Carl Dickson

People have tried to overcome the limitations of the Red Team by inventing a host of other "Color Teams". A pre-writing strategy review might be called a "Pink Team." A formal draft review is typically called a "Red Team." Pricing reviews are "Green Teams." Final reviews are "Gold Teams." Some companies have Blue Teams, Purple Teams, and occasionally other colors. Color team labels mean so many things to different people that they have become meaningless. This is because the scope is not well defined for any of the color team labels: Is the Pink Team review an outline review, win theme review, capture strategy review, storyboard review, production plan review, or all of the above? There is no formal mechanism to validate that what is shown at Pink Team actually makes it into the document (Pink Teams and Red Teams are almost always conducted independently). Is there only one Green Team or do there need to be more than one pricing review? How do pricing reviews, technical solution development, and proposal text get reconciled? How does this reconciliation get validated? There is no integration between Color Team reviews. They are conducted independently. Future reviews do not validate against prior reviews. They don't reinforce or add up to anything. Each review re-invents the wheel. Reviews often revisit difficult issues, contribute to indecision, and consequently make drastic last minute changes more likely. This is the exact opposite of what is needed. What is the scope of the Gold Team review? Is it strictly a validation that the document has been produced and assembled accurately, or is it a final chance to change strategies and message? The endless conflict that erupts at this stage results directly from acceptance of the inadequate color team model. What exactly is a "red team?" Ask 20 people and you'll get 20 answers (if not more). Then ask them what a "blue team" or a "pink team" is and you'll get even more varied answers. People have so many goals for their color teams that can't agree on which goals apply at any given time. The result is that most color teams do not achieve any goals. And while I am sure that you, gentle reader, know what a Red Team, Pink Team and a Blue Team are supposed to be, it doesn't do any good unless all of the stakeholders share a common set of expectations. While it may be possible to narrowly define a set of reviews and give them color labels, you cannot implement this consistently or effectively across an organization: You cannot take a poorly scoped review and make it better by having more of them. If the Red Team review does not add value, then having more colors will not either. The Color Team model is based on problem detection and not on helping to win or adding value. When is the right time for a color? The Color Team model imposes sequential milestones on a process that is not sequential. If experienced and trained reviews aren't available for the Red Team, how do you think you are going to get them for the other colors? How does a color translate into a purpose driven act? Reviews should focus on what needs to be validated, and not on the state of the document at a moment in time. Most Color Teams practice leadership by default. The result is usually a lack of leadership. This means the review team is not accountable, directed, or trained.

In October of 2006, I presented on the topic of "Why Your Red Team is Broken and What To Do About It" at a conference in Atlanta, Georgia hosted by the Association of Proposal Management Professionals. I submitted the slides weeks before the presentation. But the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that new approaches are needed to improve proposal quality. When I gave the presentation, I asked the audience if anyone felt their proposal Red Team reviews were consistently effective. No one raised their hands. I was expecting to get at least a couple. As I spoke, I realized that the way we review proposals today is not very different from the way we did it 20 years ago when my career was just getting started. If in that time, no one in the entire industry has ever come up with an approach that is consistently effective, then there is something inherently wrong with the way we approach proposal reviews. When I returned, I published a series of articles and comments in the CapturePlanning.com newsletter, which has a circulation of more than 40,000 people involved in business development and proposal writing. Again, no one stepped up to say that the Red Team approach is successful for them. The feedback I got from the newsletter was a series of emails from people pointing out the problems they have with their Red Teams. As I've thought more about it, I've come to realize that it's time to throw out the Red Team and come up with something new. It's not something that we can make a little better each time until it works. It was a good first attempt, but if it hasn't been made to work in 20 years, it's not going to work. Little by little, it's going no where. It's time to evolve past the Red Team and replace it with something that does work. The scope is not well defined. Most Red Teams try to review: capture strategies, the proposal outline, production quality, compliance, accuracy, effectiveness of the approach, persuasiveness of the writing, completeness of the document, how you stack up against the evaluation criteria, implementation of win themes, and incorporation of customer/solution/competitive awareness. Is it any wonder that they finish feeling incomplete? Or that when you have a meeting with a mandate so broad that you have trouble focusing their attention? Now, try removing items from the list above and see how far you get before you delete something vital. Here are some of the other problems people experience with Red Teams: Participants do not add value. Red Teams do not help people win. It's not even part of the charter for most Red Teams. They are typically positioned as a quality control function whose job it is to find problems. They play little or no role in preventing problems, resolving problems, or in helping the proposal team to win. The best you can hope for is some helpful suggestions on how to fix something that you already know has problems. There is no good time to have a Red Team. You can have your Red Team too early, or you can have it too late. If you have it too early, you are asking people to review a document that is incomplete and different from what the customer will see. If you do it too late, the document will be more mature, but you will be out of time to make any changes. This is why people add "pink team" reviews, or have follow-up Redder-Than-Red Team reviews. Neither approach works. The problem is inherent in the design and due to a scope that is so broad it contains requirements that conflict and are impossible to implement. Adding colors will not solve the problem. Inexperience and lack of training. The Red Team concept relies on highly experienced staff to advise the proposal team. However, these people are rarely available. And when they are, they usually can't dedicate the time that a good review requires. It is not realistic to expect senior staff to be available to participate in an unlimited scoped review of every proposal a company produces. The concept is flawed. A reengineered solution should make better use of mid-level staff (since that's who populate most Red Teams anyway) and limit the use of senior staff to where they are most effective. Lack of purpose. Most Red Teams are hunting expeditions where reviewers see what they can find. Red Teams like this do not produce results on purpose ? they produce them by chance. Proposals should be purpose-driven documents that are validated explicitly and intentionally. Lack of leadership. Who oversees the Red Team, holds them accountable, calls them to order, instructs them in their mission, and teaches them how to do their job? Does that person have the authority to direct the "gray beards" selected to participate? Usually it defaults to the Proposal Manager to direct the Red Team. Leadership by default is not a best practice. Every step in an effective workflow must have oversight, accountability, guidance, and training. This is the role of a leader. To be effective, every review must have one.

Formal proposal reviews are often called “red team” reviews. Proposal reviews provide fresh eyes that can objectively examine the document and provide validation and sign-off. But there are different types of red teams and different ways to review a proposal. Reviews can focus on different aspects of a proposal: Customer emulation. Reviewers score the proposal according to the evaluation criteria, as if they were the customer’s evaluation team. Bid Strategies. Reviewers assess whether the proposal reflects the bid strategies necessary to win, tells the right story, and delivers its message effectively. Compliance. Does the proposal comply with all RFP requirements? Proof reading. Review for typographical errors and grammatical problems. Technical evaluation. Does the solution proposed meet the specifications? Can it be delivered on time? Is there a better way to do the work? Pricing. Is it priced to win? Is it still profitable? Depending on your circumstances, you may wish to focus your reviewer’s attention by emphasizing a particular type of review. You should take advantage of the red team, and not simply treat it as a schedule delay. The red team can be used to identify and solve problems if you can focus their attentions where you need it. How to handle the review comments If you have more than a couple of people participating in your proposal reviews, you need a plan for handling their comments. One important element of this plan will be how comments should be delivered. The choices include: Paper forms. Create a form with a series of questions that focuses the reviewers attention and provides places for comments. Hard copy mark-ups. Let them scribble on the document and then try to make sense of it later. If there are a large number of evaluators you will need to consolidate the comments. Consider dividing the reviewers into teams and making each team responsible for delivering a single set of comments. Version tracking. Microsoft Word, and many other software packages, provide tools that can be used to identify the changes made by a review and even to merge them with changes from other reviewers. There is a slight learning curve to get past if you’ve never used this approach before. Fixing problems found during reviews You should establish a rule that any review team member who identifies a problem must either solve it, or identify someone to join the proposal team who can solve it. Since red teams usually include senior managers and/or executives, they often know of resources that you should have had working on the proposal from the beginning, but don’t find out about until you have their attention. It may help to provide your review team with instructions up front and in writing – you could even provide them with a form to list solutions and resources to address any problems identified during the review.

