This is the third in a series about proposal reviews. The purpose of a review is to improve the quality of the final proposal document and the previous two blog posts explained why reviews are both difficult and necessary. If you are not familiar with proposal color reviews (pink team, red team, etc.), it would be a good idea to read the two previous blogs before proceeding with this one.
Today’s blog provides guidance on how to make proposal reviews effective.
First, recognize that there is no “plug and play” perfect schedule or format for a proposal review. The size of the proposal, the importance of the opportunity, the size of the company, the number of writers, and many other factors affect the planning and execution of proposal reviews.
Second, make key decisions about the proposal reviews early in the process. How many reviews will you need? Who will review which proposal volumes? Within each proposal volume, will multiple reviewers read the same section? Will one reviewer read the entire document? Will the reviews be virtual reviews (people read the document on their own in advance and then convene to discuss their comments) or in-person session? Who will facilitate the reviews? Will reviewers make comments directly in the document? Who will combine all the comments and distribute them to the authors? Are you going to give reviewers a checklist of things to look for?
As part of the planning process, it is essential to identify everyone in the hierarchy who will want to make comments on the proposal. Incorporate those people into the review process. Otherwise, the proposal manager is sure to get a call from a senior executive at the eleventh hour, which introduces yet another review cycle when there is no time for one.
Third, send out invitations to reviewers and distribute the RFP and available capture documents as early as possible. Set expectations. This way, the reviewers will know what time they will receive a draft and how long they will have to read and comment on it.
Fourth, convene the reviewers before they receive the draft and explain the “known unknowns.” If an early draft is missing the personnel section, for example, tell the reviewers up front so that they don’t spend time looking for something that isn’t there, and then commenting on it.
Fifth, explain to reviewers the difference between subjective judgment (“I don’t like this paragraph”) and actionable suggestions (“Insert a sentence on the results of our last simulation that shows we increased efficiency by 30%”). Encourage them to skip the former and focus on the latter. Ask them to tie their comments to specific requirements in the RFP whenever possible.
Evaluation criteria are often subjective. Unless the reviewers have evaluated similar proposals as a government employee in the recent past in the same organization, you are unlikely to really get a government perspective anyway. So, it makes sense to focus on the practical.
Finally, recognize that everyone has difficulty absorbing criticism – even professional writers and artists who get feedback on a regular basis. Criticizing someone’s writing is like criticizing their children or their spouse. Give the writers time to identify and acknowledge what is valuable in the reviewers’ comments.
Following these guidelines will not make reviews easy, because they are inherently difficult. Yet every proposal, whether it is two pages or 2000, needs another set of eyes to see what authors cannot see.