Capture & Proposal Win Tips

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

Fri, 05 May 2023 12:20:08 GMT

Mirroring helps clients be more comfortable and willing to engage

Mirroring or matching is a technique used in customer engagements where a trained Business Development Executive (BDE) imitates the body language, speech patterns, and other behaviors of the customer. The idea behind this technique is to build rapport and establish a connection with the customer, which can lead to increased trust and ultimately, higher sales.

When a BDE mirrors a customer's mannerisms, they are essentially communicating to the customer that they understand them and are on the same wavelength. For example, if a customer speaks in a calm and measured tone, the BDE might adopt a similar tone to match the customer's energy level. If a customer crosses their arms, the BDE might do the same to show that they are listening and engaged. Even matching the customer’s breathing pattern can be effective.

By mirroring the customer's mannerisms, the BDE builds trust and rapport more quickly. The customer is more likely to feel comfortable with the BDE and discuss their needs and preferences. This can help the BDE better understand the customer's pain points and tailor their solutions accordingly.

In addition, mirroring can also help the BDE establish credibility and authority. By demonstrating that they understand the customer's needs and preferences, the BDE can position themselves as an expert in their field. This can help to build trust and confidence in the customer, making them more likely shift their willingness to consider or select the company to meet their needs.

In summary, shadowing customer mannerisms is an important technique in client engagement and customer service because it can help build rapport, establish credibility, and ultimately, increase sales. By mirroring the customer's body language, speech patterns, and other behaviors, BDEs can communicate to the customer that they understand them and are on the same wavelength, leading to a more positive customer experience. Teaching this skill to personnel who engage your clients and or prospects can improve you company’s positioning and probability of winning additional or new work.

The secret sauce

Sun, 25 Sep 2022 15:26:33 GMT

Know your readers when it comes to serving them something delicious

You're having guests for dinner, and you want to serve them something delicious, right? Of course!

If you're like me, you start thinking immediately about their likes and dislikes before you plan your menu. Depending on your level of intimacy with your guests, you may have an easy time picking a menu. You might not. You might pick something you like, without any knowledge of your guests. That's a bit riskier. Some hosts ask their guests to get a positive or negative reaction.

The same is true in proposals. While RFP section M will tell you what the evaluation factors are and section L tells you what to provide, do you know anything about what the client really likes or doesn't like? To be compliant, your proposal must accommodate M, L, C, and the usual stuff. But what does the client really care about and how does your approach address those unlisted factors?

This is something that capture management should work to uncover -- the unstated requirements that, if met, would delight the prospect, even if it's not in M, L, C, or anywhere else.

As an example, consider the following from a real RFP:

A prospective client was looking for bids to take over a 24/7/365 data center operation supporting a military mission. The primary government supervisor, let's call him "Dan," was not pleased with the support he was getting and upset by the lack of accountability. It seems that things were falling through the cracks and there was a general lack of responsibility for who was at fault for systems not performing as they should. Finger pointing seemed to be the exercise of the day. This information was not in the RFP but was "discoverable" by anybody who would listen to Dan discuss his frustrations.

In responding to the formal requirements, the capture and proposal team conceived and implemented multiple mechanisms to improve accountability and transparency. This included start-of-shift checklists, mid-shift-checklists, end-of-shift checklists, and real-time system status boards (accessible via HTTPS) that had never been previously implemented. While there were several other aspects of our approach, we focused heavily on building tools that would delight Dan, even though there were not any such formal "requirements" in the solicitation. This became our secret sauce!

We were not the lowest bidder but won the contract anyway because we were determined to be the "best overall value" to the Government. Dan loved what he read and wanted his finger pointing nightmares to be over. He loved our secret sauce and later told us so privately.

Who is on your source selection team and what do they really care about? What's your secret sauce? This is why it's imperative that we recommend you know your readers when it comes to serving them something delicious.

Keep your ducks in a row

Sat, 24 Sep 2022 18:10:40 GMT

Winners submit strong past performance citations and manage CPARS reports, because federal clients take them both very seriously.

Financial firms are famous for their disclaimers that read something like the following:

"Past performance is not indicative of future results and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, or product will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated historical performance level(s), be suitable for your portfolio or individual situation, or prove successful."

It's almost like they're telling you to ignore past performance or, at the very least, don't count on it as an element of your investing strategy.

On the contrary, Federal Government actions suggest they believe past performance *IS* indicative of future results and that negative past performance assures the likelihood of the Government needing to spend extra effort managing the project.

This is why almost all Federal RFPs require citing relevant past performance. The "ask" can be varied, depending on the customer and the requirements at hand. Sometimes they ask for 3 citations and place a maximum on the number of citations (like 5, for example). They might establish page restrictions (like two pages per write-up) and provide very specific elements to address in justifying why each citation is relevant. Ultimately, it's up to the customer to determine relevancy, but every submission needs to make their assessment easy!