The quality of every proposal should be explicitly validated. This means that you should confirm that the key aspects of the proposal are what the company wants them to be. It is nearly impossible to do this in one sitting with everything considered all at once. Proposal Quality Validation explicitly identifies what should be validated, allows for flexibility in how individual items get validated, and provides a mechanism to ensure that the items chosen and methods for validation are sufficient to achieve the quality desired. Proposal Quality Validation ensures that your company confirms that key aspects of your proposal are what the company wants them to be prior to submission. It is an approach that confirms that what you have in the proposal meets your needs and expectations. It avoids disasters that result from teams that work in isolation, creating a proposal that is not what the company wants to submit and is only discovered too late to do anything about it. In developing your proposal, you will: Make decisions Invent approaches Incorporate information Address requirements Deliver a message Seek a superior score How do you know if you’ve made the right decisions or have the right approaches? Most importantly for a proposal, how do you know if you have done what you need to in order to win? Each decision and approach, the thoroughness of the information you have incorporated, your compliance with and fulfillment of the requirements, your message, and your score should all be validated. Validating an item means reviewing it to confirm that it meets your needs and expectations. Proposal Quality Validation does not necessarily ensure that everything in your proposal is “right” or guarantee that the proposal will win. Only the customer can do that. And it is impossible to predict, with certainty, what the customer will do. What Proposal Quality Validation does is ensure that specific elements of the proposal are considered by someone other than the original author to ensure that the document reflects what your company wants to submit. It does this before the fact, by validating plans, as well as after the fact, by validating drafts against the plans. It is different from other methods of proposal review: It is organized around what you need to validate instead of being organized around milestones. As a result, it achieves better traceability and accountability. It accommodates validation of any type giving you the flexibility to adapt to the needs of the opportunity and your organization. It provides a mechanism for ensuring that the planned amount and methods of validation are sufficient to meet the needs of the proposal and your organization. It provides a method for documenting your validation plan to properly set expectations, while streamlining the process to keep it from becoming burdensome. It inherently provides more guidance to participants, helping to ensure that reviews are focused and effective. Adding Value Instead of Getting in the Way The biggest reason that people avoid complying with proposal processes is that they require upfront effort for an indirect payoff. Explicit Proposal Quality Validation not only brings focus to reviews; it also more closely links the benefits with the effort. Proposal Quality Validation achieves cooperation by adding value instead of getting in the way. Proposal Quality Validation adds value to the proposal process Reduces indecision Providing specific opportunities to validate decisions helps teams avoid the paralysis of not being able to make a decision. It also helps avoid repetitive reconsiderations and vacillation by providing a specific point in time to reconsider and then move forward. Improves efficiency By increasing the reliability of decisions and content, proposal teams experience less backtracking. Offers improved opportunities for oversight and correction By specifically identifying attributes to be confirmed, it is far more difficult for issues to “hide in plain sight.” Furthermore, it is easier to coordinate oversight when specific opportunities and defined points of focus are provided. Provides opportunities to improve General requests for improvement will not achieve reliable results. However, the additional focus that explicit validation provides also delivers opportunities to consider how to improve specific aspects of the proposal. Provides standards to measure the content of the proposal against The process of breaking down what it takes to have a valid proposal into specific items also provides you with a set of standards for what constitutes a valid proposal. Defines specific desired outcomes that the process can work towards Because the process provides a set of desired outcomes to be achieved in order to arrive at a valid proposal, it makes it clearer for the team to work towards achieving it.

Do you have a written definition for "proposal quality?" And just to make life difficult for those who want to take the easy way out by answering "anything that wins," let's limit the definition to a pre-submission proposal. How do you define "proposal quality" prior to its submission? If you can't define it, then you can't measure it. And if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. When you don't have a written definition for proposal quality, or when you define proposal quality as "anything that wins," the result is that you have no standard to judge a proposal against. Deciding "what wins" is usually subjective when the customer does it. When you try to think like the customer, you are really just guessing, and your definition of proposal quality is the whim of the person doing the guessing. Today most companies manage their proposals by bringing in experienced people who are "supposed to know" what a quality proposal is. This is inevitably a hit or miss proposition. An experienced guess is still just a guess. It is far better to look at the factors that determine whether or not you will win --- evaluation score, price, offering, presentation, etc. --- then validate that you have made the best decision or response you are capable of making for each factor. If you use them to develop specific criteria that define what a quality proposal is, then instead of a seat of the pants approach to determining whether your proposal is "good enough," you can ensure that each aspect of the proposal intentionally reflects the right decisions. Defining "proposal quality" is easy: A quality proposal is one that implements all of the things you have decided are needed to persuade the customer to select you. The difficult part is defining your goals. What does a proposal need to do to win? Start by making a list. It might look like this: Will it score well against the evaluation criteria? Is the outline/organization correct? Is it compliant with all RFP requirements? Does it reflect your win strategies? Are the proposed approaches cost-effective? Do the proposed approaches offer compelling benefits and value to the customter? Do they reflect the best trade-off between price and other factors? Does the pricing reflect the best trade-off between competitiveness and revenue/profit goals? Does it reflect your full awareness of the customer? Does it demonstrate the relevance of your previous experience at every opportunity? Are the reasons why the customer should select you clear? Does it discriminate you from the competition? Does it have any typographical errors? Is the pricing data compliant, accurate, and properly structured? Does the pricing account for all costs, direct and indirect? Are all assumptions documented? Every one of these attributes can be validated. In fact, each one must be validated for you to know that you have a quality proposal. This is why we advocate scrapping the Color Team model of proposal reviews, and instead using the Proposal Quality Validation method. Some of the items above have predecessors or components that can be separately validated. When you arrange them in a sequence, you begin to form a process. Only it's a process designed from the beginning to validate that the proposal reflects how you define proposal quality. It enables you to intentionally manage your proposal by enabling you to measure the results of your proposal efforts against specific quality criteria. The result is a proposal that is exactly what you want it to be. Whether it wins or loses will always be up to the customer. But you stand a better chance of winning when you have intentionally made and validated decisions than when you accept the "best efforts" of people who are "supposed to know."

Many organizations have evolved to the point where it is universally accepted that every proposal should have a Red Team. While this was a major step, it's not enough. People have tried to overcome the limitations of the Red Team by inventing a host of other "Color Teams" (red team, pink team, green team, blue team, purple team, gold team). Color team labels mean so many things to different people that they have become meaningless. If people can't consistently answer what a "Red Team" is supposed to be, how on earth are they going to consistently define a "Blue Team." And while I am sure that you, gentle reader, know what a Red Team and a Blue Team is supposed to be, it doesn't do any good unless all of the stakeholders share a common set of expectations. It's time to evolve past the "Red Team." The purpose of any Color Team is to validate the proposal. The problem is that there are many things that need to be validated: Capture planning Content planning Review planning Production Planning Compliance Accuracy Effectiveness of the approach Persuasiveness of the writing Completeness of the document How you stack up against the evaluation criteria Implementation of win strategies Incorporation of customer/solution/competitive awareness Pricing, profitability, and return on the cost of sales Contractual issues If you want to take your organization to the next level, instead of dumbing down by using Color Team labels, educate them in what it means to validate a proposal. Add, change, or delete the items on the list above until they make sense. And then create checklists and job aids to encourage people to validate everything during the development of the proposal. Maybe a sit-around-the-table Color Team-style formal review makes sense for addressing some of what you need to validate. But which ones? And how are you going to handle the others? For example, do you need a team to evaluate compliance? On some proposals you can give a copy of the RFP and the proposal to an engineer and ask them to tell you if you've covered everything. On other proposals that would be the last thing you'd want to do. So how about instead of accepting it as gospel that every proposal must have a "Red Team," you require that every proposal have a review plan. And every review plan must address a list of validation targets, such as the one above. The plan itself should be reviewed at the beginning of the proposal effort. Formal reviews are still a good idea and you can even still call it a "Red Team" if it makes you happy. Only now it is clear whether you are assessing the evaluation score, reviewing strategy, assessing accuracy, ensuring compliance, evaluating the persuasiveness, or something else. And if the "Red Team" is focused, the way it should be, on just one or two of these things, you still know that the others have been validated through other means. Some companies do this now, using their traditional "Color Teams." However, is your goal to have a set number of color-labeled meetings or is it to validate specific aspects of what it takes to have a successful proposal? If you've successfully matured to the point where you routinely have your "Red Team," maybe it's time to evolve further and train your organization to address validation specifically…

