Proposal Land

Better RFP Responses & Management
 
Proposal Land

Show, Don’t Tell

 

As the response schedule slides to the right, the project manager needs an update on my availability.

And so I start figuring it out.  It’s messy, but after a while I get it laid out clearly:

  • Good-to-go availability:  01 and 03 to 09 Dec; 28 Dec to 04 Jan
  • Part-day availability: 11 to 14 Dec; 16 and 17 Dec; 19 and 20 Dec; 22 and 23 Dec
  • Not available: 02, 10, 15, 18, 24 to 27 Dec

I’m pleased with my organization, but appalled at the thought of anyone actually trying to use this presentation to deconflict their schedule.

And so I try again.

Dec availability

Yes.  Much better.

In Proposal Land, as elsewhere, there is often a choice between telling and showing.  Showing is almost always better.

 

 

Term: Draft RFP

 

A preliminary version of the client’s RFP, usually issued to solicit industry feedback (for example, on the risk that industry is being asked to assume, the package of Work being requested, the standards being required, the pricing methodology) and to ask for alternative solutions that might otherwise be ruled non-compliant.

Often incomplete: most typical (and entirely deliberate) omission is the response instructions and evaluation criteria, since early release of those would give bidders a head start on the proposal.

Sometimes issued in a genuine effort to improve a procurement; sometimes appears to be issued as a pro forma response to an internal requirement to consult with industry.

Government-sanctioned Numbering

 

RFP article 5.2.A.4.b.ii clearly requires all bidders to use RFP numbering in their responses.  However, this directly contradicts the 14th bullet under Instruction to Bidders II.C.3.d.5.iv.3.z, which allows each bidder to structure their response however they please.

Yikes.

I guess we’ve all seen RFPs with obtuse numbering, ungraspable by the human brain.  Numbered headings are a great way to structure a document, providing strong hints as to where you are now, and to which subjects are related.  But after about three or four numbers in a heading, I lose track.  Additional numbering levels make it worse, not better:

  • Section 2.2.2.3.2.i
  • Section 2.2.3.2.2.i
  • Section 2.3.2.2.2.i

Ack!  And yikes, besides.  At some point, my eyes start to cross.

There’s a reason we learn and repeat our ten-digit phone numbers in bursts: three, three, and then four digits.  And that reason is that we just aren’t that smart: Holding more numbers than that in our heads at one time is, pretty much, not on.

So it is for numbered headings.

But don’t take my word for it.  In Canada, go straight to the source: the former (and not yet renamed as of this posting) PWGSC website on “The Canadian Style,” and I quote:

“Limit the number of levels of headings to three or four;
otherwise the structure of your document
will be cumbersome and complicated.”

Indeed.  And un-understandable.

Of course, if the RFP uses a ten-digit numbering system and requires you to follow it, then follow it.  But where you have a choice, make full use of it.

 

Repeating the Question: A Best Practice?

 

Repeating the RFP question in the response – something I never saw done in my early days in this business, a full quarter-century ago – has become more and more a standard practice in RFP responses.  Is it also a best practice?  Let’s take a look.

Why do it?

Why has it become more common?  I’m not sure, but I can see two benefits.

First, during response development, it facilitates reviews, making it easier to see three things about the answer to each question:

  • Whether it’s responsive (that is, actually answering the question)
  • Whether it’s complete (that is, answering every part)
  • Whether it’s in the right order (that is, in the same order as the question)

Eliminating the need to flip back and forth to the RFP itself is a real boon in these speedier times.

Second, it might also help the client’s evaluators:

  • Making it obvious which question you’re answering
  • Making it as easy as possible for the evaluator to see that the answer is responsive and complete, thereby garnering the most marks possible, given its content

Why just “might help”?  Well, evaluators are likely working with an answer key, a scoring sheet, or a checklist of some sort, so they might not need to refer to the actual question.

Why not do it?

Two words: page limits.

In the old days, clients rarely set page limits on sections or overall responses: now, that too is common.

Most proposals can ill afford the space to repeat the question, especially where they’re wordy, and especially since there are other ways to ensure that the evaluators know which question you’re answering.

If you do do it, how should you do it?

Do unambiguously differentiate the question from the response text, using text boxes or different font selections from the main text (colour, style, type), or use both of these visual cues.

Don’t use unnecessarily large graphics like fancy 60-point “Qs.”  The question is not more important than the answer.

Don’t summarize the question.  This effectively destroys the one clear benefit from the practice:

  • A summary can mislead in-house reviewers into thinking an incomplete answer is actually OK
  • A summary can annoy evaluators who realize that the question is not true to their original

If you don’t do it, what should you do instead?

Do use the numbering specified in the response instructions, exactly as given.

Do create a short, meaningful heading/title for each numbered section that helps evaluators confidently identify the question.

Do issue RFP questions to in-house editors and reviewers and brief them on how to use them to assess each answer.

Is it a good idea to keep the questions in until after the final review and them remove them?

Not if you’re working with a page limit.

Editing and formatting to meet a page limit is almost an art form.  Both editors and formatters will do their best work when they know the parameters from the outset.

Pulling all the questions just before going to production will have one of three results:

  • You’ll be bang on the page limit
  • You’ll be over, resulting in panicky, ill-considered cutting
  • You’ll be under, with no time to fill the extra space available

Me, I play the odds, and get a look at how we’re doing with page counts as early as possible.

 

Term: Get-well Amendment

 

A contract amendment that adds scope at an inflated price, to compensate a contractor that seriously underbid some other portion of the Work, intentionally or otherwise.

Never issued to one’s own company (which naturally negotiates extra work only at entirely reasonable/justifiable prices): only issued to competitors that buy a contract.