Are Your Proposal Reviews Derailing the Win? Lisa Pafe ... · Lisa Pafe Vice President Lohfeld...
27
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters SPAC 2018 March 22, 2018 Are Your Proposal Reviews Derailing the Win? Lisa Pafe Vice President Lohfeld Consulting Group 1
Are Your Proposal Reviews Derailing the Win? Lisa Pafe ... · Lisa Pafe Vice President Lohfeld Consulting Group 1. SPAC 2018 Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Lisa Pafe, CPP APMP Fellow, PMP Vice President, Lohfeld Consulting Group
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 3
• According to APMP Body of Knowledge (BoK):
Structured and timely reviews throughout the proposal process ensure compliance, completeness, and a higher probability of winning bids.
Purpose of color reviews
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 4
• Are your color team reviews:• Helping?• Hurting?• Neutral?
Audience Poll
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 5
What problems do you encounter in your color team reviews?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Discussion
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Evaluators score; they do not readThey buy benefits, not featuresEvaluators look for benefits that exceed requirements Benefits/strengths must be substantiated
We read the proposal but don’t score itWe focus on features, not benefitsWe don’t highlight benefits/strengths from the customer perspectiveWe fail to provide adequate evidence/proof
The dichotomy
SPAC 2018 666
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Based on extensive research – APMP, Lohfeld, others – and review of Source Selection Briefings
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Keep it simple!
• Studies show evaluators prefer simplicity• They do not want extraneous information• They like simple graphics• They want a clear roadmap to checking
compliance and finding all evaluationfactors and subfactors
• They want proof
• They want to get the job done asefficiently as possible!
7SPAC 2018
Presenter
Presentation Notes
APMP and Lohfeld studies
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
They just don’t understand
Studies of Government source selection boards found that a typical board member normally does not understand 75 percent of what he or she reads in a proposal.
From “Using Red Teams” Dave Herndon
8SPAC 2018
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Impact of digital distractions
• Workers typically attend to a task for 3 minutes before moving to something else• It takes about 20 minutes to return to the previous task…
• Our average attention span is eight seconds, less than that of a goldfish!
9SPAC 2018
Presenter
Presentation Notes
University of California and 2015 Microsoft study FOMO
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Is your value proposition clear?
• Two strategies used in digital marketing:• Exceeding expectations
• Evaluators expect to be bored with dull writing, unsubstantiated bragging and hyperbole
• Calls to Action (CTA)• Evaluators may not understand your CTA or it may be to
weak or to strong
10SPAC 2018
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Value proposition is your discriminating strengths Avoid usual “patterns” Evaluators expect to be bored with dull writing, unsubstantiated bragging and hyperbole They expect to have to hunt for Strengths They need to justify the award decision, but often cannot find a clear value proposition What if you wrote clearly and succinctly? What if Strengths popped off the page? Used extensively in digital marketing Put the right message in front of the right people at the right time 2 CTAs to avoid: Weak CTA: we assume evaluators know what to do, so we forget the call to action Too strong a CTA: we try high pressure, forcing compliance Best CTA to use: Benefits oriented and personal (know the customer)
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
CTAs: the right message at the right time
11
• 2 CTAs to avoid: • Weak: we assume evaluators know what to do, so we forget
the call to action• Too strong: we try high pressure, forcing compliance
• Best CTA to use: • Benefits oriented and personal (know the customer)
SPAC 2018 11
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Used extensively in digital marketing
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
CTA Examples
12
• Weak CTA:• As the incumbent, we are best positioned for low risk
transition.
• Too strong CTA: • Unless you choose our incumbent team, the
program will fail miserably.
• Best CTA: • To meet your objective of zero service disruption,
CUSTOMER needs to select the team that offers 100% of the incumbents day one.
SPAC 2018 12
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Tied to customer objective, and tells them the best course of action
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Will the incumbent have the best CTA?
