Proposal SolutionsRSS

Proposal Compliance Tool Number Four: Compliance Matrix

As related in previous posts, the four tools I find most useful in ensuring proposal compliance are as follows:

    •    Tool 1: Overview
    •    Tool 2: Proposal Shell
    •    Tool 3: Compliance Review
    •    Tool 4: Compliance Matrix

To communicate proposal compliance to the buyer’s evaluator, most proposals should include a compliance matrix at the beginning of the submission. This matrix clearly identifies each major RFP requirement, states where in the RFP the buyer requests the information, and lists the proposal location where the requirement is addressed. This layout provides a concise reference for the evaluator to connect each RFP requirement with the associated response.

The matrix also serves as a final tool to ensure that the proposal is compliant: the proposal team must fill in the page numbers and other location information when all other development is complete. This results in a final review, ensuring that each RFP requirement is addressed specifically by a proposal section.

When we have created and utilized the overview, developed a compliant proposal shell, performed a thorough compliance review, and completed the compliance matrix, we can submit the proposal with the confidence that it meets the buyer’s submission criteria.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Proposal Compliance Tool Number Three: Compliance Review

In previous posts, I described two tools for ensuring proposal compliance: the overview and the proposal shell. A third tool is the compliance review. 

Conducting a compliance review as the proposal nears completion (generally around the red team* review stage, when the content is mostly in place) ensures that the content provided includes everything the buyer requests. If the previously developed compliant shell has been utilized, the required sections should appear in the appropriate places. As a result, the compliance review is able to focus more closely on whether the content provided in each section adequately addresses the specific RFP requirements. 

When performing the compliance review, carefully check each document against the overview, RFP, and RFP amendments, as applicable. The review ensures that any necessary changes are identified and implemented before the final review/gold team stage of development and the proposal due date.

I will discuss my final compliance tool recommendation, the compliance matrix, in a future post. 

* Editor’s Note: Generally speaking, the function of the Red Team is to put together a scoring prediction for the proposal and evaluate its overall effectiveness.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Proposal Compliance Tool Number Two: The Proposal Shell

In a previous article, I discussed using the proposal overview to ensure compliance. This article discusses a second compliance tool: shell documents, or the “proposal shell.”

The proposal shell—a complete set of digital files for the proposal created during the first stage of development—includes a document for each factor (proposal section). Developing each proposal section in a separate document enables multiple individuals to work on the various factors simultaneously.

The document for each factor should include an introductory compliance review and headings for each required section within the factor. Developing a proposal shell in this way yields the following results:

• The compliance review will remind the customer’s proposal evaluators of the RFP requirements for that section.
• The headings follow the overview and provide a working outline within which the proposal team places the content. This produces the most “responsive” proposal submission possible, with a section specifically addressing each RFP requirement.

The shell also includes all other files necessary to produce the hard-copy proposal, including tables of contents, tabs, and introductory materials (cover letter, compliance matrix, etc.).

Ideally, a member of the proposal team develops shell documents for the proposal while another team member writes the overview. This creates a rapid start to the development process; the team can only begin effectively working on the content once both the overview and the shell are completed.

Also ideally, when the overview and the proposal shell are both finished, the overview author will review the shell to cross-check it against the overview for compliance. This maintains consistent oversight of proposal compliance, while also adding the value of a second pair of eyes for quality control.

Developing and reviewing the proposal shell ensures compliance from the beginning of proposal preparation—before writing assignments are made and multiple parties begin content development. Using the shell maximizes compliance even under the tightest of deadlines. And most importantly, using this method creates an easily evaluated proposal that clearly corresponds with the evaluation criteria.

I will discuss two additional compliance tools, the compliance review and the compliance matrix, in future articles.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Proposal Compliance Tool Number One: Overview

An important part of proposal development is ensuring that the submission complies with all RFP requirements. One tool that helps ensure compliance is the overview.

The overview, or outline of the RFP requirements, pulls all of the requirements together into one well-organized document, clearly identifies the requirements so that everyone working on the proposal is on the same page, and connects related requirements that may be separated in the RFP—such as the instructions for a factor and that factor’s associated evaluation criteria.

Writing the overview helps the individual with primary responsibility for compliance to digest the information provided, to identify conflicting requirements that may merit requests for information (RFIs), and to note long-lead-time items that must be obtained or developed. The overview serves as a guide to the proposal requirements for all members of the development team and is particularly useful when conducting compliance reviews of the shell documents and the completed content.

