Better Proposals Yield Better Wins!

This book is not singularly intended for Proposal Managers, or writers. It has content that will be of value to CXOs, division/business unit leaders and management, business development, capture management and other marketing and sales staff, and any other persons in business who rely on proposals for any part of their business. It may or should give you some additional insight in areas of significance to your firm.

This book reflects straight-up bids to prospects (and customers) for products, systems and services, technical services and management consulting. It does NOT reflect the many technology licensing, OEM, VAR/reseller and other business deals I have consummated over the years as Director/VP of Marketing & Sales for private and public product firms. Those experiences and recommendations would be another book.

While many aspects of those deals/proposals and contract efforts are similar in some-to-many ways, there are many differences. BUT in man instances, I worked with the customers (direct and channel) in developing proposals for them to use in their efforts, and much of this book WAS applicable to those efforts.

If you’d like, you can jump ahead to Tip 1 and return here later.

=O=O=O=

I imagine that all of you have noticed one thing in particular these past several years:

The business environment IS changing.

1. To some extent, prospects and customers are becoming more precise in defining what they want, and the apparent trend is to more rapidly acquire and utilize new technology and tools as they become available. However, RFPs with holes and ambiguous and/or amorphous content still are issued.

2. Much of the buying market is trying to disengage from proprietary solutions that lock them into a specific product family or suite, and garner the value of new technologies as they become available. E.g., big data is being treated as one entity, and adaptable analytics that can process a variety of big data sets is another. No one tool set seems to offer everything a firm needs, so modest to complex systems integration is the norm.

3. In many cases, vendor allegiance is or is shifting to a transitory model.

4. Vertical skills specialty firms are on the rise, especially in the areas of Cloud Computing, and CyberSec among others from both a skill and product perspective.

5. With financial pressures on all firms, economy of investments, real life cycle costs, and other factors are entering into procurements of all forms from a buyer and seller economy-of-effort perspective.

6. More risk is being pushed down on vendors -- prospects and repeat customers want items that work, are proven, and in most cases, do not take months to implement. Additionally, there is a conscious shift to performance-based contracts with the Performance Work Statement developed/completed by the bidders.

The landscape for competitive procurements for goods and services is changing. In the government especially, those changes will have major impacts.

Across the board in all buying communities -- from government to the private sector -- buyers are changing, and getting smarter, perhaps even more careful. With many alternative sources for products and services in market, you might not be the only choice (or even the best choice in a price-competitive environment); replacing you if you fail or are failing might not be that hard, especially in today’s market.

All buyers want 100% (or more) value for their expenditure. Many buyers are not willing to pay for remediation when the possible cost of replacing you and getting the work finished by another firm is less expensive than continuing the current effort or it is a politically necessary thing to do.

Winning firms will often give more than 100% to KEEP the customers.

Cost containment and performance accountability has been, and remains, very much in the spotlight now, perhaps even more so than in the previous several decades. This focus is obvious in all business arenas.

In a November 26, 2012 article entitled A Less Rosy Outlook by Marjorie Censer of the Washington Post, she noted that services contractors, who had expanded and grown in the past decade, were being forced to prepare for tighter and tougher times. She noted that price consciousness in the government was a driver. She also pointed to the spinout of services businesses (business units) from large prime contractors. This created new, leaner companies with a new focus and competitive edge. This means more competitors for a tighter dollar pool.

In my opinion, the role and value of the quality proposal today is greater than it was in the past, and the importance of the content is all the more critical in the face of the competitive issues facing firms today.

As tough as they have been, proposals will become tougher in the public and private sector as competition increases and options for solutions are either broadened or narrowed based on area of focus. In the public sector, major changes in information technology and related services WILL have an impact on the proposal processes used. While firms will have some period of time to adjust to the new acquisition models implied in legislation and policy changes occurring on a continuing basis in government agencies, the nature of proposals will change to varying degrees.

In the private sector, some industry pundits today suggest that firms should not bother with requests for proposals since those are only ploys to get the product or services at the cheapest price, and can actually undermine your firm.

I would think (hope) the focus of this mindset is on pure product and related services bids, not on more complex and larger system bids where you are a team member, for example.

