Ian’s Observations: Common Drafting Mistakes that can Derail a Proposal

Contracting officers are human. They want to complete procurements with the least amount of muss and fuss possible. They want to avoid embarrassing anyone and they’re (probably) not out to get you. But they are looking for a reason to eliminate proposals from the competition.

Don’t give them one!

Over the next couple of weeks, I’m going to use this space to talk about some common mistakes that I’ve seen in proposals that can lead to a defensible decision to eliminate a proposal from the competition (which means that a potential protest will have an uphill battle). By no means am I a proposal drafting expert. Rather, these are some items that I’ve identified from litigating numerous bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and Court of Federal Claims. These are less tips of how to make a proposal a winner, and more examples of how to stop a proposal from being a loser.

Today’s topic: Responding Directly to the Solicitation

Answering the Question Directly

After a particularly rough midterm, I asked my law professor for an exam tip. Her response was straightforward: “Answer the question presented, nothing more or less.”

At the time, I was less than thrilled by the response. That’s what I thought I had done on my midterm. Looking back on it now, it was good advice. I needed to stay focused on what was being asked and respond directly to that prompt. Thankfully, I was able to apply that method to the final with much greater success.

It’s no different in proposal writing. Many proposals tout the experience, capabilities, and unique stories of the proposing businesses. Of course, they have every reason to be proud of their successful track records. Intuitively, the history of successful performance also seems like a good way to communicate value and capacity to the government. But those proposals often forget to respond directly to the agency’s needs.

Federal agencies are going to evaluate offerors based on the requirements stated in the solicitation—they have to. Long passages about having 20 plus years of federal contracting experience are lost on an agency that has stated it will be evaluating whether the offeror proposed approach can provide the help desk support in accordance with a solicitation’s performance work statement.

Consequently, successful proposals directly address how the offeror will meet each of the government’s needs and requirements. Do not assume that an agency can or will infer capabilities about your business. State expressly how each of the requirements will be addressed. Of course, there is a place for highlighting the history and track record of a company in a proposal, but that information should not serve as a substitute for responding directly to the agency’s needs.

As was mentioned at the beginning of this blog, I’m not a proposal drafting expert. I’m an attorney. As such I’m concerned with legal sufficiency, not competitive posturing. Nevertheless, in the federal marketplace, competitive positioning and legal sufficiency sometimes go hand in hand. To that end, it’s my hope a few of these pointers might make a difference.