In creating RFP overviews, I recommend developing a standard structure and format that works best for the particular proposal team, thereby translating varying RFPs into a familiar document in which team members can easily find the information they need. The structure I use has evolved gradually over time as I have received feedback from team members and incorporated a variety of RFP requirements.

I begin each RFP overview with the overall proposal requirements such as the due date, formatting requirements, page limits, and overall evaluation criteria, followed by a quick outline of the factor and subfactor titles. I then outline in detail the specific requirements for each factor. Throughout the overview, I include the section and page numbers where the requirements are provided in the RFP or subsequent amendments, enabling the proposal team members (including myself) to quickly reference the original requirements. Finally, I highlight any conflicts or questions for the proposal manager’s review.

To create a compliant proposal, you must first know the RFP requirements and be able to locate them easily throughout the development process. By achieving these ends, an overview becomes an essential step towards proposal compliance.

In subsequent posts, I will discuss three additional compliance tools: the proposal shell, the compliance review, and the compliance matrix.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Is Compliance Overrated?

In a recent online discussion, a senior proposal manager wrote that compliance is overrated. While the statement seemed surprising, it may be an often-unspoken perception that is shared by writers, subject-matter experts, and others involved in various aspects of proposal development.

In my experience, however, if a proposal is not compliant it is typically not worth submitting. When an RFP states that the evaluation process will begin with a compliance review, the government means it. In the worst-case scenario, I've seen non-compliant proposals eliminated from consideration, while in the best-case scenario, the government has come back to request the missing information in discussions and proposal revisions.

Companies put substantial man-hours and financial resources into the development of a proposal. Isn’t it worth ensuring compliance to avoid wasting those resources?

In the coming days I will post information on the four tools that I find most useful for ensuring proposal compliance: the overview, the proposal shell, the compliance review, and the compliance matrix.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Maximizing Introduction Effectiveness

Proposal developers often erroneously assume that government proposal evaluators for any given proposal are thoroughly familiar with the solicited project or contract, as well as the overall requirements and layout of the RFP. In reality, different teams of evaluators will likely score each distinct proposal section (i.e. factor) in isolation from the rest of the proposal, using a compliance checklist derived from the RFP requirements.

Since proposal evaluators may only be familiar with the individual section assigned to them, the first page of each factor presents a unique opportunity for the offeror (bidder) to provide an introduction that puts its “best foot forward” in the context of the entire proposal. A well-structured introduction will accomplish quite a feat in that short space: remind the government of the submission requirements for that particular section, highlight the offeror’s response and key discriminators, and outline exactly what content follows.

Content presented in proposal section introductions should also correspond with the information presented in the proposal’s executive summary; however, I recommend the following elements for developing effective introductions independent of the executive summary:

Compliance Review: Include a compliance review that accurately outlines the factor requirements as identified in the RFP. This will not only remind the evaluator of what was required of the offeror, but will also place the subsequent factor introduction—including key discriminators—in context, thus increasing effectiveness.

Address Hot Buttons: The introduction should address the customer’s key concerns (i.e. “hot buttons”)—both for the overall solicitation and the content of that specific factor (clearly addressing the relevance and evaluation criteria identified in the RFP). The response is then positioned to highlight key discriminators and primary reasons why the proposed solution will exceed the government’s expectations (as always, substantiate those claims with past performance).

Outline: Finally, outline exactly what is provided in the section that follows, with any applicable explanatory notes. For example, during development of a recent client proposal, my client chose to include evaluations and commendations in the past performance section even though these forms were not specifically required by the RFP. I developed an explanation in the factor introduction to outline exactly what was included, where it was located, and why it was of value to the government.

Including these three elements ensures that the proposed solution (with accompanying value) is described in a way the evaluator cannot overlook.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

“Interesting Times” for Defense Acquisitions

According to an oft-repeated cliché, “May you live in interesting times” constitutes a particularly malevolent curse in the Chinese language. Like it or not, these days are indisputably interesting times in the field of defense acquisitions.

Recent days have brought stories of leading defense contractors downsizing due to declining federal budgets. Yet they have also brought numerous contract awards—as well as new solicitations—long delayed by pending defense appropriations legislation, finally passed in the waning days of 2009.

