What Evaluators Think as They Read Your Proposals
By Dan Safford

I recently read the results of a survey of government proposal evaluators conducted a few years back. The purpose of the study, called "The Evaluator Preference Survey", was to discover what experienced proposal evaluators liked and didn't like in proposals, and how they made decisions. The survey was directed at DoD and NASA evaluators, but my experience tells me that the results are pretty much the same for all evaluators. Here are some highlights:

Evaluators love summaries, and think they are extremely important to a winning proposal. Summaries tell the readers what they are about to see, which makes readers better prepared for the message. All the respondents said they read summaries first before going onto the detail. Some read only the summaries at the beginning sections they weren't interested in or tasked with scoring. 

This makes the summary-of any section-the ideal place to plant the seeds of your strategic messages-your themes. 

Evaluators like cross reference matrices that show where the RFP requirements are addressed in your proposal. For large proposals responding to complex RFPs this is a must. Evaluators like being able to scan the matrix for their topics of interest and find exactly where they will find it addressed in the proposal. 

This saves time. It also indicates that you have done a thorough job.

Evaluators like a well-organized and consistent proposal. This goes beyond simply following the RFP outline. This means that subsections are well organized and consistent throughout the proposal. A systematic, well-prepared proposal indicates that the supplier will be orderly, thorough and effective on the contract.

Evaluators don't care for alternate proposals. This signals to evaluators that the supplier is not really prepared to meet the requirements the customer has made. The evaluators surveyed said they didn't read alternate proposals thoroughly, if at all. 

Of course, if the customer has specifically asked for an alternative to the solution called out in the RFP, then by all means, supply one. But for the most part, if you have waited until you write the proposal to give an alternative solution, then you are way too late. Do it sooner, months before the RFP drops.

Evaluators like to see contract deliverable items. In other words, what will you produce as a result of the work you do? Detailing the deliverables tells evaluators that you know the full scope of the contract; it gives them the warm fuzzy that you have it under control. 

Many federal government RFPs require this information (check out the Contracts Data Requirements List-CDRLs). Many customers both in and out of the government don't, however, and including the contract deliverables tells the evaluators that you know exactly what the contract requires and what you're on the hook to deliver. 

When it comes to resumes, here's what the study showed evaluators found important (in decreasing order):

• Experience
• Education
• Publications
• Patents
• Professional affiliations

Evaluators found backup material valuable and useful. By back-up material they mean technical data not specifically called out in the proposal but that supports your case. Not many thought marketing literature was very helpful. 

But the material needs to go in the back of the proposal; don't try to wedge it into the proposal if it doesn't fit either the format or the context.

And here's what evaluators found most irritating (in decreasing order of importance):

1.      Proposals that are too wordy.

2.      Poor proposal quality-washed out or all b/w graphics, spelling errors and typos, poor quality copying, etc.

3.      Poor response to RFP requirements

4.      Poor approach to resolving the problem

5.      Inherent deficiencies-missed requirements here and there, inaccuracy of data, etc.

Note that the top two most important irritants have more to do with the readability of the proposal rather than the content.

These results won't tell you how to write winning proposals; all they do is give you an idea of what a small slice of people think is important in proposals. Think of them as pointers to making better proposal decisions in the future.