13
• Best informed wins• Yet incumbents are losing more often
• Proposal must be prospective• Incumbents tend to focus on the past
• Review your incumbent bid as if you are the challenger• Staying relevant is key to preserving brand loyalty
and avoiding brand fatigue
SPAC 2018 13
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Studies show brand loyalty is more and more difficult to maintain: Competitive landscape has changed Little differentiation – multiple bidders offer similar, cheaper alternatives Competitors offer incentives and value adds Customers experience brand fatigue Desire for change in an increasingly noisy digital world
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 14
• Problem: Personalities drive the discussion:• The dominator• The latecomer• The multi-tasker• The unprepared• The virtual• The pile-ons
• Solutions: • Learn to recognize and exert authority over these
personalities
Problems Solved
Presenter
Presentation Notes
1. The Dominator This reviewer takes over the meeting; straying off the planned agenda and timeline; voicing their opinions and recommendations first, foremost, loudest; and often interrupting others. They may even stray off topic, going off on tangents that serve no purpose. If the Dominator is the proposal manager’s direct or indirect boss, it can be very difficult to regain control. Tip 1: Tame the Dominator. Dealing with Dominators requires both defense and offense. Spend time in person or via email before the meeting explaining the agenda and the need to hear equally from all participants. During the meeting, include in the agenda the order in which comments will be received so that you can call on specific individuals, saving the Dominator for last. Ask for no interruptions, allowing each reviewer to speak, followed by comments and questions. 2. The Latecomer This reviewer is so busy s/he arrives late to every review meeting. Their late arrival disrupts the meeting with introductions and recaps of what already occurred. The team may be halfway through the review, but they must go back to the beginning to listen to the latecomer’s comments. Again, if this latecomer is of importance in terms of rank and/or customer or subject matter expertise, they can be difficult to ignore as the comments may be vital. Tip 2: Minimize the Latecomer. The instructions included in the review package should make it crystal clear that the meeting starts on time and stays on schedule. By including individual reviewer names on the agenda, the you can better enforce the rules. If a reviewer’s time slot has passed, then they must wait until meeting’s end or submit comments in writing. Note that by assigning reviewers specific roles, you can more easily develop an agenda with assignments. 3. The Multitasker The Multitasker is answering and sending emails and texts, listening to voicemails, catching up on other work, and even taking other calls. They miss half of what is being said, forcing the team to revisit issues already resolved or repeat recommendations and comments. Tip 3: Enforce no electronics. Project the review slides or proposal sections. Make it a rule: laptops closed and smartphones on Do Not Disturb. Keep the meeting to a tight agenda with assigned roles. Of course, that does not work with virtual participants (see #5) unless you are on video call. Once a reviewer has provided their comments, they are free to leave and get back to multitasking. 4. The Unprepared These reviewers did not read the RFP and merely skimmed the proposal, or they did not finish reading their assigned sections. Many of their comments are non-compliant because they did not review the instructions or evaluation criteria. They often make editorial comments instead of adding anything of substance. Their presence wastes time and space. Tip 4: Kick them off the island. Have no patience for the Unprepared. Allow adequate time to prepare for and conduct reviews. If a reviewer continues to arrive unprepared, do not invite them to future meetings. Explain in the review instructions that reviewers should immediately alert the proposal manager if they cannot complete their assignments so an alternate reviewer can be assigned. 5. The Virtual participant Because this reviewer is not physically present, various annoyances ensue. They forget to mute their phone, and we hear their dog barking, cat meowing, and children playing. They might even leave the call to attend to other matters such as laundry and miss half of what is being said. They are not sure where the review team is in the proposal and keep interrupting with catch-up questions. If the team is not using a collaborative meeting tool, they must ask what page you are on. Tip 5: Use technology. The Virtual reviewer is the most difficult to manage. However, if you’re using a collaborative meeting tool, you can use technology to mute them. To ensure they are paying attention, use the video function so the participants can see each other. 6. The Pile-ons This reviewer just piles on more comments, edits, and advice, but fails to give any actionable comments or volunteer to help with recovery. They just keep shoveling the criticisms (i.e., “the proposal stinks”), leaving the proposal manager with conflicting comments, unactionable recommendations, and a migraine. Proposal recovery becomes a nightmare. Tip 6: It’s okay to interrupt. Exercise your authority as proposal manager or review team lead and stop the Pile-ons right away. Responses such as, “we have already covered that,” or “actionable comments only” are perfectly acceptable ways to get the meeting back on track.
