“How” is a Dirty Word

A look at how best to respond to an evaluator’s scrutiny of your bid

As an external reviewer, I am often asked to come in and critique Public Sector bids. This most often occurs during the latter stages of their development. When I look at the draft responses, it is obvious if the bid team has set out with a well organised kick-off meeting. The entire bid will have the feel of a single organisation. It will have a consistent, underlying “why we are best” message.

However, even when this is done, I see good bids score poorly. I run into the same fundamental blunders, which I have set out below.

In essence, when a client chooses its supplier, its evaluation weighs three critical things, paraphrased by me as:

Have all parts of the question been answered?
Is the method clearly described?
Is there enough supporting information added to give us confidence that the proposed approach will actually work for us?

Answering the Question

I try to act as an evaluator. I use a detailed analysis of the question to check if all the question elements have been addressed. I do this by breaking apart every line of the question. I list every combination of the question elements each line contains. I specifically look for the word “and” to make sure I have not missed any possible combination.

For instance, if the question says “describe the management and reporting for the installation and operation of …” I must look for answers to:

Management during installation
Management during operation
Reporting during installation
Reporting during operation

Unless I can identify all these four elements, the question has not been answered. This method is what I call “deconstruction”.

I remove any nonsensical elements and create a checklist. I examine the scoring system to add any specific points it is looking for to my checklist. Very often, the client has used a numbering format with sub-paragraphs. I replicate this numbering and sub-paragraph numbering in my list. Only then do I read the draft response and check for an answer against every listed item.

The easiest way for any evaluator to find these specific points is if the key words from the question are headings in the bid text. If the client’s exact words from the question are not used in headings, I have to interpret what I see in the text. I will try to match what I read against my deconstruction points. Of course, like the client’s evaluator, I may get it wrong. Often, I am not an expert in the subject covered. If you translate the words the client uses into words you use in your business, I and the evaluator might not understand what you are suggesting. We might have a different interpretation of the meaning. This is a danger to your score.

If the response is not evident to me as a direct answer to the question element (considering I am a non-expert and often, therefore, a very typical evaluator), I mark this element as not answered. This can lower the score significantly.

Describing the Method

The important client questions are often of the style “Please describe how you will deliver …” followed by the name of the service required. Note this is not “Please describe your approach to delivering …”. This is a very different question and can be summarised in brief details and bullet points. The approach question is normally seeking an overview style response, to put the detail of what comes next into context.

I believe that the crux of the response to this type of question hangs on that tiny word “how”. To me, this implies the evaluator must be able to see what you will do in its entirety. It needs full detail. This description is what I call the “method”.

So, for each method I look to see if I can identify a step-by-step process. I will then look at each step to see:

Who is doing the step?
Why the step is done (if there are choices)?
How and when it will be done?
Who is responsible for its success?
How it will be measured?
How it will be reported?
What happens if it goes wrong?

If I have all the appropriate elements of this list, I am happy the “how” is covered.

A flowchart is a great way to do most of this. But only if it is supported by text describing the process and the milestones. On its own, a flowchart may need interpretation to be understood. Evaluators will not have a lot of time to do this. They will take the easiest view. If there is no text, they will probably mark the answer poorly as it “did not give sufficient information”.

Sometimes I am presented with a process description which has been lifted from a manual or textbook. It will be written in the passive voice, not specific to the project or the client. Plus, it will not specify roles or responsibilities for success. If all I have is this, it will score badly. I need to see a method tailored for this specific contract and the actual client’s needs. The method must be focussed on this client alone. The client must see that you are going to solve its specific problems. It must not feel that you will try to force it to bend its business to meet your ill-fitting process.

Giving Confidence It Will Work

The final element I will look for in the response is where you have shown that this approach has worked before. I need to see it is effective for a similar size and complexity of business as this client.

If this supporting information is to be convincing, it usually needs to include an external reference. This can be any of various sources, e.g. market analysts, awards or, more typically, other clients. If the latter are used, I will look for:

Name of your reference client and, if not a name the evaluator will know, a description of its business
Statement of its problem, which must be relevant to the client’s question
Statement of your company’s solution
Quantification of the benefits the client received (best) or a statement of success (not so convincing)
A testimonial

In some cases, it may be that the method description can give this confidence on its own. If it is sufficiently detailed and every step is justified, that might work. However, another customer, similar in nature to the client and who says you are wonderful, is the most convincing.