Depending on the solicitation, they may place other restrictions on recency (must be at last 6 months old) or age (no more than 3 or 5 years old). Additionally, the customer may set dollar value thresholds for whether a project can be considered like scope and complexity (e.g., must be at least $100M in total contract value). All these factors can sometimes be influenced (before RFP release) and should be, to the extent you can, in the name of enhancing "increasing competition" (i.e., also helping you).

Beyond your submitted past performance citations, Federal customers have the right to consider any past performance they wish. This is often accomplished through assessing a bidder's past performance using the official web site for Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) located at https://cpars.gov. This is possible because under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Government agencies are required to make detailed and complete statements about a contractor's performance related to:

Technical
Cost Control (for contracts that are not firm-fixed price)
Schedule/timeliness
Management of business relations
Small business subcontracting
Regulatory compliance

Without going into more details, suffice it to say that the Government has an easy way to validate your annual past performance ratings for all your Federal contracts. In submitting your past performance citations, pick ones with strong CPARS ratings!

If you have weaknesses in your past performance, consider teaming! (see our other blog "Go Team"). For example, you're planning on proposing a rapid ramp-up of personnel from the start of the project to 1200 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. Yet you have never hired that many people and have no "demonstrated" past performance doing it. That could be assessed as a project risk by the client. By teaming you can bring on a staffing firm with strong past performance hiring in excess of 1200 people for a single project. Perhaps one of their past performance citations would be relevant to your project's staffing approach and fill a noticeable void.

SOAP BOX: Regardless of the planned citations, it is imperative that all your Federal Government projects perform well and get strong positive CPARS report. It's equally important to quickly deal with negative performance reports as quickly as possible. Negative CPARS, whether they are related to the past performance citations you submit (or not) can most definitely impact a prospect's decision to award you a contract (or not).

Accordingly, "keeping your ducks in a row" means two different things in this post. Not only must you select strong past performance projects when bidding new contracts, corporate personnel must actively manage the CPARS process (in close coordination with their clients) to ensure the best possible ratings and quickly deal with less than positive ratings.

Winners submit strong past performance citations and manage CPARS reports, because federal clients take them both very seriously.

SRS Edge can help assess your past performance, identify weaknesses, and help you fill the gaps to increase your P-win.

What's missing?

Sat, 17 Sep 2022 14:25:16 GMT

Identify missing pieces early to improve your chance of winning

Don't you hate getting to the end of a jigsaw puzzle and realizing that you're missing pieces? It's frustrating, especially if you're a "type A" person, like myself.

It's even worse in a capture or proposal effort if you get to the end an realize you're "missing pieces." That mean's your bid is possibly non-compliant in one or more ways and lessens your Probability of Win (P-win).

Behavioral science tells us that people often like to work the simple tasks first, getting "rewards" for their work and building momentum to handle harder tasks. The downside of this can result in running out of time to handle difficult tasks.

This is why successful capture and proposal teams perform a thorough gap analysis as soon as possible with the specific goal of identifying crucial missing pieces or weak solution components that need strengthening. If the team works on their strengths instead (the easier tasks), it can result in a total waste of effort if the crucial missing pieces cannot be successfully addressed and the bid is either abandoned at a late stage or results in a loss due to the problems.

To the extent possible, assess Request for Information (RFI) and Draft Request For Proposal (DRFP) documents for crucial requirements including:

Evaluation factors (RFP section M):
Evaluation process, scoring method, score weighting, past performance approach, and "best value" terminology.
Preparation instructions (RFP section L):
Page count, page layout (margins, fonts, page sizes), outline and/or content, submission deadlines and method(s).
Statement of Work (SOW), (RFP section C):
Detailed requirements. Are they clear, understandable, or are they ambiguous or contradictory (disagreements between L, M, and C)? Are they feasible and do we have approaches that can differentiate our approach from the competition?
Section J: Attachments to the RFP:
This can often include additional requirements that must be assessed.
Section K, Certifications and representations:
Sometimes includes things that might cause problems.
Section H, Special Contract Requirements:
Be sure to assess this section and see if there are any crucial requirements here, as they vary from RFP to RFP and client to client. For example, this section may include special cybersecurity requirements not listed anyplace else.

Are there problem areas, including obvious show-stoppers for your team? What are they? How shall you deal with them?

Very early in a capture, the full draft solicitation may not yet exist. This means that while the requirements may exist (Section C) and planned attachments (Section J), other crucial sections may not (yet), including M, L, and H). This is often the case with RFIs and sometimes with DRFPs also.

