BuiltEnvironment

Subcontractor's role in proposal development

In my more than 40 years as an A/E/C marketer, both as an in-house staff member and as an outside consultant, I have participated in and/or managed between 1,200 and 1,400 pursuits. Almost all of them required the development and submittal of a formal proposal, including firm information, subconsultant information, proposed project personnel, relevant experience, and anything else that might help the client select my team for the assignment.

For an A/E/C firm pursuing projects in the public sector, it is a rare pursuit that includes no special-category (DBE, MBE, WBE, 8[a], disabled veteran or other category) subconsultant firms. In all pursuits where the team included subconsultants, I asked those firms to provide a number of items and gave them a deadline no more than one week away. The requested information included:

• the complete and accurate firm name;
• the firm logo (.jpg file);
• 1/4-page to 1/3-page firm introduction;
• 3-5 projects where their firm performed the disciplines they would perform on this pursuit;
• photographs of the project;
• resumes of only those individuals who would actually perform the work;
• a list of projects (if any) performed with my firm (the prime consultant);
• a list of projects (if any) performed for the client; and
• anything else they bring to the table that could raise our chances of success.

I also asked for information on any proprietary assets they brought to the team, whether those assets were equipment (vehicles, computers, drones [unmanned aerial vehicles] or computer programs, along with an explanation of what the asset was and how it would benefit the project.

All information was to be provided in Word files with relevant graphics both in the text file (to show placement) and as separate .jpg files, for easy editing and inclusion in my document. If the submittal was to be an SF330, all information needed to be provided using SF330 templates—which I would provide, if necessary.

As far as I can tell, most proposal managers ask their subconsultants for the same information when confirming them as pursuit team members, with the possible exception of firm logos. I like to use a subconsultant's logo alongside the firm description because the visual will often make for easier recognition of that team member.

What I also like to do—which I believe fewer proposal managers do—is to have each subconsultant draft the section of the project approach dealing with the specific discipline(s) they are covering. I find that when the subconsultant writes his/her part of the project approach, both the accuracy and clarity of the method and the likelihood of innovation in the offered approach go up. Also, if the approach to that discipline is truly innovative, the subconsultant is more likely to be able to explain what the innovation is, how it will benefit the project and the client, and why that benefit is important.

All this, of course, is based on the assumption that your firm makes its Go/No Go decision in time to identify and select the best subconsultants, and request and acquire their information in plenty of time for them—and you—to produce a top quality submittal.

And by the way, I keep a list of subconsultants who didn't provide information on time, provided regular text for SF330 submittals, or provided .pdf files when I requested Word files. I use this list to help limit future use of those consultants.

It's not the work, it's the waiting

In the last 7½ weeks, I have received five referrals—all of them from the same person. It's really great to have people who know my work, who respect my work, who value my work, and who recommend my work to others who need the kind of assistance I can provide.

I sent my current Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) document to each of the five within 24 hours of the referral hitting my inbox, with a brief introduction of my experience with A/E firms and my desire to assist. Then the waiting began.

Of the five A/E firms referred to me, the first resulted immediately in a project—assistance with the development of an SF330 submittal for a US Army Corps of Engineers Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract that was due in 2 weeks.

The second was looking for help developing proposals—and possibly for help developing process starting with the Go/No Go evaluation and going through a debriefing after the selection was announced.

The third was looking for training in a variety of marketing topics, for both marketing staff and technical staff who had a role in the marketing process.

The fourth was looking for what I call a "marketing audit"—an evaluation of their standard, off-the-shelf marketing pieces (brochures, project sheets, service area sheets), their favorite proposals and SOQs, and their marketing-related processes, as well as discussions with those staff members having marketing and/or business development responsibilities to make sure of their relevant attitudes and knowledge of the firm.

The fifth was looking for proposal process assistance, including opening the eyes of the firm's two partners to some of the downside of rash Go/No Go decisions made for the wrong reasons.

The first project was completed and invoiced before the end of April. The others—with initial contacts between April 15 and April 30, have yet to pan out into projects. In addition to the initial email, there have been one or two conversations with parties from each firm, but no actual projects identified yet. The last was initiated 5 days ago, with a first phone call this morning, so I wouldn't expect anything to happen yet.

The discussions each lasted 30-45 minutes and covered a wide range of A/E marketing-related issues and needs, and I believe I would enjoy working with all of the people with whom I spoke. But the details of our conversations now have to make their way up the chain of supervisors to the person who can make the decision to retain me. And so, the next round of waiting.

In each case, I let a week go by and then emailed my contact to repeat my desire to work with them and to ask if there was any additional information I could provide that would help with their evaluation and decision. Then I waited again. I know people are busy, and I didn't want to make a nuisance of myself.

When someone recommends me, I feel a double responsibility to do my best work because, in addition to providing an excellent product to the new client, I don't want to jeopardize the reputation of the person who made the recommendation.

As a freelancer, I can definitely tell you that, in some ways, the waiting for a "go-ahead" can be the hardest part of any project pursuit or scope and fee negotiation process.

Anticipating the short-list interview

Getting technical staff engaged in developing the short-list presentation

Most experienced marketing and technical folks have a good feel for the prospects of any project they decide to pursue. They know if a contemplated pursuit is a shot in the dark, if the project seems to have their firm's name written all over it, or the pursuit lies somewhere in between.

Many "also-ran" firms enter the short-list interview in first place—it's "their project to lose"—and then they lose, for one of two reasons:

1. They didn't spend enough time developing the script and show; or
2. They didn't rehearse enough to make the best presentation possible.

The hours spent developing the presentation and preparing for the interview are hours billed to overhead, and technical people hate to let overhead tasks take time away from their "real" (i.e. billable) work. However, as the people who will actually speak during the interview, it is important for them to be major contributors to the script and the screen show.

I have found that, when you are convinced that you will receive an invitation to interview, the best way to involve technical folks in developing the short-list script and screen show is to get the them thinking about the presentation during the proposal stage. Every topic brought up during the proposal phase—whether related to staff, experience, approach, or team organization—should include two questions:

1. Does this have a place in the short-list interview?
   
2. If so, what is the topic's place and who addresses it?

Every process considered for inclusion in the proposal should beg the question: "is this topic better served by a flow chart or other graphic rather than just one or a few paragraphs of text?"

These questions will not only help you determine what belongs in the presentation long before you even get the invitation letter. They will also help you determine what does not need to be in the presentation.

With this approach, your interview/presentation can be 90-95% outlined by the time the proposal goes out the door. Major changes only happen if the client/owner asks specific questions in the invitation letter.

Based on this outline, and given the fact that any team member asked to speak will speak only on his/her area of expertise and how that informs the project approach or management style, completing the script should not be an onerous task. The difficulty is rehearsing—mostly in helping speakers understand the importance of rehearsing. Here are some things that tell the client your full team didn't rehearse enough:

1. Your group assembles outside the presentation room and your project manager introduces your principal to other team members.
2. Your team members get looks on their faces indicating surprise at what's being said by other team members.
3. The hand-off from one speaker to the next is ragged—like someone didn't know his/her part was coming up next.
4. The speaker stumbles over the material as if he/she has never thought about or spoken on that subject before.

These four items tell a client that you—and especially your principal—didn't think they or their project was important. And they give the project to someone who treated the possibility like it was important to their firm's ongoing success.