Hold an Orientation Session. You need to get everyone on the same page regarding the goals and procedures that the Red Team will follow. This requires a lot more than a five minute discussion before the team starts reading. I like to schedule orientations for an hour the day before the actual Red Team and give reading the RFP as a homework assignment. Appoint a Leader. A Red Team needs someone to provide instructions, direct activities, and be responsible for results. It is too much work to dump on the Proposal Manager. Take it off the Proposal Managers hands, so that all the Proposal Manager needs to do is deliver a single copy and show up for the debrief. Appoint a leader for the Red Team, and make that person responsible for all review logistics and oversight. While the Red Team leader should not be the proposal manager, capture manager, or the executive sponsor, it needs to be a strong leader who can control executive level participants. Providing direction to Red Team participants is like herding cats. For the Red Team to make a productive contribution to the proposal the leader must provide oversight and hold the participants accountable for achieving their assigned goals. The Red Team leader must have clout. If the organization does not respect the Red Team leader, then the organization does not believe that the Red Team makes any difference to whether or not you win. The Red Team leader will need to meet with the Proposal Manager, Capture Manager, and Executive Sponsor ahead of the Red Team in order to set expectations and build a mandate. Explicitly define your goals. Is this Red Team focused on finding ways to improve, filling holes, identifying non-compliance, second-guessing strategy, proof reading, validating approaches, emulating the customer's evaluation, or something else. If you answered "all of the above" then no wonder your Red Team is broken --- you can't do all of that at once and do it well. On any given proposal, your goals may be different. On one Red Team, you may be focused on enhancement, on another it could be filling holes. If you fail to have goals and see them through execution, then you are at risk of having people pursue the wrong goals or attempt to do it all and deliver only a little bit of each. This results in a Red Team that is a waste of time and has no positive impact on whether the proposal wins. Goals are important. Don't perform the wrong review at the wrong time. There is no "right" time to schedule the Red Team. If you have it early enough to make a difference, the document will not be complete. If you wait until the document is complete it will be too late to make substantive changes. You must pick between these two "wrong" times and live with the trade-offs. The only way to get around this is to break the "Red Team" up into a series of reviews. See the section on goals. There are too many things that need to be validated to do it all in one review anyway. Here are some possibilities: Take compliance off of the table by having one or more people review it before the red team. That's all they should be concerned with and they must have sufficient technical expertise to make the assessment. A compliance review can often be performed against an early, fairly rough draft. If compliance has been established, then the Red Team can focus on goals that add more value. Review strategies and approaches very early. Folks who like color team labels might call this a pink team review. Most pink team reviews are handled as if they were early "Red Team" reviews. Instead have a focused review on approaches and strategies. Then have a later review on whether they are reflected in the document. Consider doing both of these reviews outside of the Red Team and having the Red Team focus on emulating the customer's evaluation process and how to improve your score (other than by changing strategy). Provide training and set expectations. Do the Red Team members know what their roles and responsibilities are? Do they know what their goals are? Do they know what procedures are to be followed? After the Red Team, who decides what changes actually get made? What do the Red Team participants expect? What does the proposal team expect? What does the executive sponsor expect? You don't want them to make it up as they go along --- you want them to be effective. To be effective they must all play their role in an intentional and well coordinated manner. Orientation and training is the only way you can get everyone on the same page. Commit sufficient time. Red Team participants should be prepared to dedicate at least 16 hours or they should not be on the Red Team. I know it sounds like a lot, but consider: Some of these could be less. But some could be a whole lot more. 16 hours is a good average. Furthermore, if the Red Team actually identifies ways to improve the document, they should be available to the proposal team after the Red Team to help with making the improvements. This could take considerably longer than the Red Team did. If they aren't committed, they can't make a difference. No one should be allowed on the Red Team, regardless of their executive level, if they aren't going to commit the time to read the proposal and just show up for a meeting unprepared to fulfill the goals of the review. Encourage the right attitude. A Red Team is not about finding problems. It is not even about helping or making improvements, although that is a better attitude. The Red Team is about winning. If a Red Team is to make a positive difference, they must provide suggestions that will help you win. They are part of the solution, not merely inspectors who look for problems.

It was a tremendous step in the evolution of proposals when people began to recognize that every proposal should have a formal review by people other than those who wrote it. This review is almost universally called a "Red Team" review. The only problem is that I can't think of a single instance in several hundred proposals where a Red Team review has made a difference whether a proposal won or lost. This is probably because most Red Team reviews are flawed to the point of being nearly worthless. Your's probably is too. Here are some signs that your Red Team is broken: If you asked all of the participants to define a "Red Team," you'd get a different answer from each The goals for the Red Team are not explicitly defined Participants are not given specific directions regarding what to look for The Red Team does not have any checklists or written guidance to remind them of what to look for The burden of managing Red Team administration and logistics is left to the proposal team instead of being taken off of their hands The Red Team is scheduled too early and the document is not ready The Red Team is scheduled too late and there is not enough time to act on any suggestions The Red Team gives you the guidance you should have had at the start It is not clear who is driving: the Red Team or the proposal team The Red Team shows up without having actually read the proposal, cover to cover The Red Team is allowed to do their reading at their desks The Red Team shows up without having read the RFP Red Team participants have no assignment other than to read the entire proposal, cover to cover The Red Team is the only form of review planned for the proposal You limit the number and types of reviews you do to the number of colors you can name (red team, pink team, green team, blue team, purple team, gold team) You expect the red team to review compliance, accuracy, your approach, the persuasiveness of the writing, the completeness of the document, how you stack up against the evaluation criteria, implementation of win strategies, and incorporation of customer/solution/competitive awareness all at the same time… The same people who wrote the proposal are on the Red Team The Red Team is scheduled for only a couple of hours Participants have to leave early because they have other commitments The Red Team doesn't have an appointed leader, other than the proposal manager The Red Team identifies problems without offering solutions The Red Team does little more than what amounts to proof reading The Red Team wastes valuable time proof reading copy that is going to significantly change or tells you about formatting problems on a document that has yet to go through final production There is no guidance regarding how comments should be made The Red Team examines your strategies instead of the effectiveness of their implementation The Red Team wants to change the outline of the proposal The Red Team is effectively a review by the executive sponsor The Red Team looks at the proposal from their own perspective, instead of the customer's perspective Red Team participants think they need to read every comment they've written on the document while everyone is at the table The Red Team does not consolidate its own comments, but leaves that burden to the proposal team There is no discussion regarding how the Red Team's comments relate to or will impact the evaluation criteria Red Team comments fail to take into consideration the page limitation imposed by the RFP The Red Team expects to see the document again after the changes are made Red Team suggestions are expected to be taken as orders (the proposal team is not free to ignore a Red Team recommendation). If there are holes, the Red Team doesn't recommend any resources capable of filling the holes The proposal is so broken at the time of the Red Team that the Red Team can't do anything to help Participants make comments that are not actionable (generalized statements that don't specify a correction or action to take) The Red Team makes comments that contradict the RFP The Red Team does not result in a set of specific action items that can be worked through a process of elimination The Red Team doesn't take any time to meet as a group and discuss their findings before they debrief the proposal team Some people are on the Red Team simply because they want to see the document -- not because they have anything to contribute The Red Team identifies all of the defects, resulting in a proposal that merely answers the mail because they didn't look at what it takes to win They aren't physically present You haven't validated enough because you tried to do too much in a single review. All of the technical expertise available is on the proposal team, leaving none for an independent assessment The debrief consists only of the participants taking turns sharing their thoughts The Red Team doesn't score the proposal according to the evaluation criteria The Red Team doesn't do anything but score the proposal according to the evaluation criteria The Red Team doesn't offer any useful advice or help (as opposed to criticisms) The Red Team doesn't do anything to help the proposal WIN!

Does this sound familiar? The quality of your proposal reviews varies widely. Review comments are based on the reviewer’s personal opinions. Reviewers even contradict each other. Comments come too little, too late to do any good and you end up ignoring some of them. Considering the disruption and lost time, you may find yourself wondering if you would have been better off if you had just skipped the review… Our solution: Your process should guide you through defining the scope of reviews so that you specifically validate the things that are necessary to win. This means that you start by preparing a list of everything (decisions, drafts, attributes, criteria, standards, themes, solution components, outcomes, etc.) that needs to be validated. Then for each item on your list, consider: How it will be reviewed (face-to-face meeting, teleconference, email, approval/sign-off, scoring sheets, document mark-up, etc.) Who will lead and who will participate When it should start and when it must be completed Write this down so that it becomes your Proposal Validation Plan. Then review the plan to make sure it is sufficient to achieve the level of quality required. Hint: It’s easy to produce a written Proposal Validation Plan if you turn it into a checklist. This makes it adaptable to both: The size and importance of the bid. While the things you need validated will be nearly the same from proposal-to-proposal, what is required to achieve sufficient quality may change. For example, while it might be acceptable for a single person to validate certain items for a small task order, you might require a team to do it for a large strategic proposal. Changes to what you need to validate. The list of items to validate for a systems integration project might be different from those for an administrative services bid. What you need to validate may also change based on the evaluation criteria and other factors. Traditional review processes tend to break down instead of adapting to changes like these. Under our approach, reviewers receive more guidance and are also more accountable. It also can be used to produce measurable results. You can measure the progress of your proposal by how many items have been validated. Finally, it brings both planning and reviewing into alignment with what it is going to take to win.

A proposal has a lot of moving parts. The solution you are proposing can change. Multiply the number of authors by the number of files contributed by each. The contents of those many are often constantly changing. The assignments of people to proposal sections and consequently files change from time to time. Even the requirement itself can change with a cascading effect on every part of the proposal that it touches. Configuration management refers to maintaining control of the proposal in spite of all the changes. These changes happen throughout the proposal, but have the greatest affect in the later stages of development, as you approach final production. One overlooked file version conflict during final production can ruin a perfectly good proposal. There are software solutions for file/document management, but lack of software is no excuse for not tracking versions and maintaining configuration control. Automated approaches to document and configuration management can always be emulated using completely manual methods. Likewise, having software does not free you from the burden of diligence. No software approach alone will ensure configuration management. It requires the voluntary efforts of participants. People have to accept it and follow it constantly. Whether manual or automated, a configuration management system can be strict and burdensome, or convenient but tolerant of risk. You must decide what balance to strike for your particular proposal. You may also choose to implement different levels of configuration management at different stages of the proposal. Some elements that your configuration management system should include: Document every change. This is typically handled by keeping hardcopy markups or using software change tracking features. Your must be able to answer who made a change and if necessary roll it back. Similarly, you should also check to ensure every change was made as requested. Having the requested changes documented helps. Tracking forms documenting what came in when from who and when it was completed. Procedures that ensure that more than one person cannot make changes to the same document at the same time. This is often the source of version conflicts. Untangling them can be a nightmare. You are far better off preventing them. Check-in/Check-out procedures are often used for this. These goals are typically achieve with tracking and sign-off sheets. They may be low tech and labor intensive, but they can save the day. One issue that you will have to contend with is that widespread use of software enables authors to make their own changes without going through hardcopy markups. While this is can be a huge improvement in speed and efficiency, it comes at the cost of configuration management. You can end up without an audit trail. You will have to determine where to strike the balance between risk, effort, and convenience.