If the contemplated procurement is a follow-on to an existing contract, the capture team should use business intelligence web sites to get copies of the current contract and associated historic RFPs. Analysis of these could be very instructive of what the follow-on solicitation might look like (e.g., L, M, H, K), give you a head start on proposal preparation and provide you with the opportunity to influence the RFP by providing feedback on the former solicitation.

Regardless of whether you're able to influence the ultimate RFP, or not, the more information you have early in the capture process can improve your gap analysis and help you identify possible missing pieces.

Capture management is about making sure the company is best positioned to win -- it's not about making sure every opportunity is bid. Sometimes the best decision entails walking away from an opportunity and this is best facilitated through an honest assessment of requirements and whether the "missing pieces" can be found or mitigated somehow.

This is precisely why a thorough gap analysis is important and will help you identify missing pieces early to improve your chance of winning.

Are we there yet?

Sun, 11 Sep 2022 22:39:08 GMT

Use milestone reviews to check progress, mature opportunities, and optimize resources

Capture management is a lot like the Chicago to Mackinac island sailboat race, which challenges captains to race from the very Southwest end of Lake Michigan to the very Northeast end. At 333 statute miles or 289.4 nautical miles, the Race to Mackinac is the oldest annual freshwater distance race in the world. As soon captains set sail, they constantly check their planned versus actual course, weather conditions, waves and make adjustments along the way to optimize their progress.

Capture management is similar with the goal of positioning the company to win, when the RFP is issued. It starts when the first hint of an opportunity is discovered and, Like the Mackinac race, capture management requires course corrections along the way while the capture team continually asses the opportunity, win strategies, competitive positioning and readiness to bid (are we there yet?).

When an opportunity is identified, not much might be known and it may only be a rumor. Some legwork needs to be done to qualify whether it is a real opportunity (or not). Who is the customer? What do we know about them and their buying habits? What do we know about the requirements of the opportunity at-hand? Does it align with our strengths? What's the timing? Do we know anything about the competition? What steps do we need to take to learn more and qualify this opportunity? This is the Milestone Zero checkpoint and it's usually held for senior stakeholders shortly after opportunity identification.

As the capture team learns more, they document it: How are we going to meet the requirements? What is our solution or approach? What are our value propositions that will resonate with the prospect? Do we have an initial pricing strategy aligned with an independent Price to Win (PTW) analysis? Have we engaged the prospect to the point that they 1) know who we are and 2) are willing to consider us for their needs? This is the second checkpoint and optimally happens before the formal RFP is issued. This is the Milestone One review and it's held with senior stakeholders, again.

In longer procurements, the capture team enhances and evolves the Milestone One information, making course corrections as they go. The ultimate objective is to make sure that the capture team is well positioned before the formal RFP is issued. In some cases, draft proposal materials may be being produced. After some amount of time, the enhanced information is presented to senior management in a Milestone Two review. Like a Milestone One review, this is still optimum if it's done before the RFP is issued and affords the capture team another sanity check with senior management and more course correction guidance, if needed.

When the RFP is released, the capture team assesses all the RFP documents and the positioning of the team against the real requirements. Are there any surprises? Any unexpected problem areas? Can they be handled or mitigated? Does this still look like something worth bidding? The capture plan is updated and a Milestone Three is held with senior stakeholders to get final buy-in to pursue the opportunity and create and/or finish the proposal.

A forth review is usually held just before proposal submission, a Milestone Four review, to finalize the pricing.

Each milestone review is an opportunity to assess capture team progress, next steps and plot course corrections, if needed. Like the Mackinac race, sailboat captains check their progress against where they should be at the current point in time. Milestone reviews are similar, where the level of detail improves over time. In each review, the stakeholders assess whether the capture team has sufficiently matured the capture plan and preparation progress given the procurement timing. Sometimes a no-bid decision is the best course of action and making such a decision early in a capture effort minimizes wasting precious resources. It's for this reason that each review builds consensus for continuing the pursuit or disengaging and moving on to other opportunities. Each review includes a "go, no-go" assessment.

Having the discipline to conduct milestone reviews requires being out in front of opportunities. It's difficult to have this kind of discipline for "pop-up" opportunities where the RFP surprises you. In such cases, the capture team must be able to get from Milestone Zero to Milestone Three level of detail very quickly to adequately assess their P-win and whether they should expend the resources to build and submit a proposal. Not a very easy task, indeed.

Do you need help adding discipline to your capture process? We can provide templates, guide you through the process, and optimize your precious business development resources on disciplined bids with the highest P-win.

If you're not already doing it, consider improving your process and use milestone reviews to check progress, mature opportunities, and optimize resources.

