Shattering Proposal Myths: Number Three – “I Know What the Client Wants!”

Proposal development continues to suffer from several key misperceptions from people both inside and outside Government contracting. This post is the third in a series that will seek to dispel these myths and, in the end, shed light on what we do and how we do it most successfully.

The company has been engaged in pursuing a key opportunity (a major recompete, targeted new business, strategic IDIQ/MAC contract, etc.). The capture lead on the bid has done his/her homework, meeting with the technical client and acquisition shop regularly. When the solicitation is released, it is not exactly what was expected. Despite the changes in the solicitation, the capture lead refuses to alter strategy. Why? “I know what the client wants, and that’s what we need to deliver.”

Overconfidence has led many a team to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. The Atlanta Falcons were leading the New England Patriots 28-9 in the fourth quarter before Tom Brady led his team to an amazing comeback and a 34-28 win. Crystal Palace was less than 10 minutes away from an FA Cup in 2016 before Manchester United tied it late and won it in extra time. Many of us have been in the same boat, where we have ended up on the losing end of an opportunity where we were certain we would win. In these cases, “it is ours to lose” comes true, with significant consequences for the organization.

Many times the loss of a bid where the team is well-positioned and has great client intimacy is having too much knowledge. The team has confidence in its proposed solution. Sometimes, this confidence becomes cockiness and leads teams to ignore the process or the specifics of a solicitation. The team focuses on what it wants to say instead because team members have “insight” into what the client wants. There are three common scenarios that result from being overconfident.

“but the client wants bob”

Sometimes, knowing an incredible amount of detail on the client can have negative consequences. This becomes quite common around staffing requirements for incumbents. For example, the solicitation says that a Senior Developer should have a Bachelors degree and 5 years of experience. The program manager knows how much the client relies on “Bob.” The problem arises when “Bob” has a Masters Degree and 10 years of experience, which causes him to be 25% more expensive than the salary survey data for the actual requirement.

While the client may want “Bob,” the labor category might not allow the incumbent to bid “Bob.” In response, the incumbent team needs to figure out a way to either mitigate the cost of this overqualified individual or replace him/her with an appropriately qualified (and priced) resource. Bidding “Bob” at an inflated rate results in significant risk as competitors price to the market and not the individual.
Good, thorough capture and client intimacy can often prevent this myth entirety. Strong capture teams help guide the client to ensure delivery of desired resources. The capture lead and incumbent program manager must engage with the technical client regarding the skills required for top performers to ensure the solicitation adequately accounts for the real cost of the most important people.

Recompete capture also must involve adjusting execution on the program. Good organizations will look to “green” the workforce to avoid dramatic salary shifts or a high level of turnover at any one time. Properly “enhancing the workforce,” with the awareness and buy-in of the client, helps prevent a company can avoid getting caught in being an overpriced incumbent.

“they want us to write to this.”

The requirements (Performance Work Statement, Statement of Work, Statement of Objectives) define the scope of the contract. They provide the structure and understanding of the relationship between Government and contractor. It binds both sides – the client cannot ask for any more than is there, and the contractor does not need to provide anything more.

Sometimes, however, the requirements do not map to what good capture teams know. If the incumbent knows that the client expects to receive certain support that is not specified in the solicitation, it may include that in its write-up. However, it would be difficult for the client to include those “value adds” in the award justification since they were not articulated in the scope of work.

This has a dramatic impact when the Government prescribes a level of effort range. The Government may want to have 15 people supporting the contract, but provides a range of 10 to 15 in the solicitation. By setting an acceptable floor, offerors need to bid to the lower mark in order to make them price competitive.
In these situations, the bidder needs to write only to the requirements. If additional value-adds can be tied directly to the requirements written, then by all means the offeror should include those in its narrative. However, there needs to be a clear link to a specific requirement and a benefit spelled out in the proposal to ensure that there is a way for the information to be used to justify an award.

“they know us!”

The idea that the client knows us and wants to pick us can lead to complacency on a bid. The incumbent may not put in its best effort, assuming the relationship with the client will make up for any proposal shortcomings. However, in the hyper-competitive market we see today no incumbent can rest on its laurels.