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Audience Poll
• Are your review meetings personality-driven? How do you handle different types?• Dominant• Expressive• Analytical• Amiable
15SPAC 2018
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Cameron Herold, founder of COO Alliance and author of Meetings Suck: Turning One of the Most Loathed Elements of Business into One of the Most Valuable 1. Dominant Personalities These individuals are extroverts, assertive, verbose, forceful, strong, type-A, and driven personalities. Often, these people will argue for the sake of being right rather than for having the better solution. 2. Expressive Personalities These individuals are also extroverts, plus they are animated, talk with their hands, and think out loud. They tend to get excitable and emotional, and they eagerly jump in to speak. 3. Analytical Personalities Analytical people will literally think through their answers before speaking and tend to be introverts. Typically, they think through their answers for so long that Dominant and Expressive people feel they’re too slow or not really thinking. 4. Amiable Personalities These individuals avoid conflict and tend to get along in a passive manner. Amiables will say things like, “Well, whatever,” or “Whatever you’d like,” or “That’s fine,” or “I’m okay too.” Sometimes these personalities can be passive-aggressive, but more often they are passive.
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 16
• Problem: Too many/non-compliant/non-actionable comments and edits
• Solutions:• Score the proposal: Like an evaluator based on evaluation factors/order
of importance Use quality measures
• Forbid editing• Allow only actionable comments
Problems Solved - continued
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Enforce scoring so comments focus on actionable to dos
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 17
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
Audience Poll
• Do you score your proposals or allow free form comments?
• What are the pros and cons?
18SPAC 2018
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 19
• Problem: Bloated color teams
• Solutions:• Assign specific roles:
Scorer Compliance checker Devil’s advocate/your advocate Ghosting Voice of the Customer SME
• De-emphasize proposal food
Problems Solved – cont’d.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Bloated teams with too many reviewers creating inefficiency and increasing meeting time – keep meetings short and too the point You are a Proposal Manager- not a personal assistant – have the meetings before or after lunch!
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 20
• Problem: Reviewers treat the proposal like a novel
• Solutions:• Use scoresheets• Try this:
Search the proposal for key words Skim the proposal for visual cues that
highlight strengths and CTAs Read only the TOC/LOE Review only the graphics
Problems Solved – cont’d.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Proposals are not novels. Evaluators use your proposal like a dictionary to look up items they want to score. Must also understand that evaluators are distracted and may jump around looking for visual cues Evaluators are using automated searches more and more Editing creates a lot of messes when you combine files.
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 21
Ten-second rule – evaluators must understand the gist of the graphic in ten seconds or they move on. Remember, automated searches are becoming the norm. JPEGs are not searchable. Simple changes – no grid to grid – make a big difference
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 23
• Problem: Reviewers recommend tweaking the win themes
• Solutions:• Focus on the proven benefits and strengths that
the customer values• Clearly articulate your discriminating strengths or
Evaluators do not care about win themes – they care about benefits. It all begins with capture vetting the strengths and value proposition with the customers Do you have the right CTA for the right evaluators at the right time?
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 24
Problems Solved – cont’d.
Are you even reviewing the right information?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Winning solutions are created (engineered); they don’t “just happen” Address all RFP requirements (explicitly or implicitly) Link solution to customer(s) goals and objectives Build features and benefits that will be evaluated as Strengths and— Demonstrate high likelihood of success (proofs) Exceed contract requirements when practical in a way meaningful to the customer “
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 25
• Get your reviews back on track with:• Scoring: scoresheets and quality measures• Efficiency: defining roles and cutting fat• Focus: Voice of the Customer and which
benefits/strengths they value
Conclusions
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP ChaptersSPAC 2018 26
Questions and Answers
Sponsored by Georgia, Florida, and Carolinas APMP Chapters
As the premier capture and proposal services consulting firm focused exclusively on government markets, we provide expert assistance to government contractors in Go-To-Market Planning, Capture Planning and Strategy, Proposal Management and Development, Capture and Proposal Process and Infrastructure, and Training.
