1. YOU ARE THE EVALUATOR - WHAT EVALUATING PROPOSALS CAN TEACH YOU ABOUT WRITING BETTER ONES Roger Campbell 6 February 2014

2. “Just walk a mile in my shoes Before you abuse, criticize and accuse” - Elvis Presley

3. The Evaluator’s Perspective  What do evaluators look for?  Early focus – elimination not selection  Responsive to all requirements  Responses easy to find  Understands my needs and solves my problems  Approaches benefit me  Clear writing and graphics  No obvious reuse (i.e., boilerplates) Source - “How Does the Customer Evaluate Proposals”, Dan Safford

4. Just Who’s Evaluating Our Proposals?  Mid career professionals with in-depth knowledge of the area being evaluated  Experienced in proposal evaluation  Take a strategic view of their role  Early career professional (average age of 28) with some familiarity in the area being evaluated  First time doing proposal evaluation (only 10% “repeat offenders”)  Just “paying their dues” The MythThe Reality Source – APMP Government/Industry Task Force

5. The Evaluator’s Role Evaluators Read the Proposal Create Findings (Strengths, Weaknesses, etc.) Create Bidder Comparisons Advise the Decision Maker Decision Maker Reads the Executive Summary Listens to Evaluator Advice Selects the Winner Evaluators Read the Proposal Create Findings (Strengths, Weaknesses, etc.) Board (SSAC) Reviews Findings for Consistency Creates Bidder Comparisons Advises the Decision Maker Decision Maker May Read the Exec. Summary Listens to Board Advice Selects the Winner Simplified AcquisitionComplex Acquisition Source - “Getting in the Winner’s Circle”, Dick Close

6. Evaluators Use a Checklist (Standard)  Evaluators don’t compare proposals directly to each other (Proposal A vs. Proposal B)  They compare proposals to a Standard that defines the characteristic of an acceptable solution or response (Proposal A vs. Standard, Proposal B vs. Standard, etc.)  If a given proposal exceeds a minimum requirement, it will likely receive a Strength or Significant Strength finding  If the proposal falls short of a minimum requirement, it will receive a Weakness or Significant Weakness finding  If a given proposal doesn’t address a requirement, it will likely receive a Deficiency finding Source - “Getting in the Winner’s Circle”, Dick Close; Army Source Selection Manual

7. Some Example Standards Subfactor – Payload Range Description – The payload that can be carried during operations Standard – At a weight < or = design gross weight, the aircraft can transport a payload: A. of 30 klbs. for 2800 nm B. of 48 klbs. for 1400 nm Subfactor – System Safety Description – Adequacy of the Systems Safety Program in guiding the design to achieve safety objectives Standard – The Standard is met when the proposal: 1) Defines the scope of the Systems Safety effort 2) Defines qualitative analysis proposed for identifying hazards… QuantitativeQualitative Source - “Getting in the Winner’s Circle”, Dick Close

8. How the Government Defines Findings Significant Strength – A characteristic in a proposal that appreciably increases the chance of successful contract performance Strength – A characteristic in a proposal that increases the chance of successful contract performance Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance Significant Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance Deficiency – A material failure to meet a requirement Source – FAR 15.001

9. Now, You are an Overworked and Unappreciated Evaluator! Evaluate Proposal Sections Using the Provided Standard Create at least 3 Findings per section

10. Turning Findings into a Proposal Rating ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS Excellent A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists. 91-100 Very Good A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist. 71-90 Good A proposal having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the offeror’s response. 51-70 FairA proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths. 31-50 Poor A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct. 0-30 Source – NASA FAR SUP 1815.305

11. Key Takeaways  Making the Evaluator’s job easy leads to a better score  Clearly address all requirement (Just Answer the Damn Question!)  Assert qualitative or quantified customer benefits  Favor clarity over technical sophistication