If you are going to win new contracts, your contract
proposals must be well-written and compelling,
and they must specifically address every single
RFP specification in a logical, organized fashion.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) is an invitation from a government agency or a company for interested and qualified parties to submit technical and cost proposals to conduct a project requested by that agency or company. Alternatively, a sponsor may request proposals in a certain field of research, relying upon respondents to define and propose projects in their areas of interest. These are competitive situations. Proposals are judged according to technical criteria established by the sponsor. Sponsors often seek the lowest cost proposal that will satisfactorily meet their technical objectives, but price is not always the determining factor.
Many proposals submitted in response to RFPs fall within the Unacceptable to Average range. The production of a proposal can involve anywhere from a handful to hundreds of people, and the process itself can be time consuming and stressful. Why not give your company an edge and make your extra effort worthwhile? Why not increase your odds of achieving the results you seek?
Submission of ineffective contract proposals hurts your organization’s credibility.
Submission of ineffective contract proposals wastes time and money.
In the end, submission of ineffective contract proposals does not bring about the new business that you seek.
We at Gower Street, LLC, can use our proposal writing, editing, proofreading, and evaluation experience to ensure your company's proposal meets or exceeds RFP criteria for technical merit and viability (e.g., business case development, vendor qualifications, costs, schedule/time impact, performance impact, staff and deliverables, technical viability/risk, and implementation plan). With the help of Gower Street, you can produce a Superior proposal, one that meets and even exceeds all of the expectations stipulated in the RFP. Superior proposals are winning proposals--the kind that bring you new clients and more business.
Carolyn Daughters, owner of Gower Street, has written large portions of and edited in their entirety proposals for multimillion-dollar contracts submitted by the following agencies and organizations (among others): the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Resolution Trust Corporation.
|
GENERAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TECHNICAL MERIT AND VIABILITY (Customers
use these sorts of criteria to establish the degree to which a submission |
|
Title |
Is the title
“excitingly” descriptive? |
|
Abstract |
Is the
issue clearly introduced? Is the issue’s importance clear?
Is the approach to the issue clear (e.g., are the methods appropriate)?
Are the anticipated results of the project clear, and are they logically
related to the stated issue? Does
the abstract make readers excited about reading the rest of the
proposal? |
|
Introduction |
Is the issue
clearly introduced?
Is the issue’s importance clear? Do the sentences around the issue
support the issue’s claim of importance?
Are the specific aims and hypotheses well written? Are they clearly
related to the issue? Are the specific aims and hypotheses logically
related? Does the background information convincingly build an argument that the vendor is capable or even uniquely capable of meeting the RFP criteria? |
|
Methods |
Are the
methods/protocol appropriate for the proposed work? Does the vendor
adequately represent that he/she can actually accomplish the proposed
work?
Is the stated methodology appropriate to evaluate the question or
accomplish the stated goals?
Are the expected outcomes logically tied to the specific aims and
hypothesis? |
|
Problem,
Design, and Likelihood of Results |
Does the
proposal develop a thorough problem statement demonstrating how the
vendor will solve the problem?
Does the proposal establish concrete objectives, important outcomes, and
the likelihood of success?
Does the proposal include well-conceived and organized activities, an
implementation plan, and a timetable? |
|
Partnership |
Does the
proposal show evidence and extent of organizational, institutional, and
other commitments?
Does the proposal show evidence of a clear, mutually beneficial
partnership, as well as the extent to which partnership is essential to
achieving project objectives? |
|
Sustainability,
Support, and Replicability |
Does the
proposal show evidence and extent of other support, evidence of eventual
integration of the proposed activity into an existing system, and/or
evidence that the proposed activity creates an effective model for other
similar activities?
Does the proposal demonstrate the potential for the proposed activity to
influence lasting change or to instigate a new approach?
Does the proposal show evidence of and extent to which the vendor’s
proposal will facilitate the achievement of project goals? |
|
Monitoring
and Evaluation |
Does the
proposal include a methodology for
documenting progress towards and assessing success in achieving stated
goals? |
|
Personnel |
Are personnel
descriptions adequate and are stated personnel skills clearly related to
the proposed work? |
|
Summary |
Is there a
statement concerning expected outcomes/results?
What is the value of the vendor’s proposal to the funding agency? |
|
Budget |
Is the budget
appropriate for the project?
Are the items well justified?
Does the budget vary across years to reflect the changing needs of the
project, as appropriate? |
|
Timeline |
Is the
timeline appropriate to complete the project?
Are the critical events listed within the timeline? |
|
Grade |
Overall
Evaluation |
Definition
Relative to Content of Proposal |
Definition
Relative to Ability to Satisfy Evaluation Guidelines |
|
0 |
Unacceptable |
Pertinent
information is not provided or is ambiguous |
Serious
shortfalls in capability; plans are unacceptable |
|
1 |
Poor/Marginal |
Pertinent
information is incomplete/marginal, poor in detail, poor in clarity,
somewhat ambiguous, poorly presented |
Shortfalls
in capability exist in critical areas; plans are poor and ill-conceived |
|
2 |
Average/Good |
Pertinent
information is complete and meets requirements; unambiguous; adequate in
detail, clarity, and/or presentation |
Generally
acceptable; may be shortfalls in capability in some non-critical areas;
plans are acceptable but do not stand out |
|
3 |
Very
Good |
Pertinent
information is complete, sufficiently detailed, clear, unambiguous, and
well-presented |
Exceeds
desired quality; plans are above satisfactory and stand out |
|
4 |
Superior |
Same
as above |
Excellent
capability; company can provide a superior level of support |