The philosophy behind this do not respond mentality is that when the client/prospect executes a contract with another firm, and fails, it will listen to reason and you can sell your wares/services at fair market price (e.g., list price), and all will be well.

Were it only so. Yes, many products and services will be simply purchased without open competition. However, this will likely not apply to high dollar value procurements given the nature of what is being sought or procured. And with tighter budgetary times, and alternatives to chose from, it becomes a buyers’ market, NOT a sellers’ market.

There are many ways to win business successfully and profitably -- and you can lose business and run up a price tag in dollars and diminution of human capital you cannot afford.

Today, firms need to be increasingly conscious of those options and possibly improve their proposal best practices, processes and systems and reduce the potential for, or impact of, proposal problems of any kind. A problem with a proposal often has far-reaching implications in a firm. Several examples of this problem creation are provided later.

Proposals in one form or another have been at the center of my career for over 40 years -- well over 1,000 of them to give you a ballpark. The proposals ranged from as little as a one-day consulting engagement, other modest foot-in-the door proposals, systems and services bids for millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, and at the high end, a successful $6 BILLION proposal and resulting contract for IT and legacy systems software conversion with the US Air Force under the Phase IV Program for which I served as Sales AND Proposal Manager.

Efforts also included the following, among others: (a) the development of boilerplate proposals and How to Use This Proposal guidance documents developed for my product/system resellers for use in their distribution channels globally to help them jumpstart product introductions and sales; and (b) the assistance provided to my licensees/OEMs on specific bids in the aerospace, electronics, and government sectors, among others in the 30+ market areas in which I have supported clients and customers. This does not include the additional marketing, technical, training and other materials developed for employers and clients.

In the total number of bids, the split between pure services (e.g., IT-related services and management consulting) and IT systems and services is about 70%/30%, but in dollar volume, it is 90% IT systems and services and 10% services and management consulting.

I have seen proposal processes and systems come and go, and the nature of the tools used to build proposals mature and become more sophisticated. At the same time, many firms rely on established processes and word processing/graphics tools for quality proposals and do not resort to or rely on complex processes and advanced, expensive graphics tools, for example. It is a matter of internal preference.

Problems in proposals are to be expected. It is in the nature of the beast. Some problems surface occasionally, but some happen often enough to consider them recurring problems, and should be points of concern for proposal management in a firm.

If you have recurring problems, go figure out why, and take appropriate action...and today would be a good day to do that than after you have another problem proposal or lose another bid.

Timely intra-team communications is the heart of many, if not most, problems. Other than that, problems happen in proposals for three primary reasons:

1. Complexity: What the RFP is for in the way of products and services: some are straightforward and allow development of quality proposals with little to no problem. Some, especially the more complex, even convoluted RFPs, almost guarantee proposal problems of minor-to-major proportions. Associated with this are the occasional or on-going revisions/amendments to the RFP: some are of minor consequence, some blow up what you have been doing.

2. Planning and Workflow: How the proposal is planned, staffed, written, reviewed and produced -- and that heavily relates to skill of the proposal manager, management support, staffing -- and ultimately the size and skill of the bidding firm.

3. Changes to Proposal Elements that ripple across one-to-many other parts of the proposal, whether driven by RFP modifications, changing the proposed solution (bid item(s)) in any way, or simply changes in one area upon which many other areas are dependent. Often, these changes are price-related (tuning), but can include anything from changing proposed activities (detail, scope, sequence), the program management plan…or even qualifications write-ups, especially when team members or sub-contractors are changed at the lays minute as does happen.

There is no restriction as to which items are singularly responsible for proposal problems. Anything related to a proposal can cause a problem of some sort. And one problem can cause others with ripple effects in any direction, and at any time.

Sometimes those impacts are internally-generated, such as changing your solution/approach. They may occur because of a change in the solicitation that creates some-to-substantial rework at any point and things go awry regardless of the planning, professionalism, and effective prior work in/for that proposal’s development.

The top issues I have seen are shown in the following figure. These are issues I have encountered over 40 years, and which were reaffirmed over the past 12 months in an informal survey of full-time employee and contracted proposal writers and Proposal Managers. The figure reflects the top problems appearing least-to-most frequently (top-to-bottom of figure). The ranking is based on the re-affirmation review in which over 40 items were identified and ranked. As you can see, some are nearly equally ranked.

