Monday, January 28, 2013

Words That Kill Your Proposal



 Inexperienced proposal writers seem to use words that should be avoided when writing proposals. These inappropriate words and phrases can weaken a proposal, annoy evaluators, and even undermine the bidder’s credibility.

To help you write better proposals, we have listed types of  most frequently used words that should be avoided when writing proposals.

Our list doesn’t cover every word that should be avoided, and there are certainly exceptions to the usage rules, but our list does provide guidance and suggests alternative words that will strengthen your proposal.
Here’s a brief discussion of the kinds of words you should avoid.

Crutch words
When writers don’t know what to say, they often use crutch words to make the reader think they know what they are writing about. For example, when a proposal writer says, “We understand your requirements,” then fails to demonstrate any understanding, the writer is using the word understand as a crutch.

The proposal would be much stronger if the writer demonstrated an understanding of the requirements by discussing how features of their proposal fulfill customer requirements. Avoid using the word understand in your proposal. It will most certainly be a crutch that replaces what should be a discussion of your understanding.

Boasting Words
Boasting words cause a proposal to lose credibility and undermine the integrity of the bidder. I know every 10-person company feels compelled to say they are world class, uniquely qualified, use best-of-breed tools, have industry-standard processes, have state-of-the-art technology, and are thought leaders in their market.

I can assure you no proposal evaluator has ever based an award decision on this kind of puffery. Remove boasting words from your proposal, and focus your proposal on what you are going to do for the customer, instead of trying to make your firm sound so important. Interestingly, the bigger and more successful companies are, the more humble they seem to be about their credentials.

Vague, useless words
No proposal evaluator has ever been moved by a proposal that said we are pleased to submit this proposal, enthusiastic about performing this work, committed to top quality, or we place our customers first. These are just useless words in a proposal. You will do better if you strip these from your proposal, and write about what matters—which is how you are going to do the work.

Weak, timid words
We believe, think, feel, strive, attempt, intend, etc. are all words that contemplate failure to perform as an acceptable outcome. Say what you intend to do, and don’t couch it in timid terms.

Redundant words
In page-limited proposals, concise writing is mandatory. Let’s make it a practice to replace redundant words with precise words. For example, replace actual experience with experience, advanced planning with planning, close proximity with proximity, consensus of opinion with consensus, and so on.

Unnecessary Qualifiers
We are absolutely certain, it goes without saying, now and again, comparatively, thoroughly, needless to say, etc. are unnecessary qualifiers. While these words and many similar words may have a place in proposals, most writers use them as unnecessary qualifiers. Remove them to make your writing more concise.

Needlessly long words
Normally, you wouldn’t use unnecessarily long words in conversation, so there’s no need to use them in a proposal. Replace ascertain with learn, encompass with include, enumerate with list, illustrate with show, initiate with start, and so on.

Slang
We are hitting the ground running and rolling out the red carpet with seasoned managers... You might say this in conversation and it would be fine, but in a proposal, it just sounds odd. Proposals are more formal and may even end up being part of the contract, so write without using slang.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Law Aims to Help Small Businesses get Federal Contracts


Lawmakers are trying to do something about the fact that federal agencies have failed to meet small business contracting goals for six consecutive years. A new law requires senior agency employees to defend future failures in their performance reviews and bonus discussions. That and several others measures aimed at helping small businesses compete for federal contracts are included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 that was signed into law by President Obama this week.

The House Small Business Committee Chairman had prioritized “the concerns of small contractors who want to seek business opportunities with the federal government” and had “uncovered various barriers that made it harder for small businesses to succeed.”

The small business provisions in the Defense Authorization Act “will help make sure existing small business goals are actually met, empower small business advocates, and crack down on fraud” while helping small businesses compete for federal contracts, saving taxpayer money, and creating jobs.

In addition to holding agency leaders accountable for meeting the federal government’s goal of awarding 23 percent of contracts to small businesses, other small-business-friendly measures contained in the Act include:

• A change in limitations on subcontracting from cost to price, designed to make it easier for small businesses to comply with procurement rules, while allowing them to team together to pursue larger contracts.
• Penalties for violating limitations on subcontracting, designed to make it easier to suspend and debar companies intentionally defrauding the government.
• Removal of “set-aside caps” on the women’s contracting program.
• A requirement that the Small Business Administration develop size standards that accurately define what is a small business for each of the more than 1,100 industries where small firms operate.
• A “safe harbor” for small businesses that violate a rule by mistake when acting on a written advisory opinion from either a Small Business Development Center or Procurement Technical Assistance Center.
• A requirement that OMB and agencies publish procedures, methodologies, and guidance documents associated with their decisions.
• A requirement for additional oversight and a report to determine when contract bundling—the practice of grouping several contracts together for bidding—to compete is justified.

Monday, January 14, 2013

How does the Government view Performance Base Contracting?



Happy New Year to All!

I hope this year brings success to your respected companies and these Monday Morning Contracting Tips supports your efforts. 

Doing business with the Federal Government requires companies to understand how the government operate under their Acquisition Process.

How does the Government view Performance Base Contracting.   

When government consider performance based contracting, they do not lose sight of the reason for using this technique. Its purpose is to obtain better performance or lower costs or both. In other
words, things should work better and cost less.

Contractor Capability
Basic to the concept of performance-based contracting is to adopt contracting specifications and procedures permitting the contractor to devise the most efficient and effective way to perform the work. However, drafting of statements of work which enable contractors to use their initiative is only part of the task. Choosing a capable and trustworthy contractor is absolutely essential. Thus, past performance evaluations and partnering are necessary ingredients to selecting the contractor and working with it.

There are Seven Steps that the Federal Government use in Performance Based Acquisitions
1.            Establish the Team
2.            Decide what problem needs solving
3.            Examine private-sector and public-sector solutions
4.            Develop a PWS or SOO
5.            Manage Performance 

All the Best