Recently, one of the communities at MySMPS had a lively discussion on the subject of "text libraries." Even if this is just a computer network storage space for proposal sections that might be reused or repurposed, to my mind it is still just a fancy expression for "boilerplate"— except that you might have many versions of the same section in your library.
Whether you call this tool "boilerplate" or a "text library," I have a few problems with the reuse or repurposing of any text written for earlier proposals or other submittals. Here is my logic:
- Knowing that you have these libraries can lead to procrastination on the part of proposal team memberts, as well as those individuals charged with making the firm's Go/No Go decision, because they feel that much of the text is already written.
- Knowing that the text is already written may convince people to submit on opportunities that really should be a No Go for their firm because they believe the existence of these materials means the potential proposal cost (and therefore the potential loss) will be lower.
- People may forget the "search and replace" requirements related to reusing such materials, so you run the risk that your proposal will have a section with the wrong client's name or location, or the wrong project being referenced.
- People may forget that even when you select material from the library, you still have to edit the text to be completely responsive to the RFP.
- People may not realize that previously-developed materials still need to be proofread so that spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors that were missed in the earlier uses of those materials are not carried forward.
- People may throw in "everything, including the kitchen sink" simply because the material already exists, rather than limiting themselves to just what the RFP asks for. This can make the required information more difficult for the selection committee to find, or give the committee the feeling that your proposal is not as responsive as they would have liked.
Please be aware that I'm not saying that these information repositories are not useful and beneficial, because they can be both if used correctly. But I do recommend that any firm establishing such "libraries" should also establish "rules" or "guidelines" for their use.
For example, I suggest putting administrative information in the library:
- Introduction to the firm
- Firm history
- The total service offering
- The types of clients served
- History of meeting DBE/MBE/WBE/HUB/8(a) or other "protected class" firm utilization goals (if applicable)
- Awards won, both technical and non-technical
- Proprietary software, hardware, and specialty equipment
- Client testimonials
I also recommend putting detailed project descriptions, with pictures, in the library, with the stipulation that content must be edited to match the RFP rather than just giving all the detail regardless of relevance.
I would never include project understanding or project approach text in such a library. Since projects are not one-size-fits-all and no two projects are alike, leaving these sections out removes the temptation to cut corners and be less responsive to the solicitation or less creative and innovative in your technical approach than you might otherwise be.