The comment about that characteristic was interesting: to paraphrase, when these (issues) hit, they seem to hit at the same time. If you look at them, you can see why that might be the case.

Intra-team Communications came out as the most common problem, but spanned many specific items as summarized in item 3 above (Changes to Proposal Elements) above. It also spawned other problems, as is discussed throughout the book.

Figure 1 - Top Issues in Proposal Development

Many firms I have worked for and with have had smooth running operations, solid processes, and solid, professional in-house staff, as well as effectively prepared proposal (management and writer) contractors, subcontractors and team members.

However, these firms were not exempt from problems: they also had issues along the way, but were usually prepared to deal with problems and avoided any meltdown scenario, or had the depth of talent and resources to work through or around them rapidly. Historically, it is generally the smaller (small-to-mid-cap) firms that stumble lacking both the background and experience in these areas -- but even large firms have their issues from time-to-time, and stems from one to many factors.

However, the top recurring heart attack problem, which I refer as Ground Zero, is the on-going changes in the solution/technical and related program management approach (and what THAT affects) while the proposal is being written, and the direct and ripple-down problems that those changes cause, especially in the last few days before a proposal is due.

This happens much more often than not.

These changes MIGHT stem from a RFP modification, or some internally driven decision or other requirement. By themselves, those several items can cause issues in a proposal. Failed communications only amplifies the problem. The scale and scope of on-going, late or last minute changes is the heart of the problem’s scope.

You know the phrase It is tough to lay track in front of a moving train: you are trying to

(a) finish the proposal,

(b) incorporate last-minute changes that may be extensive, and

(c) prepare for publication and delivery, all at the same time.

Items (a) and (c) themselves are tough enough as you approach the finish line. Add in item (b) and you may -- or likely will -- have a serious problem.

Irrespective of cause, any last minute changes to a proposal in any area, even graphics, can have the same net effect of starting/creating a proposal meltdown scenario. The extent to which it goes unchecked dictates the severity of the resulting problems. It is NOT linear. On a complex bid with many inter-related items, the closer you are to the delivery date, the greater the impact of any single change, and multiple/ripple changes can be devastating based on the extent of the impact. There are several examples of that provided in the book.

That is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast. For all the technology and processes we use in developing proposals, for all the maturity we show in our approach and handling of an RFP and proposal, problems will occur.

Ground Zero is separately addressed as a topic but NOT a Tip, since there are no specific recommendations that can be made to your trying to tune the solution to achieve both the best answer for the prospect at the best price. But even so, you can find ways of minimizing the impacts, and approaches to that minimization are addressed in the book.

If the discussion on Ground Zero were a Tip, it would simply be

Assume Nothing and

Never Stop Timely Communications Within The Team.

Effective intra-team communications can help mitigate issues and facilitate recovery. The events around a Ground Zero scenario can defeat plans and schedules. Only the hard efforts of the proposal team address and resolve the issues as they occur, and sometimes the issues expand or amplify each other. A description of one such situation highlights this.

As you will see in the Ground Zero discussion, this TIMELY and on-going intra-team communications is critical. In most proposal efforts, communications at the beginning seems fine. At that point, communication starts to break down primarily because of the following - and these are broad statements, which encompass many sub-areas:

1. the effort gets more complicated and has more moving parts than anticipated (e.g., because of major DRFP-RFP differences, or deltas between your understanding of the forthcoming RFP (no draft available) and the actual RFP, or major changes to one or more elements of the bid which always seem to relate to other items );

2. greater levels of detail are required OR the nature of the response is more complicated than anticipated, so peoples’ work/levels of effort increase and they don’t keep people in that real-time loop; and

3. proposal staff changes/unavailability or staff is reassigned losing those threads of continuity and established proposal/collaboration working relationships, e.g., between writers working on related areas, or and SME and a writer.

There are other reasons for communications failures, but the above items seem to top that list.

However, if you have the same problems other than intra-team communications occurring consistently in your efforts, it is time to stand back and see what is going on.

Something is likely wrong, somewhere, in your approach. It might be process, or it might be staff. It might be many things separately or in combination, or even corporate culture which can support or undermine a proposal. There are several examples of that as well in this book.