The Score

With all these elements in place, only then can I reflect upon the scoring guidance and decide on an overall score. If the score is not blatantly clear (and most often it is not) I must use my discretion to mark the score up or mark it down. This will depend on how I feel about the response overall. This feeling will largely be based upon how easy I found it to identify and understand the information I needed to see. These feelings are not as critical to the core score as the areas above. But they will have an impact upon how much I “like” the response.

Part 2: The Warm and Cosy Feeling

How to convince the evaluator your bid is best

I have written about what we, as bid professionals, need to do to influence our prospective Public Sector clients. We have to convince them that we are the very best organisation to undertake their contracts. Creating a standout technical solution to meet the client’s requirements is something our technical experts are best placed to do. However, convincing the client this technical excellence is best for them is an entirely different matter. With the best technical solution in the world, unless the client’s business is convinced it is the best solution for them, the bid will fail.

The client will have set the scoring approach in its ITT documents. The evaluation process is designed to be transparent, replicable and defensible in a court of law. The scoring system normally requires the evaluator to balance several different aspects of the response to each question. Then the evaluator must decide which of several score levels the overall response fits into. The evaluator must weigh and consider each of the tests in the scoring system to do this. A key test is always the level of assurance or confidence the evaluator has in the proposal.

When I act as an evaluator for a proposal review, I look for what seems to me to be a complete technical solution. But then I look to see if the bid is convincing. The approach I take to assess how convincing it is, is in several parts.

The Balance

A convincing bid must have a good and believable technical solution. Then it needs to say why the solution meets the client’s needs. To do both these things effectively, the balance of the word count must be right. There must be a balance between the description of the solution and the information needed to convince the evaluator. If all the text is about the method or solution, you will not be convincing. If most of the text is about how wonderful you are, there will be insufficient detail for the client to understand what you intend to do. Moreover, you will be seen as superficial and arrogant.

I look for how much of the response text is not the technical description. My rule of thumb is that 50% of the words should describe the solution you intend to use and how it will be managed. The other 50% should be all about proving to the evaluator that your method, company and culture is the very best they can get. In practice, the solution often exceeds its 50% allowance. Some overspill will not have much impact. However, the more out of balance it gets, the weaker the final score will be.

Assurance

There is a myriad of ways you can demonstrate to the evaluator that your proposal is the one for them. However, there are many pitfalls you can encounter on the way.

The biggest problem I often see is where there is not a consistent underlying theme across the entire proposal. For instance, in one part of the proposal you may justify your choice of solution on the basis it is the cheapest, but will do the job. Then, if elsewhere in the document you are saying it is more expensive but worth it for all the added benefits it will bring, you will confuse the evaluator. Any confidence will be undermined by this conflict. It is really important that you set out a strategy for the entire bid at the outset and all the writers reflect this in their text.

The next level of assurance comes from justification. Where you have a choice in some element of your solution, you need to show the choices. Then you need to say why you picked one and why this choice will be the best for the client. If this is done with reference to the client’s needs, it is hugely convincing. Plus, it shows you have insight into the client’s business, which is even more convincing.

Finally, I look for supporting information which may include references and examples of where you have successfully completed such an activity previously. It needs to include a description of the methodology used and information about systems and personnel who were involved in the delivery. Most importantly, it needs to show success, preferably with some quantification and a testimonial from that client.

This assurance could include objective analysis from market analysts or awards bodies. In all cases, it needs to be attributable and refer to someone the client believes to be credible.

The Discretionary Score

Evaluators are people and they can exercise a level of discretion over, say, whether a response is worth a 5 or a 6. They will probably make the choice on the basis of how much they like you or your proposal. It is difficult for anyone to challenge a score decision which may be on the margins of two adjacent scores in the marking scheme. So, we must seek to influence the evaluator’s mindset to support us.