The last 20 years has seen substantial acceptance in the Federal marketing arena, of notions of applied process in proposal development. Responding to Federal requests for bids has become more complex, leading to increased task specialization and professionalism. References, for instance, to "pink teams" and "black hat reviews" are common enough to be accepted as understood in context (even when they patently aren't). Nearly all companies bidding on Federal contracts either have processes in place or a longing intention of having them. And there is now sufficient evidence to support the idea that such processes can actually make a difference, particularly in order to successfully pursue large procurement opportunities. Despite all this, it is also evident there is trouble in River City. The challenge, particularly in small and mid-sized companies, now seems threefold: (1) convincing folks to follow the process, any process, (2) providing sufficient sheltered time and resources to work the process, and (3) fighting a nagging suspicion that the process, even when followed, might not be as efficacious as hoped. Any conversation with proposal practitioners tends to circulate back to discussions of how to make the process work, how to tinker with it. One industry expert, Carl Dickson of CapturePlanning.com, has gone so far as to make a case that our sacred review structure is flawed and needs to be replaced with documented performance measures. The reality is, in a world of layered multi-tasking and conflicting priorities, it is difficult to bring sufficient focus to a proposal team to produce positive results from what is essentially orderly madness. What we want, after all, is not only (1) a responsive, compliant document delivered on time, but also (2) one that does not have to be produced by Herculean efforts. We all want to have lives outside the war room or simply at least time for our other jobs. Discipline in the process I'd like to suggest something more modest, something that might be useful in a number of venues, large and small: Focus on the discipline in the process, whatever process. The trick, from this perspective, is to think through ways to enable process participants to do three things: Learn whatever methods they need to accomplish their assigned proposal task Use those methods consistently Apply self control-i.e., apply methods when needed and as needed Small and mid-sized companies do not have the luxury of fully dedicated proposal resources. Most people in the process have day jobs. They often face conflicting or unclear priorities, and there is usually a substantial disconnect between actions and outcomes in the proposal process. This is because of the complexity of the Federal procurement process: Until you have substantial experience with half a dozen proposals, it is hard to appreciate the strange things that are asked for and the odd outlines one is required to follow. I have come to believe that three elements enhance the discipline in the process, that is, the sensible application of the appropriate methods: Management directive and emphasis-As always, direction comes from the top. In order for folks to seriously attend to proposal development work, the messages have to come from senior management. Training-We need to think through training and not just annual business development training. Because proposal development isn't their regular job, most participants need focused training on what is required of them for this proposal, this time. Structure of the environment-In some ways, this is the most important because by structuring the environment effectively we can leverage (1) and (2). There are three aspects of the environment that are easy to structure and that, when structured, make proposal work easier for participants: Space-This is about where one does the proposal work. Choices-Here we limit the choices that people have to help them focus on the right things Activities-These include whatever traditional process elements are in play; the key is simplifying and focusing them Space Having dedicated space is, of course, the logic behind the idea of a proposal war room. In today's distributed work environment with teaming partners far and wide, what is needed is a virtual war room more so then a physical one. We are talking about a designated workspace for each opportunity effort. Everything goes in it; nothing stays outside. There are software programs, such as Privia by Synchris, and network organizational structures that enable such a venue. No matter how clumsy the mechanism, the proposal team gains substantially by structuring the workspace-and eliminating multiple emails and document versions. The trick here is gaining and maintaining control over the document. Version control, at its most basic, is essential for sanity and security. Effective version control, which is best maintained through a dedicated space, helps writers be responsible ("this is yours, with your name on it") and, as necessary, gets them off the hook (documenting who took over and made those changes). Doing both of these helps reinforce the expectations the proposal team has for the individuals, which in turn reinforces the discipline applied by those individuals to the proposal. As part of structuring the space, the proposal manager should use all the tricks of the trade for preparing the document: templates, checklists, etc. When you think of these from a discipline point of view, a few enhancements suggest themselves. Instead of just handing out a section template, what about personalizing it with the specific file name to be used and the correct (and only) section numbers to be used. Many do this now, but it helps to think of doing it not to make the proposal manager's job easier but to make the writer's job easier. And this is where focused training comes in: Specifically, how do you use the template or checklist? This also provides an opportunity for reinforcing things like language consistency. By structuring the space from the start-and this means from the start of the opportunity, not just the start of the proposal-a substantial benefit accrues to the team in terms of continuity and consistency. Choices Templates, of course, are the traditional way of limiting choices. Enhancing these with lists of words to use and not use, as well as specific win themes adds a level of structure. And storyboards take this aspect about as far as it can probably go. But where else do choices need to be limited? One challenging area is in reviewing and commenting on proposal sections, both in process and at any formal review points. The objective here is to limit the choices available to reviewers-i.e., we need to tell them what we need in the review. At the same time, we need to provide them sufficient latitude to be helpful when so inclined. A technique for doing this can be the ubiquitous comment sheet, but one that is further tuned to this particular proposal and this particular review. For instance, push reviewers into commenting relative to the client's evaluation criteria. Don't ask them to do this; make it difficult for them not to do this. One of the more effective combinations is to provide training to reviewers, supplemented with checklists. "Training" here and elsewhere is really a euphemism: talk to the participants, explain what is expected, and give them feedback. It is not particularly a sit-down, watch-a-PowerPoint-presentation effort. Activities Because so many of the proposal participants don't regularly work on proposals, requirements and expectations should be laid out with clarity. The best way to do this is by using roles and functions, rather than personalities to organize and motivate the proposal team. This means clarifying the difference between capture manager, proposal manager, proposal coordinator, proposal writer, and proposal reviewer. We also need to specify, for this individual, in this role, at this time, on this proposal: What are their responsibilities and what expectations does the team have for them in this role? What should they not be doing? When should they be done? Summary I believe that we need to change the conversation slightly, away from process and towards enhancing discipline given whatever the state of your process might be. This is most important in proposal environments that suffer from a lack of dedicated resources, such as in small and mid-sized companies. By structuring the proposal environment-the physical and virtual space and the methods and processes-it makes it easier for people to do the right thing, especially people who don't do proposals for a living.

There can be a lot riding on a proposal – deadlines, stress, long hours, and even people’s jobs. As a result, everyone wants to be in control. In a well organized environment, this can be worked out amicably. In a chaotic environment where you have to do proposals The Wrong Way™, it can lead to turf battles that only make a bad proposal situation worse. Here are some of the things that people struggle for control of: Who owns the solution? Deciding what hardware, software, services, and methodologies to bid can be difficult. On a large project, you might have subject matter experts working different parts of the solution. Try to make sure that one person has over all responsibility for the solution to be bid. Then focus on keeping that person on schedule. Who owns the project if you win? You will usually know during the proposal who the project manager will be upon award. Make sure that person is involved in the proposal. Hopefully it will be the person responsible for determining the solution. The person who owns the project on award is one of the few in the process who has a real reason to want to win. Who owns the resources? Make sure you know who owns the resources you will be drawing on to produce the proposal. Unfortunately this person probably won’t be working on the proposal, and knowing who they are may not do you any good. But having someone to complain about may help you vent. Who owns the text? It is very important to make absolutely clear who owns the text in the proposal. Who has the authority to determine or veto changes? Is it the person who determines the solution or the person who provides the resources? Is it an executive sponsor? Is it the proposal manager? Usually all of them struggle for power over the text. It may not really matter who the person is, so long as it’s one person and everyone knows who it is. If you can establish a clear hierarchy over the text, you can save countless hours fighting over it. Who owns the outline? The outline drives the text. But section authors sometimes take liberties with the outline. By annotating the outline, you can provide specific instructions regarding the text. To a certain degree, you can control how long a proposal will take and control proposal assignments by controlling the outline. Who owns the process? Are you going to use storyboards? How will the Red Team review be managed? What tracking forms must be completed? How will configuration management be maintained? Does “pens down” really mean “pens down?” Whoever owns the process makes these decisions and wields a lot of power. Unfortunately business line leaders and executive sponsors often claim the proposal manager has this authority, but don’t let him or her exercise it. Who owns the schedule? Who decides when things are due and who is going to have to work the weekend? The clock is ticking and you don’t have time to argue about when things should be due. While the person who sets the schedule should seek the buy-in of the proposal participants, they must be able to make enforceable decisions or else the proposal is doomed to be a last-minute mess. Traditionally, we call the owner of the process and schedule the Proposal Manager. The solution is traditionally owned by the Capture Manager, who often is the project manager upon award. The text may be owned by the Capture Manager or the Proposal Manager. Joint ownership is a recipe for indecision and struggle. Make sure it’s clear. Resources come from where ever you can scrounge them with the lead business line having the greatest responsibility to contribute.