Gaming the system

Mon, 05 Sep 2022 21:50:51 GMT

Your Price-to-Win analysis should include an assessment of how competitors will "game the system."

Customer requirements are often ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. Navigating these conditions can be like finding your way through a complex maze and it can result in some real confusion about how to deal with these in a proposal response.

Some companies are very good at what I call "malicious compliance." That is, they take advantage of ambiguous and contradictory requirements to propose a lesser solution, and presumably a lower price, than it will take to actually accomplish the "real work." Responding is such a way is "gaming the system" and borders being disingenuous, or genius (you decide).

When your capture and/or proposal team spots ambiguous or contradictory requirements, you have some decision to make. Do you ask formal questions and point out the issues to the prospect (and in doing so alert your competition)? Do avoid asking questions to keep from tipping off the competition? It depends on the opportunity, your corporate culture, and how well positioned you might be.

Are you the incumbent and the ambiguity serves you well? Do you know what really needs to be done, despite the ambiguous requirements? By allowing the ambiguity to live (not ask questions), are you making it easier for a competitor to bid something that meets the stated requirements (despite it not meeting what you believe to be the real needs)? See what kind of "games" can be played here?

Regardless of whether you ask questions or not, your Price-to-Win analysis should include an assessment of how competitors will "game the system."

Price-to-win

Mon, 05 Sep 2022 20:08:52 GMT

Increase your competitive awareness by doing a price-to-win (PTW) analysis

Competition for Federal contracts can be tough, with many bidders seeking to win their fair share. How do your offerings stack up to the competition? Can you provide your products and solutions at a compelling price? This is the point of conducting a price-to-win (PTW) analysis.

The PTW analysis starts by building a deep understanding of the customer requirements. Are these ongoing requirements and is there an incumbent provider? What is the customer accustomed to paying for these goods and services? Have the requirements changed significantly? How so? Have methods for providing the goods and services changed significantly? How so?

What do you know about the competitors who are likely to compete to win this contract? What's their track record for similar requirements? What can be discerned about their likely solution and how they have recently priced their offerings?

Effective PTW analysis is not a guessing game, it's facilitated by conducting a independent, comprehensive competitive analysis research and can involve a variety of inputs, including:

Existing contracts and related materials obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or business intelligence (BI) services like GovWin, ezGovOps, Federal Compass, or similar
Existing contract spending data from Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and/or BI services
Correlation of data from the above two categories obtained for recent programs similar to the competition at hand
Consultants who can help articulate specific competitor approaches and pricing

Are you the incumbent provider looking at a re-compete and striving to retain the privilege of continuing your services? You should be no less diligent than the companies looking to take your work away from you. It could be a fatal mistake to assume that you can continue "business as usual" in your proposal and pricing!

Each RFP is different and each set of client requirements are different. Some programs lend themselves to technical innovations while others do not. Ultimately, whatever price point you try and hit you must be conscientious of the fact that the Government will match your pricing with their Independent Government Cost Estimates (IGCE). This is the government’s best estimate of a contract’s potential costs and are an important tool throughout the process of planning and awarding service contracts. The IGCE supports efforts to ensure that the cost of meeting the government’s requirements for the good or service being acquired are known. IGCEs are also used by contracting officials to compare offerors’ proposed prices, determine whether proposed contract prices are reasonable, and to support contract price negotiations.

If your strategy results in a price point that is significantly lower than they are accustomed to paying, you're probably well below their IGCE. When that looks possible, your capture team needs to spend some significant time (usually well in advance of the RFP) to socialize your approach and justification for why the client should be very careful when creating their IGCE and comparing bids against it. Make them aware of innovations that might drive efficiencies and lower pricing. Talk with them about where you've done it before. Set the expectation that you're going to crush the pricing in a good way. You must ensure your proposal substantiates your pricing in a way that is defendable. You don't want to be thrown out for a violation of cost realism, misunderstanding the requirements, or attempting to "buy" the contract.

Good PTW analysis can also help you realize whether you can be competitive (or not) and pull the plug if financial conditions are not in your favor. Regardless of whether you decide to bid, or not, you can increase your competitive awareness by doing a PTW analysis.

Need help conducting a PTW analysis? We can help. Click on the "Contact" link and let us know.

Go team!

Mon, 05 Sep 2022 13:42:15 GMT

Team with complimentary partners to strengthen your bid and pWin.

Some RFPs require capabilities that are beyond your company's skillset, both in technical experience and past performance requirements. That doesn't mean you have to walk away! Finding the right teammates can make a world of difference and not only fill your company's shortcomings, but create a compelling offer.

A few years ago, I was part of team that managed a General Services Administration (GSA) Government Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC). As a contract holder, we became aware of a new requirement to design, build and install communication towers Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, also known as 29 Palms. It is the largest United States Marine Corps base.

