KISS A BETTER SIMPLER MORE ACTIONABLE PROPOSAL LESSONS

KISS: A BETTER, SIMPLER, MORE ACTIONABLE PROPOSAL LESSONS LEARNED APPROACH Neal A Levene, CF APMP, PMP Director of Proposals, SENTEL

Over Complication = Confusion = Inaction Keep It Super Simple 3

Simplicity - Fail

Simple and Actionable – Hopefully!

Typical Lessons Learned Questions Pt 1 • Opportunity Assessment – Did we fully understand the project and have the right information to proceed? – Did we select the best subcontractors to enhance our proposal and improve our win probability? Did we assemble the project team before the solicitation arrived? If no, why not? ? – Did we review the RFP and amendments thoroughly and identify all of the requirements at the outset? – Did we identify and inform internal staff (SMEs) who would work on the proposal before the solicitation? If no, why not? – Did we conduct a win strategy session, including a competitor analysis before we prepared the proposal? If no, why not? – Overall, what did we do well in assessing this opportunity and how can we improve the opportunity assessment process? – Other OA Comments?

Typical Lessons Learned Questions Pt 2 • Proposal Planning – Were enough of the right personnel resources in place and employed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness? – Was the proposal schedule reasonable and realistic? – Were the right processes in place and employed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness? – Did the proposal team have the right information and guidance from the Proposal Center to support their requirements? – Did we successfully manage the subcontractor team and input to substantively improve the proposal? – Did the team work well together? If no, how can we improve that? – Did we identify major themes to weave throughout the proposal and make all writers aware of them? If no, why not? – What did we do well in planning this proposal and how can we improve? – Other comments

Typical Lessons Learned Questions Pt 3 • Proposal Writing and Review – Were the right Pink Team resources and processes in place to ensure efficiency and effectiveness? – Did the Pink Team cite major deficiencies? If yes, were they addressed and resolved? – Were the right Red Team resources and processes in place to objectively evaluate the proposal and ensure the content was compliant and technically sound, and supported by a compelling win theme and strategies? – Did the Red Team cite major deficiencies? If yes, were they addressed and resolved? – Were the right Gold Team resources and processes in place to evaluate the proposal? – Did the Gold Team cite major deficiencies? If yes, were they addressed and resolved? – Did we develop an effective pricing strategy and integrate pricing and contracts sections into the proposal? – What did we do well in writing and reviewing this proposal and how can we improve? – Other PWR comments

Typical Lessons Learned Questions Pt 4 • Production and Delivery – Did we have the right facilities and equipment to support production and /delivery? – Were the right processes in place and employed to ensure timeliness and quality? – What unexpected problems arose in the proposal preparation process and how can you prepare for them in the future? – Overall, how can we improve the production and delivery processes? – Other P&D comments • Proposal Closeout – Proposal Manager Update (describe new Information gained that can be used in future proposal efforts).

What is the problem? • Too many questions • Respondents unlikely to respond • Questions constrain feedback to set areas that may or may not be problematic

A Better Approach • KISS – Keep, Improve, Start, Stop Methodology – Keep – What are we doing that we should continue doing? – Improve – What are we doing that we should improve? – Start – What should we start doing? – Stop – What should we stop doing?

Benefits • Short response times • People respond with what is top of mind • Starts with 2 positive questions – Things that are mostly going right • Open ended questions

Methodology • Email to request response – Give 2 -3 days for response • Collect responses into a presentation for distribution • Optionally pick 3 or 4 items for a process improvement meeting – 15 minutes per item

Example Response – Keep Pt 1 • • • Communication, cooperation and attitudes among staff were excellent The calmness displayed through all levels of the team really made the continual need to adjust really easy. New deadlines, new staffing, etc. would be really difficult if not for how even tempered everyone was. It was really noticeable and made the process stay on course and very positive Share. Point sharing tool of the documents was a major improvement. Still had some minor issues, but it was a great tool. Very well organized, timelines made sense and adjusted as appropriate The morning standup calls were very well run with a quick stop on each section and all lengthy discussions taken offline. The Purple Team Review (That’s what I called the review when we were all in the conference room. ) I thought that was very successful and resulted in a lot of good catches of missing info or changes needed. Having the outside eyes of the other team reviews was extremely important. I think on this proposal having the review of inside eyes was equally important. Share. Point usage was a big step up for the Cost Volume editing process and coordination with the proposals department. Multiple cost status meetings with technical staff along with using Loop. Up in fishbowl worked well It was great to be able to provide input on the various Quality Processes and to see that input incorporated into the proposal (i. e. being provided a link to review the input and add any changes). I enjoyed attending the daily standup it was well organized and everyone seemed to be on the same page on where the proposal was going.

