Competitive Radius Is Not a Ranking
Competitive radius describes a set of relationships, not a position on a scale. The FedComp Index produces scores that rank contractors, but ranking is not the same as relationship. A high score places a firm in a higher posture class. It does not determine which other contractors appear within that firm's competitive radius.
The distinction matters because ranking implies comparison along a single dimension. Two contractors can share the same posture class while having entirely different competitive radii. One may compete in a narrow lane with few direct rivals. The other may operate across multiple corridors where dozens of firms overlap. The proximity map captures these overlaps using shared classification codes and common agency relationships. What appears on the map reflects procurement geography, not competitive strength. A contractor with a lower score can have a wider competitive radius if that contractor works across more varied solicitation spaces than a higher-scored firm that specializes narrowly.
Changes to competitive radius occur when either party in the relationship shifts its award patterns. A federal contractor that begins winning in new classification codes will find its proximity map populated by different sets of rivals. Conversely, when a competitor ceases award activity in shared corridors, that competitor may disappear from the map entirely. The radius contracts without the focal contractor changing anything about its own behavior.
This behavior distinguishes competitive radius from market share concepts used in commercial contexts. Share metrics allocate percentage of a defined total. Competitive radius does not allocate anything. It identifies who overlaps with whom based on actual award history. The map is not a chart of winners and losers. It is a diagram of structural relationships embedded in the procurement record.