The tower requirements mandated a design never-before used and required installation on mountain tops only accessible via helicopter. The period of performance was 90 days to design, build, and install 5 towers.

We didn't have any experience designing or building communication towers.
We knew nothing about how to install them on mountain tops, inaccessible via roads.
We didn't own or fly helicopters, let alone heavy lift helicopters.
We had ZERO past performance to substantiate our ability to do the job.

That didn't stop us from bidding, winning the job, and successfully performing! It was all possible through strategic teaming!

We found a premier design-build communication tower company in Arizona that scoffed at our "5 towers in 90 days" requirement. They were currently deploying more than a dozen towers a week for other clients across California. They loved the idea of creating a design to facilitate installation by helicopter and they did just that.

We found the biggest and best heavy lift helicopter company in California and added them to the team.

The customer held an in-person industry day for possible bidders to discuss the requirements. Our team's representatives were seemingly the only highly-qualified attendees with the experience and capabilities to do the job.

Did I mention that the installation sites were part of the 29 Palms live-fire training range for the Marines, with ongoing live-fire training while we were installing the towers? That's a story for different day! Not your typical project.

Through strong teaming, we were able to successfully bid, win, and satisfy the contractual requirements, providing the US Marine Corp with new capabilities. You can do the same.

Go team, literally! Team with complimentary partners to strengthen your bid and Probability of Win (pWin).

RFI versus RFP, what's the difference?

Sun, 04 Sep 2022 20:56:40 GMT

Take advantage of this major opportunity to influence acquisition strategy

Federal contracting officers serve their end users by buying them the goods and services they need to accomplish their mission. In doing so, most of them are bound by Federal Acquisition Regulations codified in 41 U.S. Code § 106.

In performing their role, and planning for issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP), contracting officers often conduct "market research" before issuing a Request for Proposal. Market research policies and procedures are governed by FAR subpart 10 which "prescribes policies and procedures for conducting market research to arrive at the most suitable approach to acquiring, distributing, and supporting supplies and services."

In issuing an RFI, the Government is not obligated to issue and RFP.

However, by responding to an RFI, a company can make the contracting officer aware of their capabilities and interest in any contemplated RFP which might be issued in the future.

For example, the RFI process is used to (among other things):

Determine if sources capable of satisfying the agency's requirements exist;
Determine if commercial products or commercial services, or, to the extent commercial products suitable to meet the agency's needs are not available, non-developmental items are available that:

Meet the agency's requirements;
Could be modified to meet the agency's requirements; or
Could meet the agency's requirements if those requirements were modified to a reasonable extent.

In most cases, RFI preparation instructions include page count restrictions that limit the amount of material being submitted. As a positive, consider that reasonable page count restrictions help keep participant costs to a minimum.

Responding to an RFI provides an excellent opportunity to possibly influence the contracting officer's acquisition strategy -- essentially how they plan to buy the goods and services -- by making them aware of options they may not have considered. You can tell them about your abilities to do the work, summarize experience doing it for other clients, and set expectation about what the services and/or solutions would cost. If the needs don't fully align with your capabilities, you can tell them how reasonable modifications would support increased competition or use of your commercial solutions!

Unfortunately, given that RFI's are usually issued very early in the sales cycle, it can be a number of years before anything results from the RFI -- if at all. For example, a recent big win took six years from the first RFI and were followed by a pilot project, multiple draft RFPs and the final RFP before being awarded a contract in 2021. SIX YEARS. Government wheels sometimes move very slowly and one must be patient.

RFP's are for buying goods and services needed by end users. RFI's help the contracting officer establish their acquisition plan by making them aware of available solutions and costs. Keep your eye out for RFIs aligned with your capabilities and take advantage of this major opportunity to influence acquisition strategy.

Do you need help assessing an RFI and your position to respond? Click on the "Contact" link and let us know, we're happy to help.

Pretend you are the client

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 19:33:02 GMT

Build and review your proposal from the client perspective using a compliance checklist

Another one of our blog posts, "How do you build winning proposals," talks about how color team reviews help teams progressively build a winning proposal with planned checkpoints.

A crucial element of building and reviewing the proposal from the customer's perspective is the creation of compliance checklists designed to make sure all the required pieces and parts are addressed.

In Federal RFPs, issued in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations, section M of the RFP provides the evaluation factors and will indicate whether the evaluation factors are of equal importance or whether some are significantly more important. (side note: they are either equally important or some are significantly more important. There is no provision for simply "more important.")

All evaluation factors must be addressed and should be at the top of your checklist! The checklist should be of sufficient detail that complex factors can be assessed for all their components.