Culture in an organization, and the habits and work expectations and pressures on the people involved are also factors. The Tips regarding SMEs touch on this with a specific focus, but other anecdotes in the book carry the same message. Culture and expectations can work for you or against you.

No single problem stands alone. Many interrelate or interoperate with or even amplify others. You can win or lose based on many factors, and your primary focus is to be sure the proposal itself is NOT the primary cause of a loss, and fully supports the win. In some cases, the proposal may be the only item or act that gets you a win. And proposals’ second biggest challenge is time and effective time and asset management.

=O=O=O=

As this book was being outlined and parts condensed, and after recommendations from several colleagues, I took their advice to write it in the first person to explain my personal insight and witness of, even participation in, the items addressed herein. It makes the discussions more personal, relatable and relevant. It also kept the impact more vivid than trying to simply create an arm’s length rules book.

The observations span experiences with employers and the many clients I have supported as a consultant in over 30 industry verticals. Those firms span the gamut of small-to-Fortune 50 firms, and of course, government at the federal, state and local levels. Every story/anecdote/experience related here is real, and several are understated.

With rare exception, the same issues surfaced to one extent or another in most efforts, though not all issues were repeated in any business venue (employer, client), and were not restricted to specific industries. Issues on a large health-care IT services contract were a large subset of those encountered on a large IT Service bid to the government; issues on a complicated system acquisition and implementation contract to a very large financial services firm were almost identical to those for a firm in the auto industry. Common proposal issues? RFP/requirements changes, timelines, staff reassignments, and several others.

But proposal issues can be generic and apply to other types of efforts where any request for information is required. As an example, analogous problems plagued one government client in preparing reports and documents to go to another government agency. That is worthy of a recap.

Reflecting back on that situation, my client encountered 27 of the 42 Tips issues-- PLUS communications. The biggest hurdle we had was determining exactly what the other agency wanted based on the request: some parts of the request were crystal clear; some were amorphous, ambiguous, and open to broad interpretation. I was assigned to the response team. When I first read the request, I said, without thinking, Reads like an RFP to me. Client response? "NOW I get it!" and a lot of laughter.

As a personal preference, I have always tried to understand the prospect mindset. It has helped more than one occasion. That day, after the laughter, we discussed the situation and my client DID get the requesting agency’s mindset. Some changes were made. The final documents satisfied all areas of interest.

The Tips address real issues that plague proposal teams to various degrees. There can never be perfection and elimination of problems. However, you can take steps to reduce and mitigate them, which may result in savings in time and costs, and stabilization or improvement of your process, and even employee morale. These several benefits alone can be invaluable.

If you get one new idea, one viable alternative, or even just question what you do and re-affirm it, then this book has value to you. You might even find some value is using this for a forensic view of past efforts. To support that, a checklist of the tips as named in this book is provided for you to print out and complete -- and put some $$ values in to see what impact those issues had -- or could have had -- on you.

=O=O=O=

In the balance of this book, common terms are used. Just to get the list of abbreviations out of the way, the following acronyms have the following meanings:

--CDRL - Contract Data Requirements List

--CO - Contracting Officer

--COO - Concept of Operations (also called ConOps)

--COTR - Contracting Officer Technical Representative

--DID - Data Item Description

--Doc - Document

--DRFP - Draft RFP

--DTP - Desktop Publishing

--GWAC - Government-wide Acquisition Contract

--IT - Information Technology

--IDIQ - Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

--MILHBK (or MILHDBK) - Military Handbook

--MIL-Q - Military Quality Standards

--MIL-STD - Military Standard

--MAS - Multiple Award Schedule

--Prop - Proposal

--PWS - Performance Works Statement

--RFI - Request for information

--RFP - Request for Proposal

--RFQ - Request for Quote

--SME - Subject Matter Expert

--SOO - Statement of Objectives

--SOW - Statement of Work

A more formal and comprehensive glossary is in Appendix 1. It is by no means complete, but includes key and representative items.

Four other items:

1. Pricing as a topic received substantial consideration. Today, the business environment is rife with competition from many sources and directions. While product pricing might be modeled, product and services’ pricing is contextual and variable, as is work on systems integration/engineering based efforts. Pricing is also highly influenced by competition, which may change from bid-to-bid. Therefore pricing as a topic was set aside.

