A Nonconformist View of Eliminating Color Teams to Improve Proposal Quality - Taking the Mystery Out of RFP, RFI, RFQ Response Reviews

Producing a winning proposal response requires building a documented framework of the company’s specialized capabilities and technical skills that supports the proposed strategy to solve a buyer’s specific problem. And as anyone who has ever managed the production of a large proposal knows, it’s extremely difficult to create meaningful, well-written content that meets proposal requirements while clearly establishing why your company should be chosen.

An Outdated Approach

The methods used by proposal teams to generate opportunity responses vary broadly; however many are based on an elaborate proposal processing methodology originally created to manage the vast statistical data sets and bills of materials required for aerospace proposals. Over the years, the extensive 96-step process has been loosely adopted across many industries and although ill-fitting for many applications, proposal managers have been slow to change the unnecessarily confusing processes.      

One part of the outdated methodology includes a vast array of color-labels that reflect different types of reviews designed to measure the state of the document at a specific moment in time. In its simplest form, the color-labels should give reviewers a clue about the type of review to be conducted; however, exactly what the color labels stand for, and what reviewers need to do to gauge the quality of the response, is unclear.

Since the color-labels don’t relate to conventional color definitions (Green=Go/Red=Stop), everyone (from writers to executives) finds it difficult to relate to what each of the colors stand for. And using this color-label methodology leaves much to interpretation, because the name of a color does not easily translate into a focused task, nor does it indicate exactly how reviewers should approach properly assessing content quality.

So, what exactly do the color-labels stand for? If you ask 20 different people, you’ll get 20 different answers - and that’s where the trouble begins. Following is a typical list of commonly used color-label reviews:

Blue Team:            Reviews strategy and plan

Black Hat Team:  Reviews competitors’ offerings

Pink Team:            Reviews storyboards and mockups

Green Team:       Reviews cost/price section

Red Team:            Reviews final draft

Gold Team:           Approves final proposal and price

White Team:        Reviews final content for compliance

At best, people find it difficult to associate the name of a color with performing a specific task. Black Hat means competitors? Pink means storyboards and mockups? (Long gone are the days when bidders are given sufficient lead time to devote weeks to developing, yet alone reviewing, storyboards and mockups!) Red Team reviews don’t occur until the end of the process? Compliance doesn’t begin until it’s all over? Very confusing and inefficient when you consider that understanding what each color-label represents, and how to perform quality reviews throughout response development, is critical to the process.

It’s worth restating, conducting a Red Team Review just days before the response is due, is simply too late. Even if you have several days to make Red Team Review edits, you won’t have conducted the White Team Review to validate compliance until it’s too late to do anything about inconsistencies that should have been discovered much earlier in the process. In any case, using this methodology it is not realistic to expect that you will have sufficient time to make corrections to ensure that the overall response presents a cohesive solution and makes it clear why your company should be chosen.

Additionally, these outdated color-labels do not address many other critical areas that often come together at the end of the process. One such area is group development of targeted messaging and proof points that align with the overall proposed solution. For example, the technical section may require input from a diverse group of subject matter experts (SME). Each SME provides specialized content based on their areas of expertise; however, using the color-label review process, they are not tasked with incorporating their specific technology solutions within the context of the overall solution being presented, nor are they instructed on how to evaluate that the proposed solution will benefit the buyer.

Overall, the color-label review process does not address what’s required to ensure the response includes the key elements needed to secure a contract. And it’s simply not enough to conduct the color-label reviews and hope that all of the divergent pieces of the color-label proposal puzzle will automatically align and then magically interlock to form the perfect response.

There Is a Better Way!

In my search for a better proposal process, I’ve reviewed lots of color-label schemes intended to ensure quality through the identification of people tasked with conducting reviews. And just as often, I’ve witnessed break downs in the process when reviewers don’t really understand how to perform the most useful review to coordinate messaging across different sections. However, once you eliminate the confusing color-labels and their mysterious processes, you can more effectively hit the target of submitting a quality proposal response.

Instead of color-labels, why not name each review process with words that describe the task at hand so that everyone can understand what is going on during that phase? For example, consider the review of prepopulated content. This review should occur immediately after prepopulated content has been inserted into the response template. A reasonable name for this review would be, Prepopulated Content Review, which immediately indicates what is being reviewed and, when accompanied by evaluation criteria, everyone involved will understand what occurs during this phase. For example, Prepopulated Content reviewers’ should validate that prepopulated content:

1)     Is appropriate for that response;

2)     Has been updated with the most current data/information/graphics;

3)     Reflects the information/goals provided by capture planning teams;

4)     Links well with other areas of the response that provide similar/supporting information;

5)     Provides benefit statements and differentiation information; and

6)     Is easy to read and comprehend while maintaining the established standards of single voice.

Another review should occur immediately after subject matter experts have had the opportunity to insert content about the latest advancements in products and services that further differentiate the company from its competitors. This review could be named the Subject Matter Expert (SME) Review and should be conducted by the entire group of contributing SMEs to validate accuracy, discover solution inconsistencies, and prepare the extended teams for implementation actions and potential challenges.

These and other reviews, such as the Mock Scoring Review should be scheduled to occur during specific periods of proposal completion, so that once you have reached the final stages of the Executive Review the proposal will have already been completely validated to meet all RFP requirements and present a differentiated solution.

Another critical area that cannot be overlooked until the end of the proposal cycle is the compliance matrix. A well-built compliance matrix will lead everyone involved in the process to consider the critical compliance requirements that must be met for your bid to qualify as a scorable response. Building a compliance matrix very early in the process will ensure that all requirements for each section have been identified and are being tracked for compliance throughout the proposal process.

There are many other improvements that can be made to the old 96-step methodology, but as a first step if you eliminate the color-labels and develop appropriate review criteria, you can begin to help your proposal team and executive leaders to better understand a more efficient proposal process that provides the foundation for submitting a winning response.