10) Start after RFP release. The winner has already started, the clock is ticking, and you don'’t have your act together? No bid. 9) Start writing with the intent to improve the draft. You'’re going to write it wrong and then correct it with no way of knowing when it’'s right? No bid. 8) Present things in a way that'’s “better” than what they ask for in the RFP. You're going to stray from being compliant, from giving things to them where they will be looking for it, and from how their evaluation forms will be structured? No bid. 7) Run out of time. You’'re going to be so rushed at the tail end that you'’ll not only skip the “nice-to-haves” (that are really what’'s required to win), but you'’ll even skip proof reading and quality assurance and finally submit a document when you really don’'t know how good or bad (more likely) it is. No bid. 6) Fail to incorporate your plans. You figured out what you need to do to win, what your solution will be, and what your message is, and then you set it aside to collect dust, unread. No bid. 5) Compete against a better positioned competitor. Someone else knows the customer better. More importantly the customer knows them better. They know more about the procurement and have been working towards it longer. The customer doesn'’t even know your name. No bid. 4) Fail to address things in the terminology of the evaluation criteria. The customer has not only told you what they want, but how they are going to score you during evaluation. You’'ve given them what you want to give them without concern for how they are going to make their selection. No bid. 3) Don'’t know the customer well enough to give them more than they ask for.You’'ve read the RFP and feel you’'ve done an excellent job of addressing it. You will lose to someone who has not only addressed the RFP requirements, but why the customer put them in there in the first place. No bid. 2) Drink your own bath water. Your internal staff tell you that the client likes you. But you haven’'t validated that the client likes you. You think because the customer likes you, they will like the proposal. But you haven'’t formally validated the proposal against the customers goals. You think because the customer likes you and will like your proposal, you feel you have a good chance of winning. But you haven'’t validated the proposal against the RFP, the evaluation criteria, any plan of what will be required to win, or any other metric. When you loose you will blame it on the customer’'s capriciousness. No bid. 1) Be non-compliant. You're giving the customer what you have or what you want to offer instead of what they'’ve asked for. Or you'’ve simply overlooked something. Either way --- No bid.

As a part of Government solicitations, the customer will occasionally offer the option for offerors to submit an Alternate Proposal. My experience as a Proposal Manager tells me that this is rarely, if ever, a good idea, for the following five reasons: The customer has no resources to evaluate it – Remember that the more proposals the customer receives, the more work is required by the Government. The Government’s budget to accomplish the evaluation of proposals– in estimated manpower – is typically established by the time the final version of the solicitation comes out. Therefore, the customer is more interested in DECREASING the evaluations required than in INCREASING the evaluations required, and an Alternate Proposal represents additional, and probably unbudgeted, work. This is NOT a good thing for the customer or for the offerors. The customer doesn't want it -- In general, the solicitation tells just what the customer wants to buy. In the best circumstance for you as an offeror, you have been able to influence (in a legal way, of course) the customers’ description of what he wants to buy. So any OTHER solution is likely NOT what the customer wants to buy, and is therefore definitely "swimming upstream, against the current“, with the customer. Doing so reflects the offeror’s arrogance – As an offeror, by submitting an Alternate Proposal, you are very likely demonstrating technical arrogance. In essence you are saying, "I have a BETTER idea.“ Unfortunately, that is a violation of one of my own personal rock-solid proposal rules, which is, "Don’t have a better idea; have HIS idea.“ It dilutes your own resources, and makes a quality job on the responsive proposal more difficult – Just as the Government has finite resources to evaluate incoming proposals, your own resources are finite, and probably determined no later than the release of the final solicitation. Therefore, using resources on an Alternate Proposal dilutes the resources for the responsive proposal. This makes doing a quality job on the responsive proposal more difficult. You don’t need this distraction. It confuses the customer about what your firm really WANTS to do, and can be taken as a sign of a lack of commitment on the part of your management team to really DO the work described in the responsive offer – When you offer an Alternate Proposal, this says to the customer, "Hey, I’d really RATHER give you this Alternate Solution, and I really don’t believe in the Responsive Solution. Therefore, even if I WIN the contract based on my Responsive Solution, I’m not going to support that solution wholeheartedly, and I’m probably going to be fighting you during this entire contract." Again, this is NOT a good position to be in, as it decreases your chances of winning. AND even if you win, is likely to make program execution more difficult. "Almost" When I say, "almost" never, I HAVE seen some circumstances where an alternate makes sense. Some circumstances where it makes sense to provide alternate proposals are as follows: We were bidding to the USPS to manage Remote Bar Coding System (RBCS) sites. Each RFP included about 11 sites in different cities where the USPS needed service. The bidders could bid to operate a single site; all sites; or any number of the sites that were up for bid. The bidder opted to submit multiple proposals because different combinations of sites produced organizational advantages and disadvantages with an overall value to the USPS that couldn’t be predicted. Sometimes it is the case that a bidder can offer a solution providing overwhelming value to the customer but which might cause the bidder to be unresponsive in some particulars of secondary importance. Sometimes there has been minimal contact by any prospective offeror with the customer before the solicitation comes out, and the customer truly DOESN’T know what he wants to buy. I think these exceptions are RARE. So before planning to submit that Alternate Proposal, be sure it makes good business sense, and you have a specific strategy for winning, based on that Alternate Proposal. Summary It’s difficult enough to respond to the solicitation of record, and tell how you plan to provide a solution that the Government suggests. Diluting your proposal efforts with an Alternate Proposal is generally NOT a good idea.

While as a consultant you can charge for your services based on value, fixed fees, commissions, or any other method, it is really helpful to think in terms of an hourly rate. There are only so many hours in a year. By converting everything to an hourly rate, even if you keep it to yourself, you'll have a better idea of how what you do compares to a make/buy determination and how you income compares to earning a salary. You can convert an annual salary to an hourly rate by dividing it by 2080 (52 weeks * 5 days * 8 hours). However, there are several other factors that need to be included in the calculation. The first is utilization. Consultants have to look for work in between jobs. While they are doing this, they are not getting paid. Consultants may spend only 50% of their time working. If they are busy, they may achieve 75% utilization. The first table below shows rates at 50% utilization, the second shows rates at 75% utilization. Some consultants work as individuals and some work through agencies. If a company needs a single consultant they might hire an individual, but if they've got a large proposal and need a dozen consultants, they will be more likely to go to a company that can provide them with a total solution than work with a dozen individuals. When you use consultants provided by a company, there is overhead added to the rate. This overhead rate can be anywhere from 30% to 100%. In the tables below, we’ve provided figures for an overhead rate of 40% and 60% to give a fairly typical range. Another factor that must be considered is benefits. Consultants do not get benefits packages in addition to their salary. If they want health insurance, they have to pay for it out-of-pocket, with no employer assistance. Payroll takes are normally split between the employee and his/her employer. Consultants pay a “Self-Employment” tax that is higher than what is deducted from employee paychecks. Even if you work with an individual consultant, it may be appropriate to factor in some overhead to cover these additional costs. Very few consultants actually calculate these costs, and simply charge what they think they can get. Supply and demand ultimately determines the rates consultants charge. However, the tables below can help you get over the shock value when a consultant says they charge over $100/hr. Determining how much you should pay for a consultant can be approximated by starting with what you would pay that person if they were a regular full-time employee. If you are looking for an entry-level person, $30-40k/yr would be a typical salary. An experienced proposal manager might cost $60-90k/yr, and an executive level manager even more. The tables show how an annual salary converts to an hourly rate without overhead, with a 40% overhead, and a 60% overhead. The first table shows a consultant working at 50% utilization and the second shows 75% utilization. The purpose of these tables is not to set or compare rates, but to help you better understand what goes into the value equation. Rates calculated with 50% utilization Annual Salary Rate with 60% Overhead Rate with 40% Overhead Rate without Overhead 30,000 $35 $30 $22 40,000 $46 $40 $29 50,000 $58 $50 $36 60,000 $69 $60 $43 70,000 $80 $70 $50 80,000 $91 $80 $57 90,000 $104 $91 $65 100,000 $115 $101 $72 110,000 $126 $111 $79 120,000 138 $121 $86 Rates calculated with 75% utilization Annual Salary Rate with 60% Overhead Rate with 40% Overhead Rate without Overhead 30,000 $29 $25 $18 40,000 $38 $34 $24 50,000 $48 $42 $30 60,000 $58 $50 $36 70,000 $67 $59 $42 80,000 $77 $67 $48 90,000 $86 $75 $54 100,000 $96 $84 $60 110,000 $106 $92 $66 120,000 $115 $101 $72 If you want to know how much in total it will cost to bring a consultant in to support a proposal, simply count the number of days between when they start and when the proposal is due. Some consultants offer a daily rate, some count every single hour worked. Keep in mind that the customer has a great deal of control over how well prepared they are and how smoothly reviews go. With 30-50% of total hours expended on the proposal consumed near the very end, the customer can dramatically influence the amount of hours required to do the job. That usually has a bigger impact on the total spend than the hourly rate.