2. Contract staffing, i.e., how you bid staff and build their resumes for a bid, is not addressed at all. That is highly contextual, a function of the bid, and any specific instructions pertaining thereto.

3. Program Planning for a contract, and related sub-areas such as sample task writing, WBS and BOE creation is referred to but not addressed in any detail except as relates to some problems that were program planning driven. This area is also highly contextual, a function of the bid, and any specific instructions pertaining thereto.

4. Writing Qualifications and Past Performance sections are mentioned, but not addressed in detail. These also are highly contextual, a function of the bid, and any specific instructions pertaining thereto. HOWEVER, they are addressed from the perspective of necessary accuracy, relativity to any bid you are pursuing, and public visibility.

=O=O=O=

As you read this, you might want to also consider the other side, i.e., what the buyer went through to get an RFP out the door.

For a competitive procurement, your prospect has put some-to-much time into the development of the RFP, and may have encountered or suffered, or continues to suffer or encounter, the other side of what you are dealing with. People putting RFPs together have their own problems.

Whether you are in the public or private sector, and in any industry, writing a formal solicitation with complex rules and regulations, both internal and external issues, and visibility, is no easy task.

Sometimes, as alluded to in parts of this book, you need to stand in the buyer’s shoes from time-to-time.

That view might also help the proposal.

=O=O=O=

SPECIAL NOTICE

This book has numerous graphics, some of which display in various levels of quality based o n the version of the book you order.

To accommodate this, a PDF file has been created with all consistent quality graphics and tables as used in this book. The link for this file is in the Summary.

Introduction

While this book has an apparent emphasis on government contracts, the topics and Tips are equally as applicable to commercial accounts in all business sectors as well. Having worked on efforts in over 30 vertical industries, including government (federal, state, local), automotive, distribution and logistics, aerospace, healthcare, gaming, energy, law enforcement, and many others, RFPs et al may vary in form but have much of the same general content.

The proposal format will vary based on the nature of the request (a quote being different from a full-scale proposal, for example). But the effort to come up with the price and an engineered or customized solution may be as much of an effort for an RFQ or RFB as for a proposal, but the level and scope of detail will vary. Obviously, quotes based on list prices or price lists are a different matter, but even so, much of the type of effort for competitive analysis and any required narrative may be as involved as for a formal RFP based on the buyer’s’ request.

Bear in mind that a prospect in a challenging market or with a business problem or problems will likely be more rigorous in their reviews as much out of self-protection as their need to focus on solutions.

With tightening budgets at levels and in all industries, increased consideration is being given to cost, performance, and controls on the acquired products/services (and vendor(s)).

Having spent over 40 years in the business world, serving customers in the government and many industry segments, I have seen many proposals, proposal systems and processes; wins that should have been losses, and losses that should have been wins.

I have also seen solid proposals win business that was cancelled shortly thereafter for a variety of reasons, as well as procurements that were cancelled prior to proposal submission.

In one case, my firm won three contracts with one agency only to have those contracts cancelled within 90 days after they were considered redundant with other existing contracts within the same issuing agency. Why that RFP was even released in the face of exiting in-house alternatives was the topic of a 30-minute why bother to bid? discussion in my firm.

The prospect was adamant it was a sustainable procurement, so we bid. That we won was fine; that we basically won nothing was not fine. That agency’s decision to cancel all contracts awarded came unexpectedly but apparently was in motion/consideration during the cancelled contracts’ procurement effort itself.

Is cancellation after award based on nothing you have done unusual? Well, it happens, even for a contract in process:

In one past case, our team won an important contract. Two months or so after start of work, the client cancelled the contract because of errors in the RFP specifications. The RFP actually read fine and made sense; the proposal was genuinely dead-on, we obviously beat the competition technically, and pricing was fair. So what happened? The net of it was that the system as specified in the RFP did not actually meet the intended technical requirements for the system. Did this come as an absolute shock to us? Well -- no. In our first interviews with the user community, we got a sense that something was out of alignment, out of kilter. Client expectations did NOT match the RFP. We were right. This was the result of one or more problems internal to the client. After much discussion with the customer, we terminated the contract sadly but amicably. The client ultimately took a different tact. There were client-internal repercussions.

