Abstract
Writing a winning proposal in response to a federal RFP is grueling. The proposal manager has to juggle dozens of issues and keep a constant eye on how the proposal can be further improved. Under the pressure of tight deadlines, even experienced proposal managers can forget to guard against some of the downside risks, leading to strategic or tactical mistakes. In the experience of the authors (Dave Alexander, and his son Andrew Alexander), making any of the following five errors will guarantee the failure of a federal proposal.
1. Criticize the RFP. Sure, the RFP might be poorly written and badly organized. But you must resist the temptation to explain that you have a “better way” of organizing the proposal.
2. Assume the RFP is fresh, and on target. It happens all the time. The manager of a federal proposal and his or her team take it for granted that the particular issues and challenges described in the RFP are accurate and up-to-date reflections of what the agency is seeking. Competitors who have done their homework ahead of time will write much more insightful proposals.
3. Assume your client references will be stellar. Proposal managers can be tempted to skip the vetting of client references due to time pressures. He or she may list an “Old Faithful” group of client references. Then the nightmare occurs: it turns out that some of these references are no longer enamored with the firm.
4. Brag. This is a recipe for disaster. Why write phrases such as: “Our firm is world-class … We have a unique combination of skills that cannot be matched by any other competitor.” Aside from being shopworn cliches, these types of statements almost beg Evaluation Panel members to take you down a notch.
5. Lie. If you tell outright untruths or exaggerate about your firm—either purposely or because you failed to carefully review drafts written by overzealous or misinformed members of your proposal-writing team—you are making a grave error. The result is simply wrong, ethically and in many cases legally. You will not be able to keep these fibs straight, and evaluation panel members have an amazing propensity for ferreting out inconsistencies. Don’t stoop to this tactic: it will backfire.