Large proposals can have dozens of people working on them. You may have that many people working on yours and not even realize it. Proposals are typically organized into sections, with someone in charge of each. The person in charge of a section is typically called a book boss. A typical Federal Government proposal would be divided into technical approach, management plan, resumes, past performance, and cost/contracts volumes. Sometimes there are others (quality plan, deployment plan, sample tasks, etc.). Depending on the size of the proposal effort there may be several authors within each section being managed by the book boss. But even on a small proposal where the book boss is the primary author, you've got at least 5 people right there. On a commerce sales proposal, you'd probably start off with at least a sales person, sales support person, and technical/deployment representative involved. On a proposal involving teaming partners, it is usually a good idea to provide them with a single point of contact, rather than have all of the book bosses contacting them directly. The team member point of contact forms a matrix with the book bosses, giving the proposal manager people who focus and report on the status of individual sections and people who focus and report on the status of subcontractors. It also provides the team members with one person who can present your full set of proposal requirements and better manage expectations. On a small proposal with 2-3 subcontractors the capture manager might handle this, but on a larger proposal you'll need to dedicate someone to being the point of contact for your team members. It would not be difficult for a subcontractor coordinator to spend an hour on the phone with each team member (they have to address the needs of every proposal section). This means that if you want to cycle through the team members once each day, you'll need one coordinator for every 8 team members. If it's a large proposal with 20-30 team members, you need 3-4 people just to coordinate with your team members.. In addition to the proposal manager, you've got anywhere from 4-10 people at this stage. Now we start adding proposal support staff. You may have a proposal specialist involved to shepherd the process. On a small proposal, this person would coordinate with the book bosses and keep the tracking forms up to date. On a large proposal, there could be a coordinator for each section to maintain configuration management, complete tracking forms, etc. Add 1 to 5 people. If you've got layout and production staff available, add a layout person (up to one per section), graphics artist, and copy manager. 3-8 people. We're at 14-23 people. If you are collocating your staff for the duration of the proposal, with this many people involved, you'll want someone dedicated to logistics. Add 1 more. And since in most companies you have to fight to find available people and most are only available part time (so the actual body count is much higher), you'll need someone to focus on staffing. Otherwise, the proposal manager will spend all of his/her time chasing people and briefing them in. And finally don't forget to add the proposal manager, capture manager, red team leader, and executive in charge. We end this tale with the count at 19 for a small proposal and 33 for a decent sized one, and we don't have multiple authors per section, subject matter experts, etc. Of course you could just do all the writing yourself and do your own production. That is exactly what will happen if you fail to budget for what doing a proposal really takes.

Every company that creates proposals faces the question: Do we use permanent staff or Do we outsource the proposal function, by using proposal consultants? This question is especially important to Government contractors, partly because a large effort is often required to prepare winning proposals. The question is often stated as follows: "What is the best way to invest our precious Bid & Proposal (B&P) dollars". During the past 20 years, I have seen many companies facing this question. Their answers have ranged from keeping proposal preparation totally in house to outsourcing the entire proposal preparation process. Most companies fall in a spectrum between these two extremes, and use a mix of in-house staff and consultants. So the question becomes, "What is the right mix of permanent staff and proposal consultants?" The decision on where to be within this spectrum depends on two factors: What are the business development goals: Let’s assume that the goal is to develop $40 million in new business during the next year. Let’s further assume that we have a 50% win rate and that we usually bid on contracts either in the $5-$10 million range or in the $20-$30 million range. Then arithmetic tells how many bids we will need to prepare, and our recent experience helps us estimate the quantity of skills and hours needed to get the work done. How granular are the proposals? Although business development goals help define the quantity of effort needed to get the bids prepared, the granularity of the bids is even more important in determining how much effort to outsource and how much to keep in-house. A company bidding a large number of smaller contracts may be able to spread the effort so that they can handle all of their proposals in house. In contrast, a company bidding a few large programs, with gaps of inactivity between bids, can usually get the work done more economically using proposal consultants. For many companies, the issue of whether to outsource or not and if so how much is not clear-cut. Given the uncertainty of RFP releases, for example, it is impossible to predict the timing of proposal efforts. Consequently, good luck in the release schedules may mean an evenly spaced workload that the in-house staff can handle well. However, when too many bids stack up at the same time, due to simultaneous release dates, the only solution may be to outsource. Here are some guidelines for each approach: Largely Permanent Staff Solutions Bids are highly granular, and it is easy to maintain a steady-state proposal preparation operation; The group has valuable trade secrets that would be compromised by using consultant personnel; Business development goals are modest, and the in-house approach used in the past is satisfactory. Largely Outsourced Solutions The company typically bids a few large programs, producing a peak-and-valley workload in proposal preparation; The company is bidding programs in which the specialized expertise needed to win the contract is not available; There is a peak in the workload, due to simultaneous releases of several RFPs; The company wishes to make a large and dramatic increase in the volume of contract wins. Nearly all the federal bidders we have seen maintain some type of a permanent proposal staff. In the case of those firms bidding large opportunities very infrequently, the permanent staff may be just a part-time coordinator. A more common behavior is for a firm to maintain at least the staff needed to pursue one proposal at any one time. This typically includes at minimum a proposal manager, technical writer, editor, and combined coordinator / desktop publisher / graphic artist. A few robust divisions of Fortune firms still maintain large departments with thirty or forty or more personnel. Some companies with conservative business development goals outsource very little proposal work. They chose NOT to outsource, because they believed they could achieve their goals with only permanent staff. Many of those companies could have grown faster and could have achieved greater profits by using outside assistance to bid, and win, additional programs.

Instead of worrying about the wrong things on your proposal , you should make sure that you worry about the right things. Here are eight things that should keep you awake at night... Why will the customer select you, as opposed to a competitor? In every section of the proposal, you should base your response on answering this question. If you don’t know the answer, how can you possibly articulate it for the customer? While you’re at it, you might want to consider why the customer might select a competitor instead of you… and what you are going to do about it. You should worry about this until you are confident in your competitive advantage. And then continue to worry about it. What is not going to get done because you don’t have enough of the right staff assigned? If you don’t have enough people with the right skills, knowledge, and background working on the proposal, then those who are working on it will be rushed. If you have a few key people who are stretched thin, then they will be late meeting deadlines, take short cuts, and won’t have time to polish what they wrote or fix any problems. How is that going to impact your evaluation score? Can the writers deliver what you need from them? Separate from the issue of resource availability is resource capability. Can they deliver? Do they have the writing skills and knowledge needed? Your odds of getting what you need go up in direct proportion to the amount of planning detail you provide to them before they start writing. Once they start writing, you should watch closely for weakness (schedule or content) so that you can prepare contingency plans. Are the people you are counting on to provide customer awareness reliable? If the people advising you on the customer’s preferences are either biased, wrong, or covering up problems then you may be preparing a proposal for the wrong audience. Validating your customer awareness is tricky because you must address issues like bias and customer relationship problems objectively. Is the customer reliable? Does the customer understand their own requirements and what they are asking for? Will the customer follow through on what they have said they will do? Do they have internal consensus? Can they make a decision and stick to it? Will they deal openly and fairly? Can you trust them? What does the customer care about? You need to know this at every level: technical, management, compliance, evaluation criteria, etc. If you don’t know, then the success of your whole proposal rides on your ability to guess. Have you got the scope right? What are the limits on the project? How much? How long? How many people will it take? What should be included or excluded? Often a big difference in pricing isn’t the result of different rates or unit prices. It’s a result of bidding too many people or units, or including too much in the scope of the project. You should worry more about whether you have bid too much work or units rather than whether your rates or unit prices are too high. How do you get your reviewers to focus on the right things and not overlook anything? The more guidance you provide your reviewers, the more reliable the results. However, because reviewers tend to be senior managers, you’re often trying to direct people who have more authority than you have. The validation process we recommend is based on defining specific criteria to help ensure that you get what you need from the reviewers. However, you still need to make sure that the reviewers do not overlook anything. For example, you validate your plans to ensure they are correct before you start writing to them. The risk is that something will occur to them after the review, resulting in back-tracking, re-work, and lost time. There is more riding on whether you get the review of the plans right than there is in later reviews. That’s something worth worrying about.

