In BQ19 I referred to the bid lifecycle as a value chain, using the metaphor of the chain pulled tight so each link (process step) works to full potential. Healthy tension aligns process steps with the team goal, generating maximum value.
But value is eroded by process activities mismatched with their intentions. Consider response reviews and feedback: i) internal in process steps, and ii) external from the procuring client.
Their purpose is to:
i) Internal: Assess proposals for responsiveness and compliance to maximise scores. Internal assessment is essential for the proposal’s continuous improvement.
ii) External: Explain which areas would have benefited from more detail or didn’t provide confidence; acknowledge where responses did provide high confidence.
Internal feedback consistent with its intention of improvement
If review remarks aren’t meaningful, they don’t maximise value because the feedback and its intention are mismatched. Examples are: “Rewrite”, “No”, and “What about…?” They’re not specific and actionable, and little more useful than no feedback. ‘Secondary handling’ is needed to establish what the reviewer meant. Always ensure your reviewers, including the AI ones, are well briefed on question requirements, assessment criteria, expectations for feedback, why it’s needed, and how it will be used.
External feedback to keep challenging the market
Procuring clients are more likely to receive strong submissions when bid requirements are clear and when feedback to bidders supports their continuous improvement journeys. There must be consistency between the drive for ever-rising standards and the usefulness of feedback, including for winning submissions. While detailed feedback is usually discretionary, even high-level remarks can help inform improvement areas ahead of bidder decisions and strategy development for future submissions to the same client.
Remarks could be about areas for which more detail would have helped. Inconsistency here occurs when, for example, response size restrictions aren’t aligned with the number of topics to be addressed and won’t be increased through tender queries. This scenario prevents highly detailed answers, so planning focus areas (based on capture intelligence and bid strategy) becomes even more important. I recall a question asking for a detailed delivery methodology, including 11 significant and fundamental topics, to be provided on one page of A4 with large margins, font and line spacing. We innovated in how to present the response, which scored high marks. The client’s feedback suggested areas for more detail, which was frustrating and useful in equal measure.
Think of the reader
We gain most from the feedback stages of the bid lifecycle when remarks are meaningful, clear, and actionable, supporting us to take bids and bidding to the next level.
Top comments (0)