We retained good relations with the client staff but pursued no further business with them. You can imagine why.

I have led and worked on efforts that we all felt were locks for a win but resulted in a loss -- usually because of an unexpected move by a competitor, such as buying the bid. I have also fixed or helped others salvage and fix broken proposals that resulted in wins. I have had bids we were deep into -- literally at best and final offer time -- and walked away from, and bids we had to submit knowing we could not win.

Once my firm actually bought a bid-in-process from a potential competitor who was debarred prior to proposal submission. We got the prospect to approve our action (novating the bid) enabling us to move forward. This was not a whimsical move. As it turned out, the system my firm was bidding matched the other system in all areas, but its performance in certain benchmark areas fell short after the real/final benchmark materials were released. We knew what the competition was bidding because the system vendor came to us and told us after the other firm’s debarment, trying to salvage its (vendor) business.

Now, that was an experience: completely rewriting a proposal over a weekend is an experience I cannot recommend. But it is educational. And sadly, no, we did not win -- another firm bidding the same products won. Frankly, I think the prospect found the situation to be politically sensitive, and made what was to them a logical choice.

Every bid stands on its own and occurs in a given context and environment. You cannot control everything, and many things can upset a proposal effort. If everything else is running hot, straight, and true, proposal content change is the key culprit the majority of the time, with RFP changes on at least an equal level.

But more often than not, it is IN-HOUSE changes or delays that precipitate the problems. Nonetheless, many other items can submarine your efforts singularly or in combination. These range from errors and omissions to simply running out of time.

Everything is contextual, and the timing of a bid, the nature of the bid, the pressures on the buyer AND seller, and many other factors known and unknown enter into the final decision...even shoe-ins are not certain. And everything is relative. What you see as a modest item may be a major item to the prospect. Lesson learned? NEVER superimpose YOUR opinion on the prospect’s psyche and actions. That smacks of hubris, and hubris may lose you the bid.

As noted above, sometimes there are proposals submitted for both internal and external political reasons with NO expectation of winning, I have had to do that and used them as learning/tuning experiences, and ensured they met their intended purpose.

You have to rationalize those situations somehow, so you think of those as marketing investments, and keep the internal price paid to a minimum. When you have to do this, do not wreck your budget or your writing team/contributors in the effort -- be sure your staff understands, and even thank them MORE for the effort. I never submitted these types of bids voluntarily -- it’s been by edict. I explained the situation to the staff, and simply asked they remain totally professional at all times. The proposals generally achieved their intended results.

In one unique case though, we did not believe we could win, but created an exceptionally well-done proposal intended to outshine the competition. That led to business for us a few months later, having impressed the prospect.

In another case, a huge (billions over the life cycle), multi-phased contract was awarded to a firm. The firm that won was essentially a shell set up by its multi-billion dollar parent with a relative handful of employees. The vast majority of the work was done by employees subcontracted from its parent company, making even more money (markup on the subcontracted people in the parent company who were already profitable) -- on a cost plus award fee contract.

The CIO of the federal agency’s Program Office brought me on board as a technology/technical solution and policy consultant to help through the launch of the program.

Until you look at a complex and highly visible program/contract from the inside perspective, it is often difficult to really understand the issues and items with which the prospect/customer contends. Just because you are on-site or talk with the CIO or other senior executive and that person’s staff does not mean you get it. You have to live it, and walk in their shoes.

I wound up spending three years in that role, full-time. Even having a been a Fed from 1966-68, and after nearly four decades of working with the government as a supplier and contractor/consultant, and on numerous pro-bono efforts for a number of departments/agencies, the GSA and even OMB, this was very educational.

This program had many challenges. An over-arching problem on this effort was that the contract, while focused on extremely complex systems integration, required a huge amount of software development, possibly more than expected, and certainly of a different nature than planned and originally cited in the CONOPS and in the RFP. The program also required working with advanced but still immature technology in some areas (e.g., scanning and OCR which was just really starting to mature), and pushing boundaries on other proven technology.

In addition, the program was enmeshed in serious issues among the many government groups and technical contactors this system would serve throughout its life cycle. That