They say Nero fiddled while Rome burned. During proposals people argue while the deadline clock runs out. Take a look at some of the things they argue about. See if you can spot the common elements. Can we win? Many times companies go after an RFP because they can do the work, not because they can win the bid. Once the bid decision has been made, it’s no longer politically safe to ask “Can we win?” Besides, calculating win probability is a difficult and unreliable exercise. When you are assigned the task of completing a proposal, you are expected to believe with all your heart that you can win. Freed of the need to worry about whether or not you can win, most companies focus on whether they can complete the proposal in time and please the powers that be. This usually means that they worry more about passing their draft reviews than they do about winning. Instead, try focusing on “What will it take to be competitive?” You don’t want to challenge the powers that be who decided to bid by asking whether you can win. But you do need to do the things that will get your proposal selected over those of your competitors. If you do a good job of defining what it will take to be competitive, then you create a set of criteria that you can measure the draft against. Then the things you ask people to do and how you assess their progress will come into alignment with what it will take to win. Spelling and grammar Editing is important. But if you look at everything written about quality writing, you will find editorial issues way over-represented. Worry about winning first. Editing may (or may not) be a factor in whether you win. But it is only one factor, and not the one with the biggest impact. This does not mean that you should submit a proposal full of typos. It means that the risk of not winning because you have one here or there is lower than the risk of not winning because you failed to articulate why the customer should select you. You probably have a greater chance of the customer noticing a layout error than a grammar error. When you must set priorities, base them on their impact on your proposal’s evaluation score. Editors love to challenge you with “but you never know…” This is not a justification to go to the head of the line. Prioritization means you take risks. Worry about things in the right order. Style Style is even lower on the hierarchy of needs than editing. Most proposals run out of time long before style can be addressed. Some people try to overcome that by passing out a style manual or editorial guide to the subject matter experts on the proposal. As if the people who don’t have time to write their sections are going to have time to read about style and change theirs in addition to completing their assignment. You are better off asking them to focus on content and ignore style. Then bring editors in after the assignments are complete to correct it. It’s more efficient that way. Of course you’ll probably run out of time and have to skip it. But that’s because it’s a lower priority, and putting your lower priority up front to distract people with questionable writing skills to begin with is not the answer. Formatting the document for review I have seen companies go through a 48-hour production cycle just to format a draft the same as the final before giving it to the reviewers. Usually this is because the reviewers want to see the document the “same way the customer will see it.” This is a good goal. You may find that reviewers do a better job of evaluating a well formatted document. But is it worth the time? To answer that you have to ask yourself what you are asking the reviewers to evaluate. Are you asking them to evaluate the formatting or design of the layout? This would be a waste since it’s going to go through a number of change cycles after the draft review and get reformatted at the end. Besides, is that really what you want your executive reviewers worrying about? Are you asking them to evaluate how easy it is to find things in the proposal? The odds are that any problems are due to a bad outline and if you haven’t validated your outline before the draft is written, then it’s too late to do much about it. If you itemize the things you want the evaluators to consider, then you’ll probably find that their assessment does not require any special formatting. And if they want it just because they want it and as executives they are used to getting what they want, then you did a bad job of training them. You will get more out of spending time setting review criteria and training your reviewers than you will on providing them copy that is formatted. You need to discuss reviews, the criteria for the reviews, and what “ready for review” means at the beginning of the process, long before you actually get to the review to set the right expectations. It’s a question of priorities. What do you (and the executives) want to drop in order to move formatting for reviews up on the list? The Cover Graphic Multiply the number of people times the length of time they spend discussing the cover graphic. You may be shocked to find that it consumes hours. Should it? A well designed text-only cover can be just as effective. The next time you go to a book store, notice how many covers have no graphic at all. Next consider whether it has ever impacted your decision to purchase a book. Still, you want to project a “quality” image. So how much time is it worth? The best way to minimize that time is to reduce the number of people involved and the number of discussions. Keep it simple. Color Scheme Like the cover graphic, it’s not worth hours of discussion. Pick something and move on. Or print in black and white. Focus on articulating your message. Have you given the customer a reason to select you? Is it compelling? They will have a much bigger impact than your color scheme. How many graphics are there? A winning proposal may have no graphics in it. None. Nada. Zilch. But only if it has a strong message. And if it has a strong message, then graphics can help it jump off the page. In order to successfully use graphics, you must have the message. This means you must be able to articulate why what you are trying to communicate should matter to the customer. Once you have that articulation down, then you can consider how graphics can make that message clear. If the message isn’t there, graphics won’t save you. Instead of asking yourself how many graphics you have, try asking whether you have a compelling message that clearly articulates why the customer should select you. If you do, then ask yourself how you can enhance that message using visuals. It’s not the number of graphics, it’s the effectiveness of your message that matters. If you don’t have the right message, then you need to fix that before you can address the issue of graphics. Pricing Instead of worrying about your price, worry about the scope. More proposals are lost because you bid too many hours or too much work than are lost because your rates are higher. Even if the RFP specifies the number of staff and/or hours, it is still better to worry about how much value you are delivering than it is to worry about how many pennies you can shave off your rates before you will lose staff. What you propose to do and how you propose to do it will ultimately have the biggest impact on both your chances of winning and your final price. Conclusion When one approach is clearly superior to another, people tend not to argue. They only argue when the difference between them is small enough to make the matter debatable. In other words, people tend to argue when it really doesn’t matter. Because arguing is stressful, people tend to worry when they anticipate an argument. In other words, people tend to worry about choices that really don’t matter. People also tend to argue when limited time and resources mean they can’t have it all. They argue because they don’t want their position sacrificed in order to meet the deadline. These arguments are the worst kind, because the clock is running out while people debate and deliberate. The result is that many of the things people worry or argue about on a proposal are either unnecessary or really about priorities. I find it curious how many of them have to do with production, which comes at the tail end when the deadline pressure is being felt the most. You’d think people would fight over the proposal plans or win strategies. Sometimes they do, but with plenty of time before the deadline, they either work something out or go into a passive resistance mode.

Must Win opportunities are important. A Must Win opportunity demands an even more heroic effort than all the other pursuits that people pour their hearts and souls into trying to win. Nobody really knows what the extra "something" should be, but if it's a Must Win opportunity, it's got to have it. Must Wins are typically opportunities that are critical to the company for either strategic or financial reasons. Recompetes are often Must Wins because the company relies on them financially and in other ways. In a service business, the amount of money available for overhead and other expenses is a percentage of your total business. If you reduce that total, you must either reduce your overhead expenses or raise your rates/prices. It's so much better to win and not have to face that choice. Must Wins can also be strategic, such as breaking into a new customer, releasing a new product, or launching a new service line/capability. In each of these cases, you need something that you can cite as a reference, so your first customers are critical to your success. They often merit extra effort to secure the win. A Must Win opportunity isn't special just because someone named it so or because the company really wants to win. What separates a Must Win opportunity from other opportunities is resources. A Must Win opportunity is different because the company is prepared to do whatever it takes to win. If a Must Win opportunity pursuit is starved for resources, then it really isn't a "Must Win." It is worth noting that it is not sufficient to throw bodies at a Must Win opportunity. You need experienced, knowledgeable staff --- the kind whose availability is always in demand. A Must Win opportunity is not one to staff with people whose major qualification is that they happen to be available. Must Win pursuits should be started long before the RFP is released. If an opportunity just pops up and gets labeled a Must Win, something is wrong. A Must Win that is known in advance but gets started late is also a bad sign. A major reason that companies hold off on starting a pursuit for a known opportunity is that it costs more to start early. However, starting early is one of the best ways to invest in a Must Win pursuit. Even when they are started early, Must Wins often lose momentum, because they don't have a business development process in place that provides a way to measure progress. Many companies who start early follow the "let's find out everything we can" approach. This approach is rarely effective. You need to have clear goals regarding what you want to know and what you want to achieve before the RFP is released. Progress towards meeting these goals should be evaluated on a regular basis to determine whether strategies are sufficient to properly position your company to win. As the name implies, companies try harder to capture Must Win opportunities. They often try to implement best practices and improve their processes to help ensure a better chance of capturing the Must Win. This approach requires lots of training and hand-holding since the staff working on the proposal, though experienced, may have limited exposure to the process. It may also require some patience since the people implementing the process may not have had a chance to fine tune it. The more outreach you do, the better. In addition to making sure that staff know with absolute clarity what is expected of them, you need to make sure that they understand how to go about completing their assignments. It's much worse when companies who don't have process discipline try to invent it for their Must Wins. While most people understand the value of a good process, those who are inclined to resist know that they only have to outlast the proposal. If process discipline has not been part of the culture, you will always have people who will resist. If your assignments and process are well-defined, you will have many opportunities to evaluate performance. You may have better luck focusing on results than on process. Takeaway Merely saying that an opportunity is a "Must Win" will not make it so. If you want your Must Win pursuits to be meaningful, there are a few key things you must do: Start early - but measure progress Provide sufficient resources - and make sure staff are experienced and capable Implement best practices and process - but provide lots of training and hand-holding If you do any one of the above without the other, your chances of winning go way down. Final Note

