The first and most important advice is the flip-side of the first and most important piece of advice for writing the RFPs themselves:
For the RFP writer: Only ask for the things you need
For the RFP responder: Make sure to address everything that's asked for following the instructions to the letter
This is really a matter of respect for everyone's time, right? I'm not able to go into details, but I can certainly say that I've seen many, many RFP responses that missed key sections or failed to follow instructions. That can put an evaluator in a very bad position - you can lose in the evaluation due to missing something small.
The next piece of advice dovetails with that. If there is a questions and answers period, use it. If you are unclear on anything: ask. If you think you know and it's pretty clear but you're not 100% sure: ask. If something doesn't seem to make sense: ask.
And last with respect to a written response: make sure it's internally consistent. I know that seems obvious, but again, timelines and numbers and narrative all need to tell the same story. So especially where different authors are responsible for sections - make sure they tell one holistic story.
If there are oral presentations, make sure you bring the right players, make sure they know each other and can look and act like a team. You can hide some amount of disconnect in writing that can't be hidden in person. I've actually seen teams practically arguing with each other mid-presentation.
Beyond that, there are point of personal preference that may just apply to me:
- It's easy to say you're "uniquely qualified", but you better show why
- If you're an incumbent and you're going to tell me how you'll improve next time around, it will meet some skepticism
- If you're an incumbent and you're going to change things significantly, don't overlook the transition to the new state
- If you're challenging an incumbent and you don't have the situation-specific details they do, acknowledge that but don't dwell on it
- If you're challenging an incumbent acknowledge that there will be a dip as you come in and explain how you will manage that
- Oh - and finally too many pretty pictures of your pretty corporate building just make me think your rates are too high - some is fine, but too much is too much
In the end, none of these things can make you win, but failing to do them can make you lose.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteYour observations really highlight some of the challenges faced by RFP responders. More often than not, desire to articulate qualifications against each task area gets marred and masked by irrelevant information for the evaluators.
Typically, RFP responders (including me) ponder through task areas and make assumptions about 'critical areas' of the effort. Sometimes we get it right and sometimes not. Unless you are on the ground, working initiatives (an incumbent), one has no visibility in terms of the real 'pain-points'. From an evaluators perspective, what are the measures that you assume to ensure a fair chance is given to a player with right quals?
Prem,
ReplyDeleteFrom the evaluation side, I've always tried to give as much (relevant) data as possible - the better the information I put out there, the better the responses I'll get.
Let's assume there's a contract with a pretty large scope. Obviously, there are many strategies to bid on it, but all of them involve some risk evaluation and planning. If you know precisely what your real effort and cost is, you can determine your bid pretty easily. However, of course, there's always some amount of risk that things will not be as expected. Your job is to ensure that you don't bear the risk. You can do that by determining various possible models - a should-be, a worst-case - along those lines.
My job, of course, is to make sure I don't bear the risk. My best tool to do that is to remove the uncertainty - because otherwise I'll likely end up paying for it.
So the most important piece is a free and open information market - including the "real pain-points". Now, that still may require analysis and savvy - but it should be there to be had.
Certainly another measure is the evaluation criteria and weighting. This is an area I didn't spend enough time with during my first iterations through the cycle.
As an example, we asked for responses to some business scenarios in recent RFPs. These aren't just a measure of what you know, but really how you think and approach the sorts of issues we see. In fact, we did one of these in our oral presentation with a very limited amount of time - because in our environment, there are times when you have 30 minutes to throw some slides together for leadership - and you really do need to be able to do that. That sort of thing is not reliant on deep site-specific knowledge.
But yes, in the end it's a difficult problem from both sides.
Ed,
ReplyDeleteThank you much for your insightful comments. You are so right about the ambiguity around key functional areas. Couple of times, I stepped on this land-mine in RFP responses by failing to articulate the fact that it is really a 'may be' or 'possibility' than a surety. The should-be or worst-case models are really handy. You really opened my eyes - may be coupling a business case from the past experience will demonstrate the awareness and risk mitigation strategies. However, response page limits sometimes inhibit our ability to fully detail the path and work-around.
Your mentioned approach about oral presentation seems to be a novel one. Does this mean that at that point, entire team contribute to get the real-time information or the business leader puts it all together?
Thank You,
Prem
Prem,
ReplyDeletePage limits are an interesting thing. They force an economic decision into the mix. What do you think is important? If you have four questions to answer and only have room for robust answers to two, then you are signaling your perception of the importance in your choice.
The logistics we used for the oral presentation was something like this:
At the end of a presentation period, we provided the offeror with the scenario. We then gave them 30 minutes to collaborate and assemble a 5 minute presentation. The evaluation team then leaves them to their work.
That sort of element gives some insight into team dynamics, work under pressure, and the ability to communicate clearly in a limited time. These are all very much real issues in our particular environment.
Is it a novel approach? Perhaps so. Unfortunately it's hard to find good information on how to write good solicitations (as opposed to good responses).
Ed,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the oral presentation technique is very innovative. Cohesive team work and collective thought processes are easily measured through this instrument. Just curious - how much weighting will be given to the right technical approach to the desired solution vs the team synergy?
Also, this technique reminds me about 'table topic'' sessions from toastmaster days. It really tests the ability to think and act under unexpected circumstances.
I think your statement about writing good solicitations is so true. Though most of the information is available within the enterprise, only part of this intrinsic information is discussed and detailed. Is this lack of organizational communication, rigid functional walls, personalities, and or lack of information itself? I seldom think it is due to the lack of good solicitation framework.