To do this, I look for a response which:

Has a high level of comprehensibility. If it is easy to read and understand, the evaluator will like it more than complex text.
Follows the order in which the questions were asked so it is easy to find the information and see that the question has been answered. If the evaluator can tick off the checklist in the order on that list, that will make them happy.
Uses only the terminology used by the client (explaining in its terms anything which uses terminology which might be new to them), which shows empathy, client focus and an understanding of the client’s business.
Does not contain any irrelevant material to the question. Marketing material of any sort is an absolute no-no (unless specifically asked for). If you waste the evaluator’s time by forcing them to read text which is not relevant to the scoring, this will irritate them.
Is written so the evaluator thinks its company is the only and most important client for your business. This level of client focus gives a great deal of comfort to the evaluation team that they will get a good service from you after contract award.
Gives the evaluator text which they can cut and paste into their report as to why your bid should be selected above the competitors. Who do you want to write this precis? You, or some bored evaluator in the client’s team?
Looks smart (has pictures, diagrams and a well laid out page). Giving an impression of quality always helps.
Has no spelling or grammatical errors. Once such errors are found, evaluators tend to concentrate less on the answer while they look for the next error. Also, it communicates a slapdash approach which could be replicated into contract delivery.

If you present a proposal which looks good, is easy to read and allows the evaluator to tick off the scoring points in the order he or she has on their sheet, it will score better. Perhaps such things may only make a very small difference to the overall score. However, I have seen many Public Sector bids win or fail because of a less than 1% overall score difference. These have all been in the range where a change in the discretionary score could have had a multi-million-pound impact.

Part 3: Empathy and Understanding

Proving you have the best solution

Just because you have proposed the best solution in the world, it does not follow that the client’s evaluation team will select your bid. It may satisfy every part of the client’s issues perfectly. You can show in the text that you have done it all before. However, you may still be missing that final sprinkle of “magic dust”. What does that sprinkle contain? It is all about showing you can empathise with the client’s business issues and its perspective on its world.

When a business selects a partner to take on some of its critical business functions, it wants to be convinced that its partner will act as it would. Every contract it puts in place will affect its users and clients. It needs to be confident that the partner will see the world as it does and not do anything which may adversely impact its reputation.

When I evaluate a proposal, I check to see if this understanding of the client’s business comes through. Of course, finding the client’s terminology in the response text is a good start. Yet, the demonstration of understanding needs much more than this. It must show some deeper connection between the issue identified by the client as important and your solution.

For every question, it is clear that the issue is important to the client; it has asked a specific question about it. If the client has asked a question, it is because the client needs to get assurance that your solution will deliver what it requires in this area. The client will always have some underlying concern that drives it to create this question. Therefore, I look for something in the proposal which identifies this underlying concern and shows that your business “gets it”.

There are many traps for the proposal team trying to demonstrate this understanding. Repeating or precising the question as the leading part of their answer is a waste of words. It does not demonstrate any understanding. Writing a textbook description of the client’s problem will come across as patronising. This uses even more words. Moreover, the evaluators will get irritated if you tell them what they already know. If you bury your proposal in text expanding the question, they might not even read it properly. You have to find a way to express your understanding of their issues which does not create a barrier.

One way I have found that does this is to use the “so we” test. It takes the form of “You need / must have / are faced with the challenge of [short statement of underlying concern], so we are proposing to / have chosen [short statement of solution].” For example: “We understand that out-of-hours support is critical to your users, so we have enhanced the existing team by …”

By its nature, this approach may use and play back the client’s question. However, it works as a preamble to put the “so we” into context. It justifies the solution choices and demonstrates understanding. It magnifies the power of the solution by directly matching the solution to a client need. If used correctly, it frames the response against its underlying concern. You have not altered your proposal but you have got more magic dust.

An additional benefit is that this approach makes us consider the client first and focus on its issues. It forces us to think about what the client needs and how our approach will be best for it. Instead of selling our solution to the client, we will be discussing how the client’s problems can best be resolved. Evaluators will find this change of focus hugely appealing. As a result, it improves scores.

Of course, this approach needs you to know something about the client and its real needs. If you have no idea about these, you should re-evaluate why you would want to bid at all. Your win chances are much lower if you are up against a competitor who can show it understands the client’s perspective.

Should you, or anyone in your team, need any assistance when you are considering reviewing a Public Sector response, Sixfold would be delighted to help. Please call us for a free chat on 01227 860375.

“How” is a Dirty Word September 23, 2021 at 3:10 pm