These seemingly disparate facts point to two realities of these interesting times: the federal floodgates seem to have finally reopened, but the amount pouring forth from behind them has diminished. Consequently, firms hoping to secure defense work should expect fierce competition for the shrinking pool of federal contracts and dollars.

A proven proposal team with a track record of winning contracts for clients from numerous defense and other federal agencies—what sounder investment could there be in these interesting times?

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

A clash of perspectives

One of my greatest challenges as a proposal manager comes from conflicting priorities between my perspective as a communications professional and the perspective of the subject matter experts contributing to any particular proposal.

Whether the subject matter expert (SME) be an architect, systems engineer, etc.—a common trait emerges during proposal development: SMEs place their attention and effort on the project specifications (understandably so), but don’t spend much time worrying about the technical submission requirements of the RFP. It’s really just a clash of worldviews—my primary concern is achieving a high rating during the government’s review, while the SME’s primary concern is meeting the project specifications.

This difference in viewpoint can create a challenge when the SME is unconvinced of the validity of compliance-related concerns as necessary to content production. In working with SMEs on dozens of proposals, I have found the following actions to be helpful in fostering good communication and creating structure for content development.

1. Initial Contact: Outline in detail the requirements of the relevant section(s) of the RFP, the development process (initial draft, in-depth compliance review, revised draft, additional clarifications), and proposed deadlines for each stage. Follow up with a phone call to discuss each point and express the imperative nature of meeting each RFP requirement (in addition to the spec)—and how doing so will impact proposal scoring.
2. Compliance Review: Conduct an in-depth, point-by-point compliance review of the initial draft provided by the SME, analyzing the content to see whether or not all of the necessary information is available (beyond whether the content is arranged strictly according to the outline, which is correctable by the proposal team if all information is present). Communicate detailed feedback in written form, and  follow up with a phone conversation.
3. Final/Subsequent Drafts: Hopefully the second draft will fix any substantial deficiencies that were identified during the compliance review. However, this may not be the case. Complete an accelerated review based on the originally-identified areas of deficiency. If major concerns have gone unaddressed, a second round of feedback will likely be needed; otherwise, a good technical writer can massage the whole document into a compliant state.

As with all business relationships, clear and consistent communication of goals and associated value is very important to the success of joint content development between the proposal manager and the SME.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Identify Hot Buttons

Reviewing Trinity’s proposal best practices, I was recently reminded of the importance of “hot buttons”—an element of customer focus and a best practice that Trinity works to implement on every proposal.

Hot buttons are essentially the government’s (or buyer’s) needs and desires for the solicited project, whether stated explicitly in the relevance or evaluation criteria in the RFP, hinted at indirectly in the solicitation or in other communication from the buyer, or understood through knowledge of the industry or project type.  

Identifying and responding to the government’s needs, whether you use the term hot button or not, should be a natural part of proposal development. The aspect that I find most easy to overlook in the crunch of proposal preparation, and thus worthy of renewed attention, is stating where or how the buyer expressed the hot button issues, reminding the government that these are its concerns, and if possible referencing the exact locations in the RFP where they are identified. This identification of the hot buttons as government concerns should appear before any detailed discussion of why we are uniquely qualified to address them.

By identifying where the government has expressed the identified concerns, we demonstrate our attentiveness to the buyer’s communication and remind the government of the value it places on solutions that meet the needs expressed. Perhaps most importantly, identifying hot buttons informs evaluators (who may not be fully aware of such needs) that the associated solutions are of particular value to the buyer and merit extra consideration, yielding a higher rating for our proposal.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Visually Effective and Appealing Proposals

A truly effective proposal does not merely present your solution; it distinguishes your company and solution from the competition.

Does the visual presentation of your proposal help or hinder you in this regard? Some questions to consider:

Does your proposal…

• Contain visual elements that appeal to all reading styles?
• Utilize attractive fonts and formatting elements that enhance readability?
• Employ a clear, consistent hierarchy of heading levels to allow evaluators to quickly and easily locate your responses to required elements from the RFP?
• Present information graphically when appropriate--or does the proposal rely entirely on paragraphs of text to make the case for your solution?
• Include an attractive, inviting cover or cover page? People do judge a book—and a proposal—by its cover!

The proposal development firm that leverages a multidisciplinary approach--encompassing concise, compliant, effective writing and design elements--will yield a far greater value and return on investment than a company that offers only writing services.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

A Modest Proposal?

While participating on a review team for a recent client proposal, I heard another reviewer—a senior manager with our client firm—recommend that we omit the word “unmatched” from the proposal’s executive summary. He commented, “Words like this are meaningless hyperbole. They’re just a waste of space.”

Did my fellow reviewer have a point? Firms preparing federal proposals must carefully adhere to often arcane and complex submission requirements that frequently include strict page limits. Failure to observe these rules can lead to entire pages being discarded unread—or even to the whole proposal being excluded from consideration due to noncompliance. Page limits aside, no evaluator wants to wade through excess verbiage to find the information requested by the RFP. Finally, the use of superlative language invites skepticism from the reader: “‘Unmatched,’ eh? We’ll just see about that!”

Considering these dangers, one might easily conclude that effective proposals should avoid superlative language and simply “stick to the facts.” But this conclusion misses a key (and oft-neglected) point: a proposal is—and must be approached as—a marketing document. For all the government’s attempts to evaluate proposals independently and objectively using quantitative metrics, much of the evaluation and award process remains subjective and comparative. This is even truer for non-federal buyers who are not obligated to observe the FAR. The offeror who offers nothing beyond dry factual responses to RFP requirements misses a vital opportunity to differentiate itself from the competition—and to convince the buyer that its solution offers the best (notice that superlative?) value. Joe Friday may have wanted “just the facts,” but an effective proposal requires much more.

How, then, can you effectively differentiate yourself from the competition while avoiding the pitfalls of empty superlatives in your proposals? The key is corporate humility—not in the false sense of debasing yourself and your accomplishments, but in the true sense of seeing yourself as others see you. Trinity’s CEO, Peter Mirus, recently blogged on the importance of this honest self-knowledge as a component of an effective overall marketing strategy. By knowing the genuine value your firm offers, you can begin to place that value front-and-center in your proposals—and begin to set yourself apart from the competition in terms that cannot be dismissed as “meaningless hyperbole.”

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Proposal Management Software

There is no shortage of conversation related to the automation and organization of proposal management process. With the increasing popularity of virtual proposal teams, it is no surprise to see the multitudes of collaboration systems contending for adoption by proposal professionals.

Most of the conversations found online begin with some form of the question: What is the best proposal management application? The good news is that question has a simple answer. The bad news is the answer isn’t what most people want to hear.

The answer to the stated question is: "It depends." If there were a single product that stood above the rest in every scenario, everybody would use it.  Yet there are dozens of collaboration tools written specifically for proposal management and many more general tools with customization available for proposal development.

SharePoint is arguably the most common tool used in the enterprise market, but there are a number of considerations that go into that selection.  Even with ready-built templates available, it is unlikely that SharePoint will immediately fit your needs without additional customization.

Before deciding what tools are best suited to your particular situation, you must fully understand your needs (and the needs of those who will score your proposals.)  Then you will be able to ask the right questions in evaluating the costs and capabilities of proposal management systems according to your strategic priorities.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Process, Standards and Best Practices

Q: What exactly are "industry standards and best practices" when it comes to proposal development?
 
A: They are what you are promised by every proposal development firm under the sun.
 
If you've looked for an organization to outsource your company's proposal development, it's a near certainty that you prefer one or more that promise process-centric services based on best practices.
 
In point of fact, it isn't unique to proposal development. Efficiency and repeatability are fundamental building blocks in any professional services offering and are enabled by established process. But proposal development also requires adaptability.  
 
Adaptability mitigates short and unpredictable acquisition schedules, and it requires process flexibility that allows us to work through ambiguities and contradictions that find their way into so many solicitations. A linear, 96-step process is a great framework for proposal execution, but it could never work for every bid.

So how do you know if a proposal development company can adapt their "proven process" to your company and the specific needs of your desired client? Do they have success across multiple, unrelated industries? Do they have a track record over a wide range of contract values? Do they trust their ability to adapt well enough to offer flexible engagement models?
 
These are just a few questions that you should ask when you are engaging proposal consultants. Any firm will increase efficiency as you reward them with repeat business, but adaptability promotes higher value from day one.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

Time To Be Selective

The Wall Street Journal’s Small Businesses Chase Big Stimulus Money sheds some light on the business effects of this year’s stimulus bill. Most of us have anticipated increased competition through opportunistic bidding from the start, but none of us has been fully able to predict the impact on small businesses in pursuit of the dollars.