Example Response – Keep Pt 2 • • “Sequestering” the team, while painful for those of us who don’t live in <<City>> was probably the most effective way to concentrate efforts. Being able to walk to different offices (except <<Person>>, of course for consultation was very beneficial. Also, getting away from normal interruptions ensured more focused writing. Use of a technical writer, especially one with enough subject matter expertise to help craft the content, not just the format. <<Person>> buying lunch. I think we did a really good job of getting the team members who have worked and will work on this task (when we win it) involved early so that they could get their thoughts in early. Then the Proposal Writing team had time to properly edit the proposal to improve flow and ensure compliance. Morning meet up was a very good process to keep folks involved and on task. Having one person importing the content into the master (at late stages of the effort) worked well. Also having the All Day Major Review was a positive because we were able to conclude we hadn’t written to in the RFP. <<People>> kept it flowing and I believe it was very beneficial for everyone involved. It was good to have the center of gravity at <<City>>. While I know that was difficult on everyone from corporate, I think it allowed the SME’s to contribute more fully than if it had been done offsite.

Example Response – Improve Pt 1 • • • Share. Point was a constant concern. Instances of corrupted documents somewhere between 5 and 7. I kept my fingers crossed every day that we wouldn’t lose too much effort and time. Started making hourly offline backups just because I believe Murphy is alive and well. Was unable to use track changes in Share. Point as this option with the number of people simultaneously editing appeared to be at least one element causing corruption. … Even in an “Agile” approach create and maintain a writing task list. Status (content and quality), responsibility, due date and time. We established this late in the proposal effort. Coordination of the BOE/Staffing was somewhat challenging. A coordinated effort with Pricing to agree on a format that is usable should be addressed early on. Schedule updates coordination - A few times the same or similar information was requested by multiple proposal participants at various intervals. Not a big deal but could be improved to avoid repetition. Only suggestion I have is to assign someone to take a closer look at the subcontractor past performance and resumes shortly before Red Team. Past performance and resumes looked OK, but the subs sometimes didn't seem to understand what "relevant" meant. Which is understandable, since they hadn't been working this same contract for 20 years the way we have. Other times, they seemed reluctant to claim significant ownership of their role in a project. Not sure we had a good sense for what each teammate could contribute to the writing effort. Probably need a better survey during the initial kickoff for who can contribute what. This includes collating and disseminating specific POCs at each company that will write/assist with writing each section.

Example Response – Improve Pt 2 • • When the proposal dropped suddenly, we were all caught unaware. Not sure we stopped our storyboarding/pre-RFP efforts and really re-launched the proposal writing effort. Should’ve made a better transition from “theoretical prep work” to actual response writing. “Too many chiefs. ” We’re comfortable working with each other, but often times I wasn’t clear who was making decisions on direction we were going. The online collaboration process needs improvement. I wasn’t aware of Sharepoint limitations at the outset (Chrome vs. Explorer, e. g. ). Provide better guidance/procure better collaboration tool/limit access —whatever is required to improve collaboration I think we could have improved our response had we done a better job of assigning writing tasks for particular parts of the response from the start. When I first got the spreadsheet, there were several names attached to each section with no clear delineation of who would have overall responsibility for the section and no individual assignments. Document: Suggest not using so many different styles as that created more editing problems. (for example, didn’t need styles for signature lines and styles for bullets) Writing: Suggest have a firm cut off time to stop writing to give the editors time to clean up documents for review so the review teams would be able to focus on content and not editorial type corrections. Delegation: Suggest proposal manager break the proