COCOO CASES

Objective: To identify international trade disputes that are either stalled and ripe for mediation, or that involve complex technical/logistical issues which could be solved by a service Cocoo could provide under a public contract (e.g., with a government trade department).

WTO Search Facility Rules & Application

The WTO’s dispute data is accessible via several tools on their official website and through specialized legal databases. The key is to use their structured search and filtering capabilities, as they do not rely on simple text operators alone.

Available Search Options & Rules:

• Search Template: The primary tool. It allows filtering by:
  • Dispute number: (e.g., DS544) for targeting specific known cases.
  • WTO member: (Complainant, Respondent, or Third Party) for tracking a specific country’s trade conflicts.
  • WTO agreement: (e.g., GATT, GATS, TRIPS) for focusing on specific areas of trade law.
  • Subject: (e.g., “steel,” “renewable energy,” “intellectual property”) for industry-specific searches.
  • Date: For narrowing results to recent or historical disputes.
• Browsing Options: The site allows you to browse all disputes chronologically, by Member, by Agreement, or by Subject. This is useful for high-level analysis.
• Document Search: The “Dispute Documents Database” allows full-text keyword searching within official documents (panel reports, submissions, etc.). This is where our keyword portfolio becomes powerful.
• Implicit Operators: Selecting multiple filters (e.g., a country AND a subject) acts as a logical AND operator, narrowing the results. Browsing lists and then searching within them is a way to create a focused workflow.

Applying the 4-Step Model to the WTO:

• Step 1: Scoping & Keyword Strategy

  • Case Example: We believe a trade friction exists in the global “agricultural technology” sector.
  • Keyword Portfolio:
    • Broad: “agriculture,” “sanitary,” “phytosanitary,” “SPS.”
    • Technical: “gene editing,” “hydroponics,” “precision fermentation.”
    • Stakeholders: Names of major agricultural exporting countries (e.g., “Brazil,” “Netherlands,” “United States”).
    • Outcome: “mutual recognition,” “technical assistance,” “settlement,” “arbitration.”

• Step 2: Execution & Evidence Gathering

  1. Broad Search: Use the By Subject browser to look at all disputes under “Agriculture.”
  2. Filtered Search: Use the Search Template. Set Subject: to “Agriculture” and add a Member country (e.g., Brazil as complainant). Review the list of disputes.
  3. Document Keyword Search: Take the dispute numbers (DS###) from the previous step. Go to the “Dispute Documents Database.” Search within the documents of these cases for our technical keywords like "gene editing" or outcome keywords like "technical assistance". This helps us find the precise point of contention.
  4. Identify Stalled Disputes: Look for cases with a long “In Consultations” status or where a panel report has been appealed but no Appellate Body report exists (due to the current impasse). These are prime targets for mediation.

• Step 3: Analysis & Opportunity Identification

  • Mediation Opportunity: We find a dispute between two countries over novel food products that has been “In Consultations” for over two years. The parties’ public statements show they are far apart. This is an opportunity to propose Cocoo as a neutral mediator to facilitate technical dialogue.
  • Contract Opportunity: We find a panel report that criticizes a country’s import inspection process for being outdated. The government’s response acknowledges the need for modernization. This is an opportunity for Cocoo to propose a low-value unsolicited project to design a new digital-first inspection workflow, positioning us for a larger tender later.

• Step 4: Leveraging for Positioning

  • We draft a proposal to the relevant government trade ministries of the two countries in the stalled dispute. The proposal references the specific dispute (DS###) and the technical sticking points identified in our research, outlining a clear mediation framework.

Platform Application 2: UK Parliament Petitions Website

Objective: To identify public policy issues where there is significant citizen engagement but a weak or absent government solution. This signals an opportunity for Cocoo to act as a public-private mediator or to propose a pilot project to address the petitioners’ concerns.

Petitions Search Facility Rules & Application

The Petitions website’s power lies in its transparent filtering system and the implicit data it provides about public sentiment.

Available Search Options & Rules:

• Simple Search Bar: The primary interface. While it seems basic, it can be combined with advanced operators common to such databases.
• Advanced Operators (Inferred best practice):
  • "phrase searching": Using quotation marks to find exact phrases (e.g., "social care funding") is crucial for reducing noise.
  • AND / OR / NOT: Boolean operators to combine or exclude terms (e.g., cycling AND safety NOT helmet).
  • * (wildcard): To capture variations of a word (e.g., transport* would find “transport,” “transportation,” etc.).
• Status Filters (Most Important Feature): The website’s most powerful tool is the ability to filter by status. This is our primary strategic lever.
  • All petitions
  • Open petitions
  • Closed petitions
  • Rejected petitions (Opportunity Goldmine)
  • Awaiting government response
  • Government responses
  • Awaiting a debate
  • Debated in Parliament

Applying the 4-Step Model to UK Petitions:

• Step 1: Scoping & Keyword Strategy

  • Case Example: We are looking for opportunities in the “local infrastructure and community services” space.
  • Keyword Portfolio:
    • Broad: “parking,” “library,” “youth centre,” “public transport,” “waste collection.”
    • Specific: “dropped kerbs,” “community fridge,” “school crossing,” “FixMyStreet.”
    • Outcome: “council,” “funding,” “pilot,” “review,” “feasibility study.”

• Step 2: Execution & Evidence Gathering

  1. Search High-Signature Petitions: Search for your keywords and filter by “Debated in Parliament” or “Government responses.” Read the government’s response. A vague or non-committal response to a popular petition signals an unresolved issue.
  2. Search Rejected Petitions: This is a key step. Filter by Rejected petitions and search for your keywords. The reason for rejection is often “This is the responsibility of the local council” or “This is about a private dispute.” These are perfect, targeted opportunities for Cocoo to approach a specific local council or group of stakeholders with a mediation or project proposal.
  3. Search Open Petitions: Look for petitions with a moderate but growing number of signatures in a niche area. This allows us to get ahead of the curve and prepare a proposal before the issue becomes mainstream.

• Step 3: Analysis & Opportunity Identification

  • Mediation Opportunity: We find a Rejected petition about a dispute between local residents and a commercial developer over public access rights. The reason for rejection is that it’s a “private matter.” This is a clear signal for a third-party mediator. Cocoo can approach both parties.
  • Contract Opportunity: We find a petition with 120,000 signatures asking for better tracking of local council road repairs. The government response is positive but non-specific: “The Government encourages local authorities to adopt innovative solutions.” This is a direct invitation. Cocoo can develop a low-cost pilot proposal for a “Road Repair Transparency App” and submit it to the Department for Transport and several key local councils.

• Step 4: Leveraging for Positioning

  • We draft an unsolicited proposal to a specific local council. The opening paragraph cites “Petition #654321 on the Parliament website, which was signed by 5,000 of your local residents,” demonstrating that our proposal is not random but a direct response to a demonstrated public need. This immediately establishes our credibility and relevance.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

The COCOO-EU Merger DB Doctrine: A Strategic Model for MATOIPO Warfare

Platform URL: http://db-comp.eu/ (Note: This is an independent, non-official aggregator, which changes our strategic approach.)

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the EU Merger Case Law DB. It is critical to note that this is an independent, non-official database that aggregates public data on EU merger cases. This makes it a powerful Noisefilter and reconnaissance tool, but all findings must be verified against official sources like EUR-Lex or the EC’s own portal. We will use this platform to rapidly identify precedents, analyze remedy strategies, and understand the Commission’s thinking in MATOIPO (Mergers, Acquisitions, Takeovers, IPOs) cases, which is a core COCOO strategic objective.[1, 2]

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of this database is governed by the most incisive principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just looking up cases; we are reverse-engineering the EU’s merger control apparatus.

• Precedent as a Predictive Tool: The mind maps identify the need to understand how the EC will treat a MATOIPO.[1] This database is our primary tool for finding precedents. By analyzing past decisions in the same sector, we can predict the Commission’s likely concerns (e.g., specific theories of harm), the types of remedies they will accept, and the chances of a deal being cleared, prohibited, or waved through with conditions.
• The “Remedy” Playbook: Successful navigation of EU merger control often depends on offering the right remedies (e.g., divesting a specific business unit). This database allows us to build a “remedy playbook” by identifying which types of remedies have been accepted by the Commission in similar past cases. This is invaluable intelligence for advising clients or for challenging a proposed remedy as insufficient.
• StealthConsolid Market Definition: To prove a StealthConsolid strategy, we must understand how the Commission defines the “relevant market”.[1] This database allows us to search past merger decisions by NACE code. The full text of these decisions contains detailed analysis of market definition, which we can use as a direct precedent to frame our own arguments about a niche market being illegally consolidated.
• WPI (Public Interest) as a Merger Argument: We will analyze how “public interest” arguments, such as environmental benefits or industrial policy goals (WPI), have been used by parties in past merger cases and how the Commission has treated them. This allows us to craft more sophisticated arguments that go beyond pure competition analysis.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

This platform’s power lies in its structured database design, which allows for highly specific filtering of merger cases.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: Based on the screenshot and the platform’s design, the key search rules are:
  • Keyword Search (Fulltext): Allows searching for keywords across the text of the decisions.
  • Filtering by NACE Code: The most powerful feature. Allows us to isolate all merger cases in a specific industrial sector (e.g., C21.20 - Manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations).
  • Filtering by Decision Type: Allows us to focus on specific outcomes: Clearance (Phase 1), Clearance with remedies (Phase 1), Prohibition, Referral, etc.
  • Filtering by Legal Basis: Allows filtering by the specific article of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR).
  • Filtering by Date and Case Number: Standard filters for finding specific known cases or cases within a certain timeframe.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this database to predict and influence the outcome of major corporate transactions.

• For MATOIPO Analysis & Prediction:

  • “A merger has been announced between [Company A] and [Company B] in the [e.g., telecommunications] sector. Show me all past EU merger decisions with NACE code J61. Which cases were cleared with remedies, and what were those remedies?”
  • “What is the Commission’s track record for Prohibition decisions? Which sectors and market structures are most likely to result in a deal being blocked?”

• For StealthConsolid & Market Definition:

  • “We are building a case about consolidation in the ‘private veterinary services’ market. Find all merger decisions with NACE code M75.00. How did the Commission define the relevant geographic and product markets in these cases? The reasoning in these decisions is a direct precedent we can use.”

• For Challenge Discretion & USP Origination:

  • “Find all cases cleared with Phase 1 remedies where the parties were represented by the law firm [e.g., Freshfields or Skadden]. What types of remedy packages do they typically negotiate? This provides competitor intelligence on legal strategy.”
  • “Are there any cases where the Commission accepted a ‘public interest’ argument (e.g., ‘failing firm defence’ or environmental benefits) to clear a merger that might otherwise have been problematic? This provides a basis for a USP to a company looking to make a difficult acquisition.”

4. The COCOO-EU Merger DB Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this database to generate actionable MATOIPO intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Merger Precedent” Audit

• Objective: Before a major merger is announced or when analyzing a live deal, to create a dossier of relevant precedents to predict the Commission’s likely course of action.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Market: Using our ShowVoc doctrine, identify the precise NACE code(s) for the market(s) affected by the merger.
  2. Filter by NACE Code: On the EU Merger Case Law DB, run a search filtered by the identified NACE code(s).
  3. Filter by Outcome: Run the search multiple times, filtering by Decision Type each time (Clearance, Clearance with remedies, Prohibition) to segment the results.
  4. Analyze the Precedents: For the most relevant past cases, analyze the decisions. What was the Commission’s theory of harm? What market share thresholds triggered concerns? If remedies were required, what were they (e.g., divestment of a specific brand, sale of a production facility)?
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces a “Merger Risk Report” that allows COCOO to advise clients (or act on its own behalf) with a high degree of confidence about the likely outcome of a deal. It transforms strategic advice from guesswork into a data-driven prediction based on the Commission’s own history.

Playbook B: The “Remedy Strategy” Playbook

• Objective: To identify successful and unsuccessful remedy strategies from past cases to inform our approach to a live merger negotiation.
• Execution:
  1. Isolate Remedy Cases: Filter the database for all cases with Decision Type: “Clearance with remedies (Phase 1)” or “Clearance with remedies (Phase 2)”.
  2. Filter by Sector: Narrow the results by the NACE code relevant to our current case.
  3. Full-Text Search for Remedy Type: Use the Fulltext search to find cases discussing specific types of remedies. Example: "divestiture", "access remedy", "licensing commitment".
  4. Analyze the Details: Review the full decisions for these cases. How were the remedies structured? What were the conditions? Were there any “up-front buyer” requirements?
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook creates a library of proven remedy designs. It allows COCOO to enter negotiations with the Commission armed with a menu of potential solutions that have been accepted in the past, increasing the chances of getting a difficult deal cleared and demonstrating a level of sophistication that enhances our reputation as expert mediators.

Playbook C: The “Market Definition as a Weapon” (StealthConsolid)

• Objective: To find official EC decisions that define a niche market in a way that supports our StealthConsolid theory.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Niche Market: From our own research, identify a niche market undergoing consolidation (e.g., “specialist medical diagnostic laboratories”).
  2. Find the NACE Code: Use ShowVoc to find the closest NACE code(s) (e.g., Q86.90 - Other human health activities).
  3. Search the Merger DB: Filter the database by this NACE code.
  4. Keyword Search for Specifics: Use the Fulltext search within these results for keywords that describe the specific niche. Example: "diagnostic", "laboratory", "pathology".
  5. Extract the Definition: Find a past merger decision where the Commission, in its wisdom, has explicitly defined the “relevant product market” as, for example, “the market for esoteric pathology testing services in Belgium.”
• Strategic Outcome: This extracted text is pure gold. It is an official decision by the EU’s competition authority defining the market in precisely the narrow, segmented way we need. This precedent can be used in a future complaint to the CMA or another authority to argue that our StealthConsolid theory is not our own invention, but is based on the established analytical framework of the European Commission itself.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/ ¹

The COCOO-ShowVoc Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Sectoral Classification and Market Definition

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating ShowVoc, the EU’s official platform for browsing and understanding statistical classifications. This is not a database of companies; it is the master key that unlocks precise, data-driven sectoral analysis across our entire intelligence arsenal. We will weaponize this platform to define our battlefields with surgical precision, ensuring that every search on every other platform is perfectly targeted. This platform is the mandatory starting point for all our Benchmarking, StealthConsolid, and FOC DAM strategies, providing the official language of market definition used by EU and UK regulators.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of ShowVoc is governed by the most foundational principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just looking up codes; we are defining the market to dominate it.

• Precision as a Weapon: In competition law and market analysis, the definition of the relevant market is everything. ShowVoc provides us with the official, harmonized NACE codes (Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community) used by Eurostat, DG COMP, and national statistical offices. ¹ Using the correct code is the difference between a vague, easily dismissed complaint and a surgical, evidence-based attack.
• The Benchmarking Blueprint: The mind maps demand deep Benchmarking and Porter analysis. ¹ ShowVoc provides the blueprint. By identifying the precise NACE code for an industry (e.g., C29.10 – Manufacture of motor vehicles), we can then use that code on platforms like Eurostat to pull the exact financial and operational benchmarks for that entire sector across the EU.
• The StealthConsolid Hunting Licence: To hunt for StealthConsolid operations in highly segmented markets, we must first define the hunting ground. ¹ ShowVoc allows us to drill down to the most granular 5-digit NACE codes (e.g., G47.76 – Retail sale of flowers, plants, seeds, fertilisers, pet animals and pet food in specialised stores) to precisely define a niche market. This code then becomes our primary search key on other platforms to identify all players and detect hidden consolidation.
• The Cross-Platform Intelligence Bridge: ShowVoc is the Rosetta Stone that connects our intelligence platforms. A NACE code identified here is the key that unlocks sectoral searches on the EC Competition Cases database, Eurostat, and can be mapped to national SIC codes for use on the UK’s Companies House. It allows us to build a 360-degree view of an entire industry.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

The power of ShowVoc lies in its clear, hierarchical structure and its status as the definitive source for EU classifications.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform is a browser, not a complex search engine. The “rules” are about understanding and navigating its structure.
  • Rule 1: Hierarchical Navigation: As seen in the screenshot, the primary interface is a hierarchical tree structure. ¹ Users navigate from broad sections (e.g., C - MANUFACTURING) down to specific classes. This allows us to understand the context of any given industry and identify related sectors.
  • Rule 2: Keyword Search: The platform includes a Search bar that allows for keyword searching within the classification descriptions. This is the fastest way to find a relevant code if the industry is known (e.g., searching for “pharmaceuticals” to find Section C, Division 21).
  • Rule 3: Definitive Codes: The platform provides the official, multi-level NACE Rev. 2 codes. These are the codes used in official EU statistics and regulatory filings. Understanding this structure is key:
    • Section (Letter): e.g., K - FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE ACTIVITIES
    • Division (2-digit): e.g., 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding
    • Group (3-digit): e.g., 64.1 - Monetary intermediation
    • Class (4-digit): e.g., 64.19 - Other monetary intermediation
  • Rule 4: Correspondence Tables: The platform provides correspondence tables that allow us to map NACE codes to other international and national classification systems (like the UK’s SIC codes). This is a critical function for cross-jurisdictional analysis.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate ShowVoc to get the precise market definitions that will arm our subsequent intelligence gathering.

• For Benchmarking & Competitor Analysis:

  • “What is the precise NACE Rev. 2 code for companies involved in ‘data processing and hosting’? This will allow us to pull accurate financial benchmarks from Eurostat.”
  • “Our target is in the ‘manufacture of plastics’. What are all the 4-digit sub-classes within this division, so we can analyze each niche separately for competitors?”
  • “How does the UK SIC code for ‘management consultancy activities’ (70229) correspond to the NACE classification system?”

• For StealthConsolid & MATOIPO Analysis:

  • “We suspect consolidation in the private dental care market. What is the most specific NACE code for ‘dental practice activities’?”
  • “A private equity firm is acquiring software companies. What are the different NACE codes that fall under ‘Information and Communication’ (Section J) so we can track their activity across different software verticals like ‘web portals’ (63.12) versus ‘business and domestic software development’ (62.01)?”

• For FOC DAM & Systemic Harm:

  • “A group of farmers has been harmed by the buying power of major supermarkets. What are the specific NACE codes for ‘growing of vegetables’ versus ‘growing of fruits’ so we can segment our FOC DAM campaign and gather specific evidence for each group?”
  • “A new regulation has harmed the ‘manufacture of textiles’ (Division 13). What are the sub-classes (e.g., ‘weaving of textiles’, ‘finishing of textiles’) to identify the most impacted sub-sectors?”

4. The COCOO-ShowVoc Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using ShowVoc as the foundational layer of our intelligence operations.

Playbook A: The “Market Definition” Protocol (Mandatory First Step)

• Objective: To establish the precise, official NACE code for any market before conducting further analysis. This is a non-negotiable first step.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Target Industry: Start with a description of the market (e.g., “companies that make car batteries”).
  2. Keyword Search: Use the ShowVoc search bar with keywords like “battery,” “automotive,” “vehicle.”
  3. Navigate the Hierarchy: The search will point to relevant sections. Navigate the tree structure to find the most specific and accurate code. Example: C – MANUFACTURING -> 29 – Manufacture of motor vehicles -> 29.3 – Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor vehicles -> 29.31 – Manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment for motor vehicles.
  4. Log the Code: The definitive NACE code (e.g., 29.31) is now logged in the case file.
• Strategic Outcome: This protocol ensures all subsequent sectoral analysis is built on a foundation of official, harmonized data. It eliminates ambiguity and ensures our Benchmarking and Competitor Analysis are accurate and defensible before regulators.

Playbook B: The “Cross-Platform Intelligence” Bridge

• Objective: To use NACE codes as the master key to link intelligence across multiple platforms, creating a 360-degree view of a sector.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Market: Use Playbook A to identify the NACE code for the target sector. Example: J62.02 – Computer consultancy activities.
  2. EU Regulatory Search: Pivot to the EC Competition Cases database. Filter by Economic activity (NACE) using code J62.02. This instantly reveals all past EU merger, antitrust, and state aid cases in that exact sector.
  3. EU Statistical Benchmarking: Pivot to Eurostat. Use the NACE_R2 filter to select J62.02. Extract data on the number of enterprises, turnover, and profitability for that sector across all EU countries.
  4. UK StealthConsolid Hunt: Use the correspondence tables to map NACE J62.02 to its UK SIC equivalent (62020). Pivot to Companies House Advanced Search and filter by this SIC code to get a complete census of all UK competitors.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook demonstrates the immense power of ShowVoc as a central hub. The NACE code acts as a universal key, unlocking layers of legal, financial, and corporate intelligence from multiple other platforms that would be impossible to connect otherwise.

Playbook C: The “Niche Market” Identifier

• Objective: To identify and define hyper-specific, fragmented markets that are prime targets for StealthConsolid operations or niche USPs.
• Execution:
  1. Identify Broad Area: Start with a broad sector known for fragmentation. Example: F – CONSTRUCTION.
  2. Drill Down: Navigate the ShowVoc hierarchy. Move from F - CONSTRUCTION -> 43 - Specialised construction activities -> 43.2 - Electrical, plumbing and other construction installation activities.
  3. Isolate the Niche: Identify a hyper-specific niche. Example: 43.22 - Plumbing, heat and air-conditioning installation. This is a market often comprised of many small, local firms.
  4. Launch the Campaign: This specific NACE code is now the basis for a new intelligence campaign. We can use it to:
     • Search for all UK companies with the equivalent SIC code to see if a private equity firm is buying them up.
     • Analyze Eurostat data to see if the profitability of this sub-sector is being squeezed by large materials suppliers.
     • Develop a USP for a trade association in this sector, offering a new certification or business development framework.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook allows COCOO to move beyond obvious markets and identify unique, underserved niches. It provides the precision needed to detect subtle market trends and create highly targeted, high-value strategic opportunities.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://www.publicsector.co.uk/ ¹

The COCOO-OSCAR Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Public Sector Network Intelligence

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the OSCAR (Online System for Central Accounting and Reporting) research database, accessible via the Public Sector Network portal. This is not a simple government directory; it is a deep intelligence asset for mapping the entire UK public sector ecosystem. We will weaponize this platform to identify the key decision-makers, map the intricate networks of power and responsibility, uncover systemic inefficiencies to fuel our USP campaigns, and find the precise individuals to target with our Challenge Discretion and WPI (Public Interest) initiatives. This platform is the human intelligence layer that connects all our other data-driven strategies.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of the OSCAR database is governed by the most incisive principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just finding departments; we are identifying the people who run them.

• Mapping the Human Network: The core principle is that government is run by people. This platform’s greatest strength is its database of over 210,000 public sector contacts across 80,000 organisations. We will use this to move beyond organisational charts and map the human network of power, identifying the specific individuals responsible for policy, procurement, and regulation.
• The Challenge Discretion Targeting System: To Challenge Discretion, we must know who to challenge. ¹ This platform is our targeting system. It allows us to identify the specific Director-General, Head of Procurement, or Policy Lead within a department, providing a named individual to hold accountable for an Enforcement Gap or a flawed decision. ¹
• The High-Precision USP Engine: An Unsolicited Proposal (USP) is most effective when it solves a specific person’s problem. ¹ We will use OSCAR to identify the exact individual whose remit covers the problem our USP solves. A proposal addressed directly to the “Head of Digital Transformation” about a new efficiency tool is infinitely more powerful than one sent to a generic departmental inbox.
• Competitor Analysis Through Relationships: We will use the platform’s supplier intelligence to understand which companies (e.g., Capita, Serco, Deloitte) have the deepest relationships with which government departments. By mapping these long-standing supplier-buyer connections, we can better predict who will win contracts and identify opportunities to disrupt those relationships.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

The power of this platform lies in its deep, structured data on public sector organisations and personnel. Its search capabilities are designed for granular analysis.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: Based on the platform’s description as an “Organisational Intelligence and Benchmarketing Database,” the rules for interrogation are based on its powerful filtering and data-linking capabilities.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate OSCAR to find the people behind the policies and the relationships behind the contracts.

• For Challenge Discretion & The Enforcement Gap:

  • “Who is the current Director of Enforcement at the Financial Conduct Authority? What is their direct contact information? Who do they report to within the organisation?”
  • “The Environment Agency has failed to act on water pollution. Provide a list of all senior management post-holders at the Agency with ‘water’ or ‘environment’ in their job function, and identify the responsible Director at the parent department, Defra.”

• For USP Origination:

  • “We have a USP on improving social care efficiency. Generate a list of all Directors of Adult Social Services in every Upper Tier Local Authority in England.”
  • “Which NHS Trusts have the oldest IT infrastructure, according to their contract award history? Who is the Chief Information Officer or Director of Digital Transformation at each of these Trusts?”

• For Competitor Analysis:

  • “Which major consultancy firm (PwC, EY, KPMG, Deloitte) has the most extensive contractual relationships with HM Treasury? Who are their key contacts within the department?”
  • “Our competitor, “, holds a major contract with the Ministry of Justice. Which senior officials at the MoJ are responsible for managing this contract?”

4. The COCOO-OSCAR Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using OSCAR to generate actionable human and organisational intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Decision-Maker Map” Protocol

• Objective: For any given policy or procurement area, create a definitive map of the key individuals who hold the power to make decisions.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Target Organisation: Start with the public body of interest (e.g., Department for Transport). Use the Organisation Search to find its profile.
  2. Map the Hierarchy: Analyze the organisational structure provided. Identify the key directorates or teams related to our area of interest (e.g., “Rail Infrastructure Group”).
  3. Isolate Key Personnel: Use the Contact Search and filter by the target organisation and Functional categories (e.g., “Rail,” “Procurement,” “Policy”).
  4. Build the Dossier: Create a dossier listing the top 3-5 key individuals, including their job titles, management level, and contact information.
  5. Intelligence Pivot: Take the names of these key individuals and run them through the RNS OC OS pipeline: search them on OpenCorporates for any outside directorships and on OpenSanctions for political exposure or other risks. ¹
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces an “Influence Dossier” that moves beyond generic departmental contacts. It gives COCOO a precise list of named individuals to target for lobbying, USPs, or legal challenges, dramatically increasing the effectiveness of our engagement.

Playbook B: The “Targeted USP” Engine

• Objective: To ensure a COCOO Unsolicited Proposal lands on the desk of the one person in government who can champion it.
• Execution:
  1. Define the USP Solution: Start with a clear solution. Example: A new data analytics platform to reduce fraud in benefits payments.
  2. Identify the Target Department: The clear target is the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
  3. Find the Problem Owner: Use the OSCAR Contact Search. Filter by Buyer: “Department for Work and Pensions” and Functional categories: “Fraud,” “Analytics,” “Digital,” “Counter-Fraud.”
  4. Select the Recipient: The search might reveal a “Director of Counter-Fraud, Compliance and Debt” or a “Head of Data Analytics.” This is our target recipient.
  5. Deploy the USP: The proposal is now addressed directly to this individual. The opening line becomes: “As the person responsible for counter-fraud strategy at the DWP, you will be keenly aware of the challenges in [X]. Our analysis shows [Y]. COCOO has developed a solution that directly addresses this.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook transforms a speculative USP into a direct, personal business proposal. It bypasses bureaucratic layers and speaks directly to the individual whose performance is measured by their ability to solve the very problem we are offering to fix.

Playbook C: The “Competitor Relationship” Audit

• Objective: To map the strength and nature of a competitor’s relationships within the public sector, identifying both threats and opportunities.
• Execution:
  1. Target the Competitor: Choose a major government supplier (e.g., Atos).
  2. Search by Supplier: Use the Bidstats functionality within OSCAR to search for all contracts awarded to Atos.
  3. Identify Key Buyers: Analyze the results to find which government departments are their biggest and most frequent clients (e.g., DWP, HMRC, MoJ).
  4. Map the Contacts: For each key client department, use the Contact Search to identify the senior officials in the relevant functional areas (e.g., “IT Procurement,” “Major Projects”). These are the individuals who hold the relationship with our competitor.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook creates a “Relationship Intelligence Map.” It tells us where our competitors are most entrenched and who their key government sponsors are. This allows us to either avoid direct competition in their strongholds or, more aggressively, to target those relationships by offering a superior solution or highlighting the incumbent’s failures (using data from Violation Tracker) directly to the responsible official. ²

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://bidstats.uk/ ¹

The COCOO-Bidstats Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Procurement Analytics and Competitor Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating Bidstats.uk, a specialized UK public procurement database. This is not merely a tender search engine; it is a high-powered analytics platform. We will weaponize Bidstats to move beyond finding individual opportunities and instead conduct deep, data-driven Competitor Analysis, reverse-engineer market dynamics, identify systemic procurement flaws to fuel our USP campaigns, and uncover the evidence needed to Challenge Discretion and disqualify rivals. This platform is a primary engine for our Benchmarking, Porter analysis, and tactical FOC DAM strategies. ¹

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of Bidstats is governed by the most analytical principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just finding contracts; we are mapping the flow of public money to find the points of maximum leverage.

• Analytics as a Weapon: The core principle is that aggregated procurement data reveals patterns that single notices obscure. We will use Bidstats’ analytical capabilities to identify who is winning, where they are winning, and how much they are winning. This data-driven approach is the foundation of our Benchmarking and Competitor Analysis strategies. ¹
• Reverse-Engineering Success: By analyzing the full history of Contract Award Notices for a specific service or buyer, we can reverse-engineer the characteristics of a winning bid. We can determine average winning contract values, identify the most successful suppliers in a niche, and understand a buyer’s preferences, giving us a decisive edge in future tenders.
• The “Systemic Inefficiency” USP: The mind maps mandate the use of USPs to solve problems public bodies don’t know they have. ¹ We will use Bidstats to analyze a department’s spending over time. If we can prove through their own award data that they are consistently overpaying for a service compared to other departments, or awarding contracts inefficiently, we have the irrefutable evidence for a USP proposing a new, cost-saving procurement strategy managed by COCOO.
• The FOC DAM Intelligence Layer: When a major prime contractor like Carillion or Interserve collapses, Bidstats provides a historical record of every contract they won. ¹ This allows us to map their commitments and, by extension, identify the network of subcontractors and suppliers who are now creditors and potential claimants for a FOC DAM action. ¹

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of Bidstats’ search interface is critical. Its strength lies in its focus on awarded contracts and the ability to search and analyze this historical data. While a specific screenshot for this platform was not provided, its function as a database of contract awards allows us to define a clear set of rules for interrogation based on standard procurement data platforms.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform is designed for deep analysis of procurement data. The rules for interrogation are as follows:

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate Bidstats to find the data that proves our arguments and exposes our competitors’ strategies.

• For Competitor Analysis & Benchmarking:

  • “Generate a list of all contracts awarded to [e.g., Mitie Group PLC] by any UK Central Government body in the last 3 years. What is the total value and what are their top 5 government clients by spend?”
  • “Who are the top 3 most successful suppliers for contracts with the CPV code for ‘architectural services’ (71200000) awarded by London-based local authorities?”
  • “Our client is bidding for a contract with the Department for Education. Who won the last three contracts of a similar nature, and what was the winning bid value for each? This provides a direct Benchmark for our pricing strategy.” ¹

• For USP Origination & Systemic Failure:

  • “Analyze all contracts awarded by the Environment Agency for ‘environmental monitoring services’ over the past 5 years. Is there a trend of increasing contract values without a corresponding increase in stated outcomes? This could be the basis for a USP on efficiency.”
  • “Which NHS Trusts are spending the most on temporary clinical staffing? A high, fragmented spend across multiple small contracts indicates a systemic problem that a COCOO-managed master vendor framework could solve.”

• For FOC DAM & Challenge Discretion:

  • “A contract was awarded to [Competitor X] under a direct award procedure. Find the Contract Award Notice. Does the justification align with the rules? Cross-reference this with other awards to the same supplier. Is there a pattern of non-competitive awards that suggests bias and could be grounds to Challenge Discretion?” ¹

4. The COCOO-Bidstats Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using Bidstats to generate powerful, data-driven intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Competitor Autopsy” Engine

• Objective: To create a comprehensive, data-driven dossier on any competitor’s public sector business, identifying their strengths, weaknesses, and key relationships.
• Execution:
  1. Target the Supplier: In the Bidstats search, enter the competitor’s name (e.g., Sopra Steria) in the Supplier field.
  2. Set Timeframe: Set the Date Range for the last 36 months to get a current picture of their activities.
  3. Analyze the Portfolio: Run the search and analyze the results.
     • Total Value & Volume: What is the total value and number of contracts won?
     • Key Clients: Which Buyers appear most frequently? These are their core government relationships.
     • Core Services: Which CPV Codes are most common? This defines their public sector focus.
     • Win Rate (Proxy): Compare the number of their Tender notices versus their Contract Award Notices to get a rough proxy for their bid-to-win ratio.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces a “Competitor Public Sector Dossier” that is invaluable for strategic planning. It tells us which clients to target to take market share, which services they are strongest in, and provides a hard data Benchmark for COCOO’s own performance.

Playbook B: The “Buyer Behavior” Analysis (USP Generator)

• Objective: To analyze a public body’s procurement history to identify inefficiencies and create a data-driven USP.
• Execution:
  1. Target the Buyer: In the search, enter the name of a specific public body (e.g., Transport for London) in the Buyer field.
  2. Define the Service: Use Keywords and CPV Codes to focus on a specific service area (e.g., "market research" or "legal services").
  3. Analyze Award Patterns: Review all Contract Award Notices for that service over the last 3-5 years. Look for patterns:
     • Fragmentation: Are they awarding many small contracts for the same service?
     • Incumbent Bias: Is the same supplier winning repeatedly without strong competition?
     • Value Creep: Are the contract values for the same service increasing year-on-year above inflation?
  4. Deploy the USP: Use this data to build a USP. “Our analysis of your own published award data shows a pattern of fragmented spending on legal services. COCOO proposes the creation of a managed legal services framework that would consolidate this spend, leverage buying power to reduce costs by an estimated 15%, and provide enhanced strategic oversight.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook turns public data into a powerful sales tool. It allows COCOO to approach potential clients with irrefutable evidence of a problem and a ready-made solution, creating high-value opportunities.

Playbook C: The “Market Share” Calculator

• Objective: To calculate a defensible estimate of a company’s market share within a specific public sector niche.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Total Market: First, define the total addressable market. Use the search filters to select a specific CPV Code, Location (e.g., “UK – North West”), and Date Range (e.g., “last 12 months”). Calculate the total value of all Contract Award Notices that match. This is the Total Market Value.
  2. Calculate Competitor’s Share: Now, add a Supplier filter for your target competitor (e.g., Jacobs Engineering Group). Run the search again with the same filters. Calculate the total value of contracts awarded to them.
  3. Determine Market Share: Divide the competitor’s total contract value by the Total Market Value to get their estimated market share for that specific niche.
• Strategic Outcome: This provides COCOO with hard, quantitative data for Benchmarking and Competitor Analysis. In a MATOIPO analysis, being able to state that the merged entity will control “45% of the public sector engineering consultancy market in the North West” is a far more powerful argument to the CMA than a vague assertion of dominance. ¹

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-online-system-for-central-accounting-and-reporting-oscar-tool ¹

The COCOO-OSCAR Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Public Spending Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the UK government’s OSCAR system. This is not a simple accounting database; it is the central ledger of all UK public spending and a powerful weapon for strategic intelligence. We will use the data published from OSCAR to expose financial mismanagement, identify systemic inefficiencies, build irrefutable evidence for our USP campaigns, and find the pressure points needed to Challenge Discretion at the highest levels of government. This platform is the primary engine for our most sophisticated Benchmarking, Enforcement Gap, and WPI (Public Interest) strategies.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of OSCAR data is governed by the most analytical principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just looking at numbers; we are auditing the state to find our opportunities.

• Data as the Ultimate Weapon: The core principle is that the government’s own financial data is the most powerful and undeniable evidence of its performance. We will use OSCAR data to prove our claims about inefficiency, misplaced priorities, and waste, transforming our arguments from political opinion into accounting fact.
• The Enforcement Gap Engine: The mind maps identify the need to find “Enforcement Gaps.” ² OSCAR is a primary tool for this. By comparing a department’s budgeted spending (Plans) for a regulatory activity against its actual spending (Forecast Outturn), we can prove a failure to allocate resources as promised. This is a direct, quantifiable Enforcement Gap that can fuel a WPI campaign or a formal complaint. ¹
• The USP Justification Engine: Every USP must be based on a problem we can prove exists. ² OSCAR data provides that proof. We will analyze spending patterns to identify departments with spiraling costs in specific areas (e.g., consultancy, PFI contracts) and present a USP that offers a more efficient, COCOO-managed solution, justified by the government’s own figures. ¹
• Macro-Level Benchmarking: The mind maps demand Benchmarking analysis. ² OSCAR, particularly through the Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) dataset, allows us to benchmark the financial performance and liabilities of over 3,800 public sector organisations. ¹ This enables us to identify outliers and systemic issues with unparalleled, data-driven authority.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

OSCAR is not a public-facing search engine but a back-end government system. Our “search” involves the systematic interrogation of the datasets published from OSCAR via GOV.UK and data.gov.uk. The rules are about understanding this data’s structure and limitations.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: Our interaction with OSCAR is governed by the structure of its data releases. The rules for interrogation are as follows:
  • Rule 1: Access via Published Datasets: Direct access to the OSCAR tool is restricted to government officials. ⁴ Our access is via the core financial datasets published by HM Treasury on GOV.UK and data.gov.uk. We must master the structure of these specific data releases. ¹
  • Rule 2: Understand the Data Model: The data is not a simple flat file. It is a complex model where facts (spending amounts) are defined by multiple dimensions (organisation, account code, time period, etc.). To use it effectively, we must understand these dimensions and how they relate, as detailed in Treasury guidance. ³
  • Rule 3: Master the Key Datasets: Our intelligence gathering will focus on the seven core datasets captured by OSCAR:
    • Plans: The legal spending limits for departments (Main and Supplementary Estimates). This is the baseline for what they should be doing.
    • Forecast Outturn: Monthly tracking of actual spending against forecasts. This is where we spot deviations and failures in real-time.
    • Whole of Government Accounts (WGA): The consolidated accounts of ~3,800 public bodies. Our tool for deep financial analysis and benchmarking.
    • Private Finance Initiative (PFI): Data on long-term PFI liabilities. A goldmine for identifying costly, inefficient contracts.
    • Workforce and Pay Remit (WPR): Data on public sector pay and staffing.
    • Country and Regional Analysis (CRA): Data on regional spending.
    • Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA): The top-level presentation of public spending. ¹
  • Rule 4: Use the Chart of Accounts (COA): All data is coded against a standard Chart of Accounts. We must use the COA to accurately identify and compare spending on specific items (e.g., IT consultancy, property rental) across different departments.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate the OSCAR datasets to find the financial evidence that underpins our strategic campaigns.

• For Challenge Discretion & The Enforcement Gap:

  • “The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs‘s ‘Plans’ dataset allocated £X million to river quality monitoring. Does the ‘Forecast Outturn’ data show a significant underspend in this area, proving a failure to act and creating an Enforcement Gap?”
  • “How has the Home Office‘s spending on external legal advice changed year-on-year? A sharp increase could signal systemic legal or policy problems within the department.”

• For USP Origination & Systemic Inefficiency:

  • “Analyze the PFI dataset. Which government departments have the largest and longest-term liabilities for privately-managed infrastructure projects (e.g., hospitals, schools)? This identifies targets for a USP offering contract renegotiation or management services.” ¹
  • “Which public bodies show the highest administrative costs as a percentage of their total budget in the WGA data? This identifies inefficient organisations ripe for a COCOO-led transformation USP.” ¹

• For Competitor Analysis (Public Sector Suppliers):

  • “The WGA dataset includes transactions between public bodies and major private sector suppliers like Capita or Serco. Can we analyze this data to determine the total value of government business these key competitors are winning?”
  • “Which government departments are the largest clients of the major professional services firms (Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG)?”

4. The COCOO-OSCAR Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using OSCAR data to generate powerful, evidence-based intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Departmental Autopsy”

• Objective: To conduct a deep-dive financial analysis of a single government department to identify waste, inefficiency, and strategic vulnerabilities.
• Execution:
  1. Select Target Department: Choose a department of strategic interest (e.g., Ministry of Defence).
  2. Download Core Datasets: From GOV.UK, download the latest Plans, Forecast Outturn, and WGA datasets. ¹
  3. Conduct Trend Analysis: Analyze the department’s spending over the last 3-5 years. Are there specific budget lines (identified by COA codes) that are consistently overspending? Are administrative costs rising faster than frontline service delivery costs?
  4. Benchmark Performance: Compare the department’s key financial ratios (e.g., admin costs as % of total spend) against those of other major departments to benchmark its efficiency.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces a “Financial Vulnerability Dossier” on a government department. This can be used to fuel a media campaign about government waste, provide evidence for a select committee inquiry, or form the basis of a highly specific USP to the department’s Permanent Secretary offering to fix the identified problems.

Playbook B: The “PFI Pressure Point” Hunter

• Objective: To identify the most onerous and costly Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts across government, creating opportunities for high-value advisory and renegotiation USPs.
• Execution:
  1. Isolate PFI Data: Download the latest PFI dataset from the OSCAR collection on GOV.UK. ¹
  2. Rank by Liability: Sort the data to identify the departments and public bodies with the largest total PFI liabilities and the longest contract durations.
  3. Identify the Counterparties: The dataset often includes details of the private sector Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) that hold the contracts. Use OpenCorporates to identify the ultimate owners of these SPVs (e.g., major infrastructure funds, construction firms).
  4. Deploy the USP: Approach the public bodies with the highest liabilities. The USP will state: “Our analysis of HM Treasury’s own PFI data shows your organisation has future liabilities of £X billion under contracts Y and Z. COCOO’s team of legal and financial experts can provide strategic advice on managing, renegotiating, or exiting these complex contracts to deliver better value for the taxpayer.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook positions COCOO as a specialist in one of the most complex and costly areas of public finance, creating opportunities for high-value advisory work where there is little competition.

Playbook C: The “Enforcement Budget” Audit

• Objective: To prove an Enforcement Gap by demonstrating a mismatch between a regulator’s stated mission and its financial resources.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Regulator: Choose a regulator (e.g., Environment Agency).
  2. Find their Budget: Analyze the Plans dataset for their parent department (Defra) to identify the specific budget allocated to the regulator.
  3. Analyze Spending Trends: Track this budget allocation over several years. Is it increasing or decreasing in real terms?
  4. Cross-Reference with Harm: Compare the budget trend with external data on the harm the regulator is supposed to prevent (e.g., data from Violation Tracker showing rising penalties for water pollution).
  5. Deploy the WPI Campaign: This creates a powerful public interest narrative: “The government claims to be tough on water pollution, yet HM Treasury’s own data shows that the budget for the Environment Agency has been cut by X% over the last 5 years, while pollution incidents have risen. This is a clear Enforcement Gap.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides an irrefutable, data-driven argument to Challenge Discretion. It exposes the hypocrisy between political rhetoric and financial reality, creating significant pressure for policy change and increased enforcement—areas where COCOO can then offer its services.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://bidstats.uk/

The COCOO-Bidstats Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Procurement Analytics and Competitor Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating Bidstats.uk, a specialized UK public procurement database. This is not merely a tender search engine; it is a high-powered analytics platform. We will weaponize Bidstats to move beyond finding individual opportunities and instead conduct deep, data-driven Competitor Analysis, reverse-engineer market dynamics, identify systemic procurement flaws to fuel our USP campaigns, and uncover the evidence needed to Challenge Discretion and disqualify rivals. This platform is a primary engine for our Benchmarking, Porter analysis, and tactical FOC DAM strategies.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of Bidstats is governed by the most analytical principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just finding contracts; we are mapping the flow of public money to find the points of maximum leverage.

• Analytics as a Weapon: The core principle is that aggregated procurement data reveals patterns that single notices obscure. We will use Bidstats’ analytical capabilities to identify who is winning, where they are winning, and how much they are winning. This data-driven approach is the foundation of our Benchmarking and Competitor Analysis strategies. ¹
• Reverse-Engineering Success: By analyzing the full history of Contract Award Notices for a specific service or buyer, we can reverse-engineer the characteristics of a winning bid. We can determine average winning contract values, identify the most successful suppliers in a niche, and understand a buyer’s preferences, giving us a decisive edge in future tenders.
• The “Systemic Inefficiency” USP: The mind maps mandate the use of USPs to solve problems public bodies don’t know they have. ¹ We will use Bidstats to analyze a department’s spending over time. If we can prove through their own award data that they are consistently overpaying for a service compared to other departments, or awarding contracts inefficiently, we have the irrefutable evidence for a USP proposing a new, cost-saving procurement strategy managed by COCOO.
• The FOC DAM Intelligence Layer: When a major prime contractor like Carillion or Interserve collapses, Bidstats provides a historical record of every contract they won. ¹ This allows us to map their commitments and, by extension, identify the network of subcontractors and suppliers who are now creditors and potential claimants for a FOC DAM action. ¹

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of Bidstats’ search interface is critical. Its strength lies in its focus on awarded contracts and the ability to search and analyze this historical data.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform is designed for deep analysis of procurement data. Based on its functionality and standard search conventions, the rules for interrogation are as follows:

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate Bidstats to find the data that proves our arguments and exposes our competitors’ strategies.

• For Competitor Analysis & Benchmarking:

  • “Generate a list of all contracts awarded to [e.g., Mitie Group PLC] by any UK Central Government body in the last 3 years. What is the total value and what are their top 5 government clients by spend?”
  • “Who are the top 3 most successful suppliers for contracts with the CPV code for ‘architectural services’ (71200000) awarded by London-based local authorities?”
  • “Our client is bidding for a contract with the Department for Education. Who won the last three contracts of a similar nature, and what was the winning bid value for each? This provides a direct Benchmark for our pricing strategy.” ¹

• For USP Origination & Systemic Failure:

  • “Analyze all contracts awarded by the Environment Agency for ‘environmental monitoring services’ over the past 5 years. Is there a trend of increasing contract values without a corresponding increase in stated outcomes? This could be the basis for a USP on efficiency.”
  • “Which NHS Trusts are spending the most on temporary clinical staffing? A high, fragmented spend across multiple small contracts indicates a systemic problem that a COCOO-managed master vendor framework could solve.”

• For FOC DAM & Challenge Discretion:

  • “A contract was awarded to [Competitor X] under a direct award procedure. Find the Contract Award Notice. Does the justification align with the rules? Cross-reference this with other awards to the same supplier. Is there a pattern of non-competitive awards that suggests bias and could be grounds to Challenge Discretion?” ¹

4. The COCOO-Bidstats Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using Bidstats to generate powerful, data-driven intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Competitor Autopsy” Engine

• Objective: To create a comprehensive, data-driven dossier on any competitor’s public sector business, identifying their strengths, weaknesses, and key relationships.
• Execution:
  1. Target the Supplier: In the Bidstats search, enter the competitor’s name (e.g., Sopra Steria) in the Supplier field.
  2. Set Timeframe: Set the Date Range for the last 36 months to get a current picture of their activities.
  3. Analyze the Portfolio: Run the search and analyze the results.
     • Total Value & Volume: What is the total value and number of contracts won?
     • Key Clients: Which Buyers appear most frequently? These are their core government relationships.
     • Core Services: Which CPV Codes are most common? This defines their public sector focus.
     • Win Rate (Proxy): Compare the number of their Tender notices versus their Contract Award Notices to get a rough proxy for their bid-to-win ratio.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces a “Competitor Public Sector Dossier” that is invaluable for strategic planning. It tells us which clients to target to take market share, which services they are strongest in, and provides a hard data Benchmark for COCOO’s own performance.

Playbook B: The “Buyer Behavior” Analysis (USP Generator)

• Objective: To analyze a public body’s procurement history to identify inefficiencies and create a data-driven USP.
• Execution:
  1. Target the Buyer: In the search, enter the name of a specific public body (e.g., Transport for London) in the Buyer field.
  2. Define the Service: Use Keywords and CPV Codes to focus on a specific service area (e.g., "market research" or "legal services").
  3. Analyze Award Patterns: Review all Contract Award Notices for that service over the last 3-5 years. Look for patterns:
     • Fragmentation: Are they awarding many small contracts for the same service?
     • Incumbent Bias: Is the same supplier winning repeatedly without strong competition?
     • Value Creep: Are the contract values for the same service increasing year-on-year above inflation?
  4. Deploy the USP: Use this data to build a USP. “Our analysis of your own published award data shows a pattern of fragmented spending on legal services. COCOO proposes the creation of a managed legal services framework that would consolidate this spend, leverage buying power to reduce costs by an estimated 15%, and provide enhanced strategic oversight.”
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook turns public data into a powerful sales tool. It allows COCOO to approach potential clients with irrefutable evidence of a problem and a ready-made solution, creating high-value opportunities.

Playbook C: The “Market Share” Calculator

• Objective: To calculate a defensible estimate of a company’s market share within a specific public sector niche.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Total Market: First, define the total addressable market. Use the search filters to select a specific CPV Code, Location (e.g., “UK – North West”), and Date Range (e.g., “last 12 months”). Calculate the total value of all Contract Award Notices that match. This is the Total Market Value.
  2. Calculate Competitor’s Share: Now, add a Supplier filter for your target competitor (e.g., Jacobs Engineering Group). Run the search again with the same filters. Calculate the total value of contracts awarded to them.
  3. Determine Market Share: Divide the competitor’s total contract value by the Total Market Value to get their estimated market share for that specific niche.
• Strategic Outcome: This provides COCOO with hard, quantitative data for Benchmarking and Competitor Analysis. In a MATOIPO analysis, being able to state that the merged entity will control “45% of the public sector engineering consultancy market in the North West” is a far more powerful argument to the CMA than a vague assertion of dominance.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations ¹

The COCOO-GOV.UK Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Mapping Government Power

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the UK government’s master list of departments, agencies, and public bodies. This is not a simple directory; it is the definitive organisational chart of the British state. We will weaponize this platform to precisely identify our targets, map the chains of command, understand regulatory ecosystems, and find the exact pressure points needed to execute our most critical strategic plays, including Challenge Discretion, USP (Unsolicited Proposal) origination, and identifying the architects of public policy.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of this platform is governed by the most foundational principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just finding a department; we are mapping the architecture of power to hold it to account.

• The Blueprint for Challenge Discretion: The mind maps mandate that we challenge the discretionary power of public bodies. ¹ To do so effectively, we must first identify the correct legal entity and understand its place in the government hierarchy. This platform is our blueprint, showing us which ministerial department (e.g., the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) oversees which non-ministerial department or agency (e.g., the Environment Agency or the Food Standards Agency).
• The USP Targeting System: An Unsolicited Proposal is useless if sent to the wrong office. ¹ This platform is our targeting system. It allows us to identify the precise department, agency, or public body responsible for the policy area we seek to influence, ensuring our USP lands on the desk of the entity with the power to act.
• The Enforcement Gap Starting Point: To prove an Enforcement Gap, we must first map the ecosystem. ¹ This platform allows us to identify a regulator (e.g., the Competition and Markets Authority) and see its parent department (Department for Business & Trade), enabling us to cross-reference the regulator’s actions with the department’s stated policy objectives and budget.
• The Master Client List: For public contract acquisition, this portal is the master list of all potential central government clients. Every department, agency, and public body listed is a potential buyer of COCOO’s services.

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

The power of this platform lies not in complex search operators, but in its clear, hierarchical structure and the ability to use standard search techniques to interrogate it.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform is part of the main GOV.UK website, and its search functionality is governed by the standard GOV.UK search engine rules. We will exploit these to their fullest extent:

• Key Platform Features & Filters:
  • Keyword Search: The primary search bar on the page allows for a keyword search of organisation names.
  • Structural Filtering: The page is implicitly filtered by the type of organisation, with clear headings for Ministerial departments, Non-ministerial departments, and Agencies and other public bodies. This structure is our primary navigation tool.
  • Drill-Down Capability: Each entry is a hyperlink to that specific organisation’s homepage within GOV.UK, allowing us to drill down to find their responsibilities, management structure, and publications.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate this platform to build a precise map of government responsibility.

• For Challenge Discretion & APPEALS (JR2COURT):

  • “Which ministerial department is ultimately responsible for the actions of the Competition and Markets Authority?”
  • “We need to challenge a decision made by the Health and Safety Executive. Who is the responsible Secretary of State and which department do they lead?”
  • “Generate a list of all agencies and public bodies that fall under the remit of the Department for Culture, Media & Sport to understand the full scope of their regulatory ecosystem.”

• For USP Origination:

  • “We have a USP related to improving prison efficiency. Which specific agencies and public bodies operate under the Ministry of Justice?”
  • “Who are the key public bodies involved in UK infrastructure planning? Start by identifying the Department for Transport and its associated agencies.”

• For Competitor Analysis (in Public Contracts):

  • “Which non-ministerial departments, like HM Revenue & Customs or Ofsted, have their own significant procurement budgets and could be considered major potential clients?”

4. The COCOO-GOV.UK Organisations Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this platform as the foundational step for our intelligence operations.

Playbook A: The “Accountability Map” Protocol

• Objective: To create a definitive map of government responsibility for any given policy area, identifying the entire chain of command from the agency to the minister.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Issue: Start with a policy area or a specific public body of interest (e.g., environmental protection, the Environment Agency).
  2. Locate the Body: Use the search bar or browse the A-Z list on the /organisations page to find the specific agency (e.g., Environment Agency).
  3. Identify the Parent Department: The platform’s structure will show which ministerial department the agency belongs to (e.g., the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs).
  4. Map the Ecosystem: Note all other agencies and public bodies listed under that same parent department. This reveals the full ecosystem of related bodies (e.g., Natural England, Forestry Commission).
  5. Identify the Minister: Navigate to the parent department’s page and find their “Our Ministers” section to identify the responsible Secretary of State.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook produces an “Accountability Dossier” that allows COCOO to target legal challenges and lobbying efforts with absolute precision. When we Challenge Discretion, we know exactly who to name in the proceedings, from the agency CEO to the responsible Secretary of State.

Playbook B: The “USP Targeting” Engine

• Objective: To identify the correct public body and, where possible, the specific team or individual to receive a COCOO Unsolicited Proposal.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Problem/Solution: Start with the COCOO USP. Example: A proposal to use AI to streamline the processing of grant applications.
  2. Identify Potential Buyers: Use the /organisations page to identify all departments that manage large grant-making schemes (e.g., Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Department for Culture, Media & Sport).
  3. Drill Down to the Target: Select the most relevant department and navigate to their homepage. Use that page’s search function or “About Us” section to find the specific team or directorate responsible for grants or innovation.
  4. Deploy the USP: The USP can now be targeted at a specific director or head of department, demonstrating a level of research and understanding that makes it far more likely to be read and acted upon.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook prevents our USPs from getting lost in the government machine. It ensures our innovative proposals reach the people with the authority and budget to commission them, dramatically increasing our chances of winning public contracts without a formal tender.

Playbook C: The “Regulatory Ecosystem” Analysis

• Objective: To understand the full landscape of regulation in a specific sector by mapping all relevant public bodies.
• Execution:
  1. Select a Sector: Choose a strategic industry sector (e.g., Financial Services).
  2. Identify the Lead Regulator: Use the /organisations search to find the primary regulator (e.g., Financial Conduct Authority).
  3. Identify the Parent Department: Note its parent department (in this case, it’s a non-ministerial department, but it works closely with HM Treasury).
  4. Map the Constellation: Search for other related bodies. This would reveal the Prudential Regulation Authority (part of the Bank of England), the Pensions Regulator, and the Payment Systems Regulator.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides a holistic view of the regulatory pressures on a given industry. It allows COCOO to anticipate how actions by one regulator might impact the remit of another, identify potential turf wars or Enforcement Gaps between them, and develop sophisticated, multi-faceted strategies that address the entire regulatory ecosystem, not just a single entity.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en ¹

The COCOO-Press Corner Doctrine: A Strategic Model for Narrative Warfare and Real-Time Intelligence

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the European Commission’s Press Corner. This is not a media archive; it is the EU’s primary platform for political communication and narrative warfare. We will weaponize this platform to monitor the Commission’s real-time priorities, dissect the political framing of their enforcement actions, find the triggers for our strategic interventions, and gain invaluable intelligence on our corporate adversaries. This platform is a critical engine for our Noisefilter, WPI (Public Interest) campaigns, MATOIPO analysis, and Challenge Discretion strategies. ¹

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of the Press Corner is governed by the most sophisticated principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading the news; we are deconstructing the message to find the strategy.

• The Noisefilter for Political Priorities: While the case databases provide legal details, the Press Corner tells us what the Commission wants the world to focus on. A press release announcing a dawn raid, a Statement of Objections, or a major merger prohibition is a powerful signal of the Commission’s political and enforcement priorities. This is a key input for our strategic Noisefilter. ¹
• The WPI Narrative Battleground: The Commission uses press releases, speeches, and Q&As to frame the “public interest” (WPI) narrative around its actions. We will forensically dissect this language—the soundbites, the justifications, the framing of consumer harm—to understand how they build their public case. This allows us to craft powerful counter-narratives or align our own USPs with their stated goals. ¹
• The MATOIPO Early Warning System: A press release announcing the opening of a Phase II merger investigation is a critical intelligence event. It provides a concise, politically-framed summary of the Commission’s “theory of harm” and signals a high probability of remedies or prohibition, giving us an early opportunity to advise affected third parties or prepare challenges. ¹
• The Challenge Discretion Catalyst: The Commission’s public statements create expectations. When a press release announces a “crackdown” on a certain practice, but our other intelligence shows a lack of follow-through (an Enforcement Gap), this discrepancy becomes powerful ammunition for a complaint (COCON) or a media campaign designed to Challenge Discretion. ¹

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of the Press Corner’s search capabilities is essential for sifting through thousands of announcements to find the actionable intelligence.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The Press Corner is part of the main Europa.eu domain and its search functionality is governed by the standard Europa search engine. The rules for interrogation are as follows:

• Key Platform Features & Filters:
  • Keyword Search: The primary search bar allows for complex Boolean and phrase searches across all press material.
  • Filter by Topic: Allows us to isolate press material related to key COCOO areas like Competition, Trade, Single Market, or Justice and fundamental rights.
  • Filter by Type: A critical filter to differentiate the nature of the communication. We can isolate Press release, Speech, Statement, Daily News, and Questions & Answers documents.
  • Filter by Date: Allows for precise temporal analysis, enabling us to track announcements within a specific timeframe (e.g., the 30 days following a merger announcement).
  • Filter by College: Allows us to filter by the specific Commissioner or Directorate-General (DG) responsible, such as Competition (for DG COMP) or An Economy that Works for People.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate the Press Corner to understand the political and public narrative behind the legal actions.

• For Competitor Analysis & MATOIPO:

  • “What was the exact wording used by the Competition Commissioner in her Speech announcing the Statement of Objections against [e.g., Apple] in the music streaming case?”
  • “Find the ‘Questions & Answers’ document accompanying the press release on the [e.g., IAG/Air Europa] merger prohibition. What specific consumer harms did the Commission highlight to justify its decision?”
  • “Has [e.g., Microsoft] been mentioned in any press releases related to the Digital Markets Act in the last 6 months?”

• For Challenge Discretion & WPI Framing:

  • “Search for all Press release documents with the keywords cartel AND fine. How does the Commission frame the WPI justification for its enforcement actions? What are the recurring phrases used?”
  • “A Speech by the Director-General for Trade outlined a new focus on enforcing sustainability chapters in trade agreements. What specific commitments were made that we can use to hold them to account?”

• For FOC DAM & USP Origination:

  • “Find the press release announcing the fine against the [e.g., trucks] cartel. Does it mention the estimated scale of the overcharge to customers? This is key data for our FOC DAM campaign.”
  • “Has the Commission issued any press releases announcing new funding or initiatives for ‘sustainable supply chains’? This is a direct trigger for a USP where COCOO can offer mediation and compliance framework services.”

4. The COCOO-Press Corner Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using the Press Corner to generate high-impact strategic intelligence.

Playbook A: The “Narrative Deconstruction” Engine

• Objective: To build a library of the Commission’s public arguments and framing techniques, allowing us to anticipate and counter their narratives.
• Execution:
  1. Select a Major Case: Choose a high-profile, completed case (e.g., the Google Android antitrust case). ²
  2. Harvest All Communications: Use the platform’s search to find every Press release, Speech, and Q&A document related to that case, from the opening of the investigation to the final judgment on appeal.
  3. Create a Timeline: Arrange the documents chronologically.
  4. Analyze the Language: Forensically analyze the evolution of the Commission’s language. How did they describe the “theory of harm” at the start? How did they frame the “consumer benefit” of their intervention? What specific soundbites did the Commissioner use in speeches?
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook creates an invaluable “Commission Narrative Map” for different types of cases. When a new, similar case is announced, we can predict with high accuracy how the Commission will frame the public debate, allowing us to prepare counter-arguments and advise clients more effectively.

Playbook B: The “Real-Time Enforcement” Monitor

• Objective: To maintain a live dashboard of all significant enforcement actions by key DGs, providing immediate triggers for other COCOO intelligence operations.
• Execution:
  1. Set Up Daily/Weekly Scan: On a recurring basis, search the Press Corner.
  2. Apply Strategic Filters: Filter by Topic: “Competition” OR “Trade” AND Type: “Press release”. Set the Date filter for the last 7 days.
  3. Identify Action Triggers: Scan the headlines for keywords indicating a new stage in a case: "Commission opens investigation", "Commission sends Statement of Objections", "Commission fines", "Commission clears merger", "Commission prohibits merger".
  4. Initiate Intelligence Cascade: Each trigger initiates another playbook:
     • A new merger investigation triggers the MATOIPO analysis playbook.
     • A cartel fine triggers the FOC DAM victim identification playbook.
     • A Statement of Objections triggers a deep dive into the case file on the DG COMP portal.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook ensures COCOO is operating on real-time intelligence. We are not waiting for news reports; we are acting on the primary source information the moment it is released, giving us a critical speed and information advantage.

Playbook C: The “Policy USP” Seed Finder

• Objective: To identify the Commission’s emerging policy interests before they become formal consultations, allowing for the earliest possible USP deployment.
• Execution:
  1. Filter for Speeches: On the Press Corner search, filter by Type: “Speech” and College: “Competition” or other relevant DGs.
  2. Analyze Forward-Looking Statements: Read the speeches of key Commissioners and Directors-General. Pay less attention to what they say about past cases and more to what they say about future challenges and emerging priorities.
  3. Identify the “Seed”: Look for phrases like “we need to think about…”, “a future challenge will be…”, “we are exploring new tools for…”. Example: A speech where the Competition Commissioner mentions the need for new frameworks to ensure fair access to non-personal data.
  4. Develop the USP: This “seed” is the earliest possible signal of a future policy initiative. Immediately begin developing a USP that offers a COCOO-led solution to this emerging problem.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook allows COCOO to engage with the Commission on a policy level before almost anyone else. By the time a formal “Call for evidence” is launched on the “Have your say” portal, COCOO will have already developed a sophisticated proposal, positioning us as the leading thinker and ideal partner on the issue.

JOIN US FREE         LIVE PROJECTS                                              ABOUT US   MEDIATION   ADVOCACY   DONATE  PRIVACY POLICY T&C

Platform URL: https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/ ¹

The COCOO-Contracts Finder Doctrine: A Strategic Model for SME & Supply Chain Intelligence

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the UK’s Contracts Finder service. This is not a secondary portal; it is a distinct and critical battleground for contracts valued over £12,000 but typically below the high-value thresholds of the Find a Tender Service (FTS).¹ We will weaponize this platform to dominate the small-to-medium contract landscape, conduct granular Competitor Analysis on agile SMEs, identify systemic inefficiencies in public spending, and find unique entry points into major government supply chains. This platform is a primary engine for our USP, Benchmarking, and FOC DAM strategies at a tactical level.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of Contracts Finder is governed by the most agile principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just looking for small contracts; we are mapping the grassroots of public procurement.

• SME Battleground: While FTS is the domain of large corporations, Contracts Finder is the primary hunting ground for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprises (VCSEs). We will master this platform to track the rising stars in niche sectors, identify agile competitors, and find opportunities perfectly suited for smaller, more specialized clients. ²
• Supply Chain Infiltration: The platform’s unique “Supply chain notices” filter is a strategic backdoor. ³ It allows us to see the subcontracting opportunities being advertised by prime contractors who have won the major deals listed on FTS. This is a critical tool for mapping the entire delivery ecosystem of a major government project and finding entry points for our clients.
• The FOC DAM Seedbed: When a prime contractor on a major project fails, its subcontractors are the immediate victims. By monitoring supply chain notices, we create a pre-vetted list of these subcontractors. This list is a seedbed for a FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages) campaign, allowing us to rapidly mobilize a class of victims with documented grievances. ³
• The “Death by a Thousand Cuts” USP: Government departments often procure services through a series of small, inefficient, low-value contracts. We will use Contracts Finder to document this pattern—a “death by a thousand cuts” approach to spending. This data is the irrefutable evidence for a USP where we propose a single, efficient, consolidated framework agreement managed by COCOO. ⁴

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of Contracts Finder’s search interface is key to unlocking its unique intelligence value.

• Official Search Rules & Functionality: The platform provides a clear set of search operators and filters that we will use to conduct surgical intelligence gathering ⁵:

• Key Platform Features & Filters:
  • Keywords: Searches across the contract title, description, and the names of both the buyer and the awarded supplier. ⁵
  • Contract location: Allows filtering by UK region or a specific postcode with a radius, essential for local market analysis. ⁵
  • Procurement stage: A critical filter for strategic timing, allowing us to isolate notices that are:
    • Future opportunity: Early warning of upcoming contracts.
    • Opportunity: Live tenders accepting bids.
    • Awarded contract: Our primary source for competitor and pricing intelligence. ³
  • Notice suitability: A key filter for our SME-focused strategies, allowing us to find contracts reserved for SMEs or VCSEs. ³
  • Notice sector: Our unique intelligence weapon. This filter allows us to separate:
    • Public sector notices: Direct contracts from public bodies.
    • Supply chain notices: Subcontracts offered by prime contractors. ³

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate Contracts Finder to find the tactical opportunities and supply chain intelligence that others miss.

• For Competitor Analysis & Benchmarking:

  • “Which SMEs have won the most contracts from the Ministry of Defence for ‘IT support services’ valued between £25,000 and £100,000 in the last year?”
  • “Generate a list of all Awarded contracts for ‘market research’ published by the Department for Health and Social Care. Who won, and what was the final contract value? This provides a direct Benchmark for our own pricing.” ⁴

• For Supply Chain Infiltration:

  • “Search for all Supply chain notices where the keyword is HS2 or Balfour Beatty. What specific subcontracting opportunities are available on this major project?”
  • “A major IT contract was awarded to Capita on Find a Tender. Now, search Contracts Finder for Supply chain notices with Capita as the buyer. What parts of that major contract are they subcontracting?”

• For USP & FOC DAM Origination:

  • “Which local authorities are repeatedly publishing small, separate contracts for ‘grounds maintenance’ or ‘building cleaning’? This pattern of inefficiency is the basis for a USP proposing a consolidated framework.”
  • “A prime contractor, Carillion, has gone into insolvency. Search for all Awarded contracts where they were the supplier. Then, search for all Supply chain notices where they were the buyer. The suppliers on those notices are our primary FOC DAM target list.” ⁴

4. The COCOO-Contracts Finder Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using this platform to generate unique, tactical intelligence.

Playbook A: The “SME Champion” Analysis

• Objective: To identify and track the most successful SMEs in a specific niche, allowing COCOO to benchmark their performance, identify them as potential partners, or target them as competitors.
• Execution:
  1. Define the Niche: Select a specific service area (e.g., “digital marketing,” “environmental consultancy”).
  2. Isolate SME Awards: On Contracts Finder, set Procurement stage to “Awarded contract” and Notice suitability to “SME”. ³
  3. Apply Keywords: Use a precise keyword search (e.g., "social media marketing" OR "SEO services") to further refine the results.
  4. Analyze the Winners: Export the results. Create a league table of the SMEs that have won the most contracts by volume or value.
  5. Deepen Intelligence: For the top 3-5 SMEs, conduct a full intelligence workup using OpenCorporates and other tools to understand their structure, leadership, and growth trajectory.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides COCOO with an unparalleled view of the competitive landscape at the SME level. This intelligence can be used to identify fast-growing acquisition targets for larger clients or to understand the tactics of the most successful small bidders in a given market.

Playbook B: The “Supply Chain Mapping” Protocol

• Objective: To map the entire subcontracting ecosystem for a major government project or a prime contractor, identifying tactical entry points for COCOO’s clients.
• Execution:
  1. Identify the Prime Contract: From Find a Tender, identify a major contract award (e.g., a £500m construction project awarded to Kier Group).
  2. Pivot to Contracts Finder: Go to the Contracts Finder advanced search.
  3. Filter for Supply Chain: Set Notice sector to “Supply chain notices”. ³
  4. Search for the Prime Contractor: In the Keywords box, enter the name of the prime contractor ("Kier Group").
  5. Map the Opportunities: The results will show all the subcontracting opportunities that Kier Group is advertising to deliver the main project. This creates a detailed map of their supply chain needs (e.g., scaffolding, electrical work, security services).
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook provides a direct, actionable list of opportunities for COCOO’s SME clients to win work as part of a major government project, bypassing the need to bid for the prime contract themselves. It also reveals the key dependencies of major contractors, which is a critical piece of strategic intelligence.

Playbook C: The “Inefficiency USP” Generator

• Objective: To use the pattern of low-value contract awards to prove systemic inefficiency and generate a compelling USP for a consolidated management contract.
• Execution:
  1. Select a Target Buyer: Choose a specific public body, such as a large local authority (e.g., Birmingham City Council) or a central government department.
  2. Filter by Service and Awards: On Contracts Finder, filter by Procurement stage: “Awarded contract” and use keywords for a common, repeatable service (e.g., security OR cleaning OR temporary staff).
  3. Analyze the Pattern: Export the data for the last 24 months. Is the buyer awarding dozens of separate, low-value contracts for the same service to multiple different suppliers?
  4. Quantify the Inefficiency: Create a summary report: ” has issued [Number] separate contracts for in the last 24 months, with an average value of only [£Z]. This fragmented approach creates significant administrative overhead and prevents strategic supplier management.”
  5. Deploy the USP: Present this data-driven report to the buyer’s Head of Procurement. The USP will offer to design and manage a single, flexible framework that consolidates this spend, reduces administrative costs, and delivers better value for the taxpayer.
• Strategic Outcome: This playbook uses the buyer’s own procurement data as undeniable evidence of a problem. It positions COCOO as a sophisticated strategic partner capable of identifying and solving complex operational inefficiencies, leading to high-value, long-term contracts.