Thus far only $8.1 billion – one percent of the $787 billion bill – has been awarded. Less than a quarter of that, $1.9 billion, has been awarded to small businesses. What does that mean for small businesses looking to take advantage of increased spending in a difficult economy? One thing is clear: it isn’t as easy to get money as many had hoped.

With the amount of time and money required, winning federal business is not cheap. The best thing you can do is avoid the temptation to be an opportunistic bidder. Increase your scrutiny of opportunities as they arise, and triple your efforts on the solicitations you are highly capable of winning. All the while, continue to focus on effective capture management. There are hordes of scavengers sleeplessly circling FedBizOpps, and as the article reminds us, “Building relationships offline … is just as important.”

With well over $775 billion left to be spent, don’t spin your wheels just for the sake of making noise. Be selective and win while your competitors run out of gas before the bulk of the money starts moving.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

A Winning Proposal Depends on Your Overall Goals

The 2009 Tour de France came to its conclusion this week in front of a record audience on the Champs-Élysées. I found it to be an interesting exercise to compare winning the Tour to winning federal business.

There are a number of analogies to draw from the comparison:

1. The Tour itself can be likened to an annual campaign to grow federal business.
2. Each stage of the Tour can represent a single proposal (although there is no parallel for a "no-bid" in the Tour).
3. The various teams in the Tour can represent companies competing after some aspect of a similar business.

Team goals differ in the Tour, just as corporate goals differ between competitors. New and lesser-known teams might seek the notoriety of a single win to build upon, while the well-established teams seek to gain and keep the yellow jersey through the end.

Teams apply a single strategy to the 20+ day event for the purposes of achieving a set goal. Alberto Contador held on to the yellow jersey by keeping ahead of his immediate threats - not by winning every stage. Franco Pellizotti didn't need to win a single stage to capture the "king of the mountains" polka-dot jersey.

If they had set out to finish every stage as fast as they could, neither of these riders would have made it anywhere near the final podium. By setting a big picture goal, these riders and their teams were able to exercise effective strategies even on the stages that didn't have a direct and obvious impact on the goals.

A similar story could be said for many businesses. If you have a linear proposal process that starts in capture and ends after submittal, you may be right in line with most of your competition. That may be the appropriate place to be at times, but at the end of the race you don't want to be with your competition - you want to be ahead.

Consider taking a cumulative approach to proposals, where every bid is exercised as a part of your larger growth strategy: No proposal should be an isolated effort, and the output of each effort should positively affect your remaining efforts towards achieving your goal.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis

The Written Word

One of the important ways in which Trinity helps clients is by developing a “language” which the client uses to express its vision of itself—including its core beliefs, competencies, and products/services.

This language is composed of two parts.  The first part is “fact words”. These are words and phrases that the company uses when expressing truths about itself.  The second part is “feel words”—what the company feels about itself and what the company wants others to feel.

There is a process for mining, or extracting these words from the conscious or subconscious thoughts of the company’s key individuals.  Not everyone can easily put what they know to be true, what they believe to be true, and what they feel emotionally into concise words and phrases.  Trinity uses its own process to bring this information forth, refine the raw material, and craft beautiful pieces of corporate self-expression.

Naturally, these pieces are tailored to particular audiences.  Otherwise, you aren’t making a social language—your company is making a cult language without caring if only your own company can understand it.  What language is your audience already speaking, and therefore require?  Some audiences require a “fact word approach”, some require a “feel word approach”, and some require a “fact/feel approach”.

Take it from me: if your method of delivering your words is technical proposals for Federal RFP response, don’t go with the “feel word approach”.  If Trinity took that approach on behalf of our clients, we’d be wasting hundreds of man hours and hundreds of millions of dollars in client opportunities.

So, your audience needs to be segmented for success, and an important segment is your own company!  One of the great values of Trinity’s process is that it provides all aspects of the company with a vibrant, yet concise language for communicating corporate vision internally.

When your new language is used for communication on all levels of your corporate structure, you’ve primed the pump for success.  And through market research, the language that you use to communicate will be a language that is compatible with, and influenced by, your customers and your industry.

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Permalink del.icio.us Digg Facebook Technorati TwitThis