's great to hear.

Speaker B: It just. It's a fact.

Speaker C: Yeah, it's really great working with you guys. So that's, that's fantastic.

Speaker B: Yeah. Well, let's, let's find another big one to tackle together and, uh, knock it out of the park.

Speaker C: That sounds good. Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker A: All right, well, Charles, thank you. This has been a great conversation. Uh, thank you so much for joining us on if Prices could talk.