Features tell, and benefits sell. However, the solution features and benefits alone are insufficient. There is a third element in the winning equation: metrics. To win in the federal market, bidders need features, benefits, and proof points. When features with proven benefits exceed requirements and/or significantly reduce risk in a manner the customer values, the bidder earns a Strength or Significant Strength. Quite often, what prevents the bidder from achieving a Strength and ultimately winning is lack of metrics. A proposal without metrics falls flat Submitting a proposal without metrics is like trying to achieve results without any objectives. Similar to the old saying, what gets measured, gets done, in proposals, quantitative facts back up the merits of the solution. Too many bidders rely on vague statements, unsubstantiated bragging, and claims without merit. Question every feature with a proven benefit by asking: How so? So what? By how much? Within … Continue reading No metrics? No proposal win!
This article was originally published March 4, 2020 on WashingtonTechnology.com Is a winning proposal a good proposal? Some argue that by definition, yes, a win is a good proposal. However, we all know that a proposal can be the winner for reasons unrelated to proposal quality—such as a price shoot out. Therefore, when we look back at our win-loss track record, we miss a lot of important data if wins and losses are the only measures of successful performance. As a result, we may re-use a poor-quality proposal or dismiss a losing proposal that has some successful elements. Are your proposals good? In a Deltek webinar, Bob Lohfeld polled the audience to ask: “Are your proposals compliant, responsive, AND compelling?” Interestingly, only 15 percent of 150-plus respondents believed that their proposals were consistently achieving all three measures of quality. Another 35 percent responded that their proposals sometimes achieved all three. … Continue reading A winning proposal isn’t always the best
Writers are all too often overwhelmed or unprepared for their proposal writing tasks. Most of us understand the qualities our proposals need to exhibit to score outstanding, but when it comes time to write proposals, the path can get murky. This webinar explains Julia Quigley’s APB (Approach, Process, Benefits) method to writing proposals that simplifies writing tasks into a repeatable process, emphasizes strengths, and yields text that is easy for evaluators to read and score. As promised, here are Julia’s responses to questions we ran out of time to address during the webinar Q&A session. Q. You said we should reorganize requirements, but we’ve often been told that our response should follow the exact same order of the RFP. Which is correct? A. Both ideas are correct and only sound like they contradict one another. You should absolutely follow the order of the RFP; structure your bid in compliance with the … Continue reading Q&A – “APBs” of persuasive proposal writing for reluctant writers, enigmatic engineers, and circuitous SMEs
In this webinar, Julia Quigley showed how you can accomplish your proposal writing objectives without the typical anxiety as she demonstrated her APB writing method. This proven process makes writing manageable and produces compliant, easy-to-evaluate text that highlights your company’s strengths. Click to register and watch Webinar Replay and download Webinar Slides If you missed Lisa Pafe’s recent whitepaper on strengths-based solutioning and what content evaluators are looking for in your proposals, catch up on Win Rates Double with 7 Quality Measures. This white paper gives you a clear picture of the info you need to include in your proposals, and Julia’s webinar shows you an anxiety-free method to easily convey that info so government evaluators can’t miss it. Click to download 7 Quality Measures Research Report Your presenter: Julia Quigley has worked on a variety of Federal Health IT task orders and large federal proposals. With a … Continue reading “APBs” of persuasive proposal writing for reluctant writers, enigmatic engineers, and circuitous SMEs