You should structure your business development and proposal processes around what it will take to win. The problem is that most people prepare their proposals without having a clear idea what it will take to win. Only the customer really knows what that will take, so many companies don't even try to answer it. Government RFPs make it easy to be lazy. They give you the evaluation criteria. The process is heavily regulated. You can follow the process, be RFP compliant, and even optimize against the evaluation criteria, all without really understanding what it will take to win. People frequently find themselves writing the proposal and then sprinkling some themes and win strategies in at the last minute. When you ask yourself what it takes to win, each item you consider leads to more items that you need in order to get there. Each layer that you peel back takes you further back in time. It also tells you what you need to do at each step to arrive at the winning proposal. It can be a very helpful exercise to show people why they need to take action early in the process instead of waiting until the end. To win a government proposal, you need to get the best score during the evaluation process, have the right price, and present the right offering. The right price is not always the lowest price. But it has to be competitive, within their budget, and well substantiated. The right offering must not only meet the specifications, but must also help the customer achieve their goals, wants, and desires. To achieve the best score on a government proposal requires you to design your proposal around the evaluation criteria and process. Instead of simply writing the proposal, you must plan and design your content to achieve the best possible score. You also should establish a positive relationship with the customer before the RFP is released. If the customer wants to select you, it can only help your score. Designing a proposal to win starts with having an outline that matches not only the instructions in the RFP, but also their evaluation forms and procedures. You should make smart use of layout design and navigation aids (RFP relevance boxes, cross-reference tables, etc.) to make it easier for the evaluators to see how to give you the maximum points for each section. Finally, you should communicate visually and use graphics to the maximum extent possible, to make it easier for the evaluators to quickly read, assess, and score your proposal. To do this, you are going to need to know how the customer evaluates their proposals --- not just what it says in the RFP, but their internal procedures, preferences, and tendencies. This information is available, and often even published, so often it's just a matter of asking about it early while you can still get it. Finally, keep in mind that each proposal is unique. Never use boilerplate unedited. There are so many variables in the customer, offering, evaluation criteria, and competitive environment, that you need to customize your design for each proposal. You must plan your proposal's content in order to maximize its score. This starts by having an offering that reflects what the customer wants. But it also requires having good representation of the keywords in the RFP, the right points of emphasis, and alignment between your content and the evaluation criteria to maximize your score. Once you have achieved these things, you can focus on having a persuasive presentation. If you start by writing, and don't plan all of the goals the writing needs to accomplish, there is no way you can achieve the best possible score. So how do you get the right offering that will make the customer want to select you, above and beyond the procedures for scoring the proposal? First, you need to have the right understanding of the customer's needs. The solution that you develop to meet the customer's needs must also fall within their budget. Achieving that means making accurate estimates and making the right trade-offs. The right trade-offs are the ones that reflect the customer's preferences. To achieve that means you have to know which trade-offs the customer would prefer. You also need to develop your offering to reflect how you wish to position yourself against the competition. Finally, in presenting your offering, you need to include the right level of detail. Doing this requires understanding what level of detail the customer wants. Ultimately, all you really need to do is to give the customer more of what they want than any competing offer. All you need to do this is to know more about the customer's current state, goals, issues, wants, desires, needs, level of consensus, politics, etc. You cannot achieve this level of understanding from the RFP alone. To have the right understanding, you need to have a positive customer relationship, knowledge of their needs and the nature of the opportunity, and understanding of the competitive environment. A certain amount of self-awareness will also be required to understand the alignment of your own organization with the customer, as well as to anticipate what you need to do to pursue it. So what does it really take to win? There is one thing that drives every item described above. To win you need the relationships that provide the intelligence you need to design and execute a winning plan. If you start with a winning proposal and peel back the layers, you end up going back in time to before the RFP is released. Winning starts with pre-RFP relationships. But it takes more than just the relationship itself. The relationship must satisfy the information needs of activity at every step along the way. Whether you are developing your offering, planning and designing your proposal, or writing the proposal content, being successful requires information that is dependent on a pre-RFP relationship. A successful pursuit process will not only start pre-RFP and get that information, but will follow through to make sure that the information results in the best evaluation score backed by an offering that delivers what the customer wants at the right price.

Does this sound familiar? Have you ever noticed that while everyone says they have a process, no one actually follows it during a pursuit? When people are given assignments they often go off and do what they think should be done, regardless of what's actually in the assignment. Reviews are usually based on subjective opinions instead of any meaningful criteria. When changes are requested, people often try to run out the clock so they don’t have to bother with them and can do what they planned to do in the first place. Our solution: Successful process documentation doesn’t just sit on a shelf. It gets used because it makes things easier. Not in some hypothetical time “down the road,” but right now and at every step. If your process isn’t written, ready to distribute immediately, followed by everyone, and if it doesn’t address pre-RFP as well as post-RFP activity, you need to replace it. When the people working on your proposal view the process documentation as an indispensable aid, then they will refer to it at every step and thank you for providing it. Here is what you need if you want people to follow your process: Create a workbook instead of a process manual. Build your process around forms and checklists. Instead of thinking about policies and procedures, think about the issues that people face, and what you can put on paper to help them solve those issues. Think in terms of evolving your process instead of writing it. If you don’t have time to write it all down, then just assemble something helpful and add to it every chance you get. Grow it over time. Experiment with it. Watch it get better with each proposal. Each time you experience pain, write in a cure. Create something that can survive reality. Instead of flow charts, provide guidance for making decisions. Instead of trying to control how they do everything, try to help them achieve their goals. Think about the flow of information, and help them collect the right information at the right time and in the right format to accomplish the tasks. Make it easier to use the workbook than it is to wing it. Keep it short. Identify who needs to read what and encourage them to skip to the parts that matter to them. Collect only the information you need, and put it in a format that is re-useable. Instead of begging people to follow the process, you want them thinking why on earth they would try to figure things out by themselves when all they have to do is turn the page to find out what to do next. Give them a chance to opt-out. Give the Executive Sponsor of a proposal a chance to opt-out of your process. Put a copy of the process in their hands and encourage require them to read it before consenting. If they can’t commit to the time required for informed consent, then they are not capable of meeting the process requirements. For any process. If they don’t commit, all you can do is offer to facilitate production, but you can’t manage the proposal or ensure its quality. Opting in should be an all or nothing consideration. An Executive Sponsor wants, more than anything, to know what they can expect. Turn your process into expectations that you can commit to. For example, you can provide clarity of assignments, progress monitoring, expectation management, and quality validation. If they want those things, they have to pay the price. The price is their support in implementing the process. Think of your relationship with the Executive Sponsor like a contract. Both parties commit to certain things. Neither is forced to sign. However, both parties want things that motivate them to agree to the terms. Not only will most opt-in, but they’ll seek you out in order to get their expectations met reliably. When the Executive Sponsor feels he or she can rely on you, they will support you. It’s much more satisfying than waiting until you have a problem and begging for an audience.

This article is the second in a series offering solutions to the "unsolvable" problems of proposal development. Does this sound familiar? You feel like you never have the information you need when an RFP is released, even if it’s your company’s own recomplete. Even if your company knows about a bid ahead of the RFP release, it seems like the time somehow disappears without much to show for it. When the RFP is finally released, you find that you don’t have the staff you need to bid on the project let alone work on the proposal. People say that you have win strategies, but you can’t find them written down anywhere. In fact, you typically find yourself starting the proposal without anything in writing… Our Solution: Perform Readiness Reviews during the period of time before the RFP is released. Each Readiness Review needs to have specific goals that lead to being ready to win at RFP release. While somewhat similar in concept, most “gate reviews” that we have seen somehow don’t actually get the team ready to write a winning proposal. We recommend having four Readiness Reviews. For each review, prepare a list of questions and action items. More than anything else, this list will determine the success or failure of your reviews. Ours has 10-20 items on it for each review. At each review, the questions become more detailed. By the final review, you should be moving from collecting raw intelligence to staging information in a format ready to use in the proposal. We do not expect people to be able to answer all of the questions we ask. Instead, we look for them to answer as many as are humanly possible, and to provide help, guidance, and alternative approaches for the questions that they have been unable to answer. At each review, assess whether the answers provided and actions taken are sufficient to prepare you for RFP release. We use a Red/Yellow/Green scale to grade the answers to each question. You should see answers that score a “Yellow” or “Red” in an early review move to “Green” by later review. While movement in the other direction is bad, it’s good to have an objective way to identify it when you are slipping. We schedule the Readiness Reviews proportionally. This way if you find out about the opportunity one month before RFP release, you have a week to prepare for each review. If you are tracking a year in advance you have three months to prepare for each review. And if you find out about it at (or even after) RFP, it tells you what you need to find out in order to get caught up. Our approach works because it provides guidance during the critical period before the RFP is released. It tells your business developers what intelligence you need collected and how your company should be positioned in order to win the proposal. It also provides a means to transfer knowledge and streamline the transition from business development to the proposal. Readiness Reviews also enable you to measure your progress towards being ready for RFP release. This feedback is important. It shows you how much more you need to do in order to be prepared. It can also be used to show trends or areas of weakness across multiple pursuits.

This article is the first in a series offering solutions to the "unsolvable" problems of proposal development. The nature of the problem. Everyone has an opinion. And the more that is at stake, the more they stick to their opinion. It doesn’t help that proposal quality is notoriously difficult to objectively define, let alone measure. It’s so hard that most people don’t even try. The result is that they end up arguing over whether the proposal is any good or which is the better approach to something. You can even catch them saying totally unproductive things like “I don’t know how to define it, but I’ll know when I see it.” This also is an impediment to effective proposal reviews. Without a definition of proposal quality, reviewers are free to identify anything about the document that they don’t personally like. This not only leads to reviews that are not consistently effective, but also to reviews that contradict themselves or are even ignored as irrelevant. What should you do about it? First, you need a definition for proposal quality. We recommend this one: One reason we like this definition is that it forces you to identify what is necessary to win. When asked what it will take to win, technical staff tend to think in terms of solution features. But if you are submitting in response to a written RFP with a formal evaluation process, then you can start with what it will take to obtain the highest evaluation score. Add in anything that might disqualify you. Keep going until you have a decent list. Then start looking at what you have to do to achieve the things on your list. You can build your entire process around your list of what it will take to win. Think about how it impacts the planning of your proposal content. You can no longer simply pass out an outline. There are items on your list that the authors need to address. Once you have a draft, you can validate whether you have achieved the items on your list. You can build your entire review process around your list, and make it much more effective. Instead of having open-ended reviews, you have a scope definition for each review. Reviewers get guidance and accountability. When you use this definition, you can measure your progress by tracking how many items you have achieved on your list of what it will take to win. This is a big improvement over simply crossing off items on the outline and counting the number of days until the deadline. Defining quality makes a big difference because it is less subjective. It also helps by forcing people to define the standard at the beginning of the proposal instead of waiting until the end. It brings the planning of your content, the execution of reviews, the measuring of progress, and the goals you are trying to achieve all into alignment. By focusing your attention on what really matters, it leads to the desired outcome — winning. The best part is, instead of arguing over what “good” means and what a “quality” proposal looks like, you can instead argue over what it will take to win. And that will be a far more productive argument.