Beyond section M (evaluation factors), Section L provides important "proposal preparation instructions" and will most certainly include a list of topics to address, whether you need separate proposal volumes (or not), along with page count and typographic restrictions. If you're lucky, the topics requested in section L and the evaluation factors in section M are in strong agreement. Sometimes that's not the case (making proposal design more challenging).

Regardless, make sure your checklist includes all the things delineated in the proposal preparation instructions.

After M and L, it might be necessary to address specific or key Statement of Work sections (RFP section C), as that's where the "work to be performed" is documented. Include that in your checklist.

There may also be RFP section H requirements that you need to acknowledge in writing. Review these and put these in your checklist.

Proposal compliance checklists are usually built at two separate times by different people:

Very early in the proposal design phase, when the proposal manager is working to establish a compliant response framework; and,
By the color team leads, who are pretending they are the customer. They must ALWAYS build their checklist independently of the proposal design team. Being independent provides another level of Quality Assurance check on whether the proposal is designed sufficiently to allow easy client evaluation

Regardless of whether you're just starting to formulate your proposal response, or acting as a color team lead doing quality assurance, build and review your proposal from the client perspective using a compliance checklist.

Need help building your compliance checklist for either of the above purposes? Press the "Contact" link and let know you need some help.

Acronym soup

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 17:53:07 GMT

Make sure to define all acronyms and terminology to ensure correct use throughout your proposal

While acronyms and client-specific terminology can simplify communication they can also make it worse, particularly for people who might not know the meaning of all the acronyms or terminology being used.

It's important to always remember that source selection teams are sometimes staffed with available people and peripheral stakeholders who might not be completely versed in the client acronyms or terminology. Moreover, all your proposal contributors need to make sure they are using acronyms and terminology correctly!

I have always found it useful to create a "wall of truth" when working on a proposal to make sure that acronyms and terms are used correctly! https://acronymfinder.com (and other on-line resources) can be very helpful at discerning the range of possible meanings and figuring out which one might be applicable to your situation.

Terminology, on the other hand, is equally important. For example, on a recent proposal the client was the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Their RFP had thousands of pages of "technical references" associated with the RFP. Some proposal authors referred to these technical references (in their writing) as the "specifications." Well, as it turns out, every patent application contains a very specific legal document called the "specification." We had to make very sure that the only time we used the word "specification" was when we were addressing that very particular document within a patent application and NOT the "technical references." This was an excellent "wall of truth" item for all proposal authors.

Then, as allowed in the proposal preparation instructions, include these acronyms and terms with your proposal submission, perhaps as an appendix outside of any page count restrictions (at the end).

Whether you create an actual "wall of truth" on a whiteboard (in a proposal war room), or virtually via Microsoft Teams or some other collaboration platform, make sure to define all acronyms and terminology to ensure correct use throughout your proposal!

Gold plating your proposal

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:39:10 GMT

Be very careful when going above and beyond in your proposal

When it comes to proposal solutions, going above-and-beyond the requirements is sometimes called "gold plating." Depending on the situation, it could be detrimental to winning!

How is your offer being evaluated? Is it a "lowest price, technically acceptable" solicitation? If so, solution architects (the ones who create the envisioned solution) must be careful to avoid the temptation to exceed the threshold for "technically acceptable." In fact, exceeding the "technically acceptable" threshold will likely add cost to the bid, may introduce schedule risk, and lower your probability of win (p-win).

If it's not a "lowest price, technically acceptable" scenario, it might be advertised as a "best value" evaluation, where the client reserves the right to award the contract to somebody other than the lowest bidder if they determine it to be in the client's best interest to do so. This can often be wolf in sheep's clothing or, in other words, run just like a "lowest price, technically acceptable" solicitation. Essentially, when is it not in the clients best interest to pick the solution that is acceptable and cheapest? Any extra "value" must be clear articulated in the proposal if you're expecting the client to pick you, suspicious that you might not likely be the lowest price.

In creating your approach to meeting the customer requirements, it's always a good idea to be very careful when going above and beyond in your proposal.

Help improve the RFP

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:34:40 GMT

Helping the client improve their RFP is not only legal, it can be greatly appreciated

It is not uncommon for clients to release draft Request for Proposals (RFPs) in the course of finalizing their acquisition strategy. Even if draft RFPs are not issued, old RFPs are often instructive about what a re-compete RFP might look like.

Acquisition specialists are sometimes conflicted about how much they can and cannot talk with industry about their solicitation plans. More experienced acquisition specialists understand that discussions with industry, prior to the formal RFP release, can be very beneficial to their acquisition and often welcome input.

It is important to keep in mind why they might treasure your input and to craft your feedback to meet their needs! For example, requirements that unnecessarily restrict competition. Or, requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost or time it will take to accomplish the client's objectives. Prior to solicitation release, all matters may be open for you to influence, including technical requirements type of contract, length of contract, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors, past performance criteria, etc.

In a recent solicitation, I saw requirements for NIST SP 800-172 and the ask to be compliant with all the enhanced security controls. Upon asking the contracting officer about the requirement, they indicated that it was put it in the solicitation because the end user thought the enhanced security controls would be "nice to have."

When we explained the complexity and costs associated with implementing all the enhanced security controls , literally millions of dollars, the client changed their mind and thanked us profusely for educating the acquisition team about this possible pitfall before RFP release. We bought much good will.

I can point to many other instances where experienced acquisition specialists were grateful for feedback that made their RFP better! Of course the suggestions benefited us also, making it a win-win.

Bottom line, don't be shy about providing draft RFP feedback but make sure you always craft it from the perspective of why it benefits the client! Helping the client improve their RFP is not only legal, it can be greatly appreciated.

How do you build winning proposals?

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 14:49:56 GMT

Progressively build a winning proposal with planned checkpoints (color team reviews)

While software engineering practices have evolved over the years, some things remain consistent whether one follows a waterfall model, agile model, or some other variant. This includes allocation of the requirements, establishing a preliminary design, maturing the design into something more detailed, building pieces/parts, integration, and testing to ensure satisfactory results. Along the way, a variety of reviews catch “errors” early in the process. The earlier errors are caught, the cheaper and easier to fix! Reviews might include:

Requirements Review
Preliminary Design Review
Detailed Design Review
Unit Testing
System Testing
Acceptance Testing

In the proposal world, color team reviews perform similar functions by validating progress and catching correctable errors as early as possible! In all cases, color team members are independent of the proposal architects and authors, experienced color team members, and commissioned to provide unbiased and helpful feedback!

In the very early days of building a proposal plan, the proposal team develops a proposal framework in the form of an annotated outline or storyboards (borrowing from the film industry). This serves as the preliminary design and is generally accomplished before "real" writing starts.

Green team: Assess allocation of requirements and preliminary design. Are all the requirements allocated to proposal sections? Is the allocation responsive and does it optimize reviewability by the source selection team? Are win themes and value propositions present in all the sections? Are they sufficiently strong and differentiating? What are the solution components? Are graphical concepts and ideas present (not finished graphics)? The green team participants document their findings and make improvement recommendations.

This is followed by a period of time where the proposal team builds the first draft of the proposal, accounting for green team feedback.

Pink team: Initial assessment of first draft proposal materials. Reviewed from the client’s perspective, considering known evaluation factors (section M in federal RFPs) and preparation instructions (section L in Federal RFPs). All the materials are supposed to be present, with no missing holes. The review is conducted from the customer’s perspective, as if the team members were the customer source selection team! The pink team documents their findings and make improvement recommendations.

This is followed by the pink team recovery period, where the proposal team incorporates pink team feedback and prepares the final proposal candidate for red team review.

Red team: Painstaking review of what should be the ready-to-deliver proposal. Like the pink team, it is always from the client perspective! Is the draft compliant and compelling? Is it easy to evaluate? Are all the evaluation factors covered? Are all the preparation instructions satisfied? On more complex bids, the color team participants are often divided into teams to tackle specific volumes or proposal sections, with team leaders collecting feedback into the formal color team de-brief. The color team lead facilitates debriefing the proposal team for their final feedback as the proposal due date approaches.

This is followed by the red team recovery period, where the proposal team incorporates feedback and prepares the final version for delivery to the client.

Gold team: having taken corrective action from the red team the proposal is just about ready for delivery to the customer. The production team creates the candidate proposal deliverable and sets them aside for one final “white glove” review. At this point, compliance, value propositions, win themes are all set and not really being reviewed. Instead, the gold team is a small group of people merely reviewing the candidate deliverable products for obvious errors, typographic mistakes, pagination problems, graphic problems, or any other mechanical problem. Needed corrections are noted and handed back to the production manager for incorporation.

Due date: Submit the winning bid!

These are the basics and there is great skill required in setting the schedule and all the moving pieces, to include providing ample time between reviews while meeting the proposal due date!

Note, the proposal team is not obligated to implement all color team feedback, as color team members may get some things wrong due to their transient or very short-term engagement. Weigh their feedback carefully and thoughtfully. Engage color team members, perhaps during the recovery periods, to discuss and assess situations where feedback is possibly off-target.

Color team reviews are applicable for proposals of all sizes. They are increasingly important as proposal size and complexity grows! Progressively build a winning proposal with planned checkpoints (color team reviews).

Do you need some color team support, or somebody to lead your color teams? Click the "Contact" link and let us know, we're happy to help!

Who's doing the work? Active voice matters

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 14:29:27 GMT

Help your prospect imagine YOU as their service provider

We've all had English classes and some paid more attention than others. I was more a math and science guy and suffered through English class. I never paid attention to whether I wrote with active or passive voice. That is, until I realized the power of active voice, especially in proposals.

The active voice describes a sentence where the subject performs the action. For example, in the sentence “Steve complimented Patty,” Steve (the subject) is performing the verb (complimented) and Patty (the object) is receiving the action. It follows a clear subject + verb + object construct that's easy to read.

With passive voice, the subject comes after the verb. For example, in “Patty was complimented by Steve,” Steve isn’t performing the verb, even though he's the one giving the compliment. Passive voice leads to all kinds of structural confusion for the reader; you can be more straightforward with active voice.

When it comes to proposals, active voice is very important because it helps the reader (the source selection team) easily envision YOU doing the work, which is precisely what you want. In it's worst state, passive voice leaves the reader completely confused over who's doing the actual work and whether you're proposing to do it or expecting somebody else (like the client) to do it for you? That's never a good situation.

Bad: When schedule changes are approved by the client, project documents are updated.
Good: Our lead engineer updates project documents once schedule changes are approved by the client.

Bad: Upon fix validation by the end-users, trouble tickets are closed.
Good: Our incident management specialist closes trouble tickets upon fix validation by the end-users.

Microsoft Word has an excellent passive voice detection capability. USE IT and help your prospect envision you as their service provider!

Do you need additional assistance reviewing your writing and making sure it resonates with the client? We are happy to provide an extra set of eyes. Click the "Contact" link and let us know.

Push the "easy button"

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 13:26:39 GMT

Make it simple for your client to push the "easy button"

It's widely understood that User experience (UX) design is necessary for ensuring good user experiences by optimizing the making, creating, and organizing the interfaces people interact with daily, like mobile apps, websites, smart watches, and physical products.

Good proposal design is exactly the same: designed to optimize a good user experience. What does that mean?

Clients will evaluate your proposal and, in some cases, the source selection team members may not even really want to be there. They've been asked to participate as "an additional duty." Regardless of whether they want to be there, or not, proposal design must be centered on making their job easy!

What has the RFP asked for? Provide it. What evaluation factors are going to be used to assess your offer? Make sure these are clearly addressed and easy to find. To the extent practical, organize around the evaluation factors and sprinkle the rest of required material within in an organized manner. Create a traceability matrix to assist the client in finding everything they have asked for.

Provide clear value propositions, aligned with stated and unstated customer requirements.

Understand how your customer assesses program risk and indicate how your approaches mitigate those risks.

Imagine you're a source selection team member. You're going to have to capture the "reasons" why each vendor's proposal meets or exceeds the project requirements while minimizing project risks FROM THE CUSTOMER'S PERSPECTIVE. Make sure you clearly articulate all these in easy to find callout boxes. Make it easy for the client to write their source selection justification for your offer! Make it simple for your client to push the "easy button."

If you need help with your proposal design, click on the "Contact" link and let us know. We'd be happy to help you build a compelling proposal.

That's interesting, so what?

Sun, 28 Aug 2022 11:38:37 GMT

Ensure the facts are clear and what they mean to the reader!

There's a simple test I use called the "so what" test. When you see an assertion, claim, or statement in a proposal, is it substantiated and does it answer the question "so what?" If not, you're leaving it up to the reader to guess or, worse, conclude nothing at all.

Assertions like "we're the biggest recruiter in the world," or "we're the fastest," or similar, are meaningless. How big is big? What does it mean to be the "biggest?" How fast is fast? Does it matter?

Instead of generalizing, quantify it: "Our recruiters hire an average of 1 person every four seconds worldwide, 24/7/365."

While that sounds impressive, it still doesn't answer the "so what" test.

Improvement: "Our staffing plan for Project X requires that we hire 15 people a month for 18 months. Our recruiting team averages the onboarding of a new staff member every four seconds worldwide and specializes in the type of staff planned for this project. Our recruiting team's abilities and demonstrated performance makes hiring 15 people a month for 18 months a very low risk for schedule disruption due to staffing issues.

There it is. The "so what." Our abilities and demonstrated performance (hiring 1 person every 4 seconds and specializing in the types of staff planned for this project) translates to a very low risk for schedule disruption due to staffing issues. Perfect.

In another blog post, I talk about making sure your client can push the easy button. This example demonstrates something that a source selection team member could cut-and-paste into a source selection justification document with minor edits!

Ensure the facts are clear and what they mean to the reader!

Need help evaluating your win themes and value propositions? We can help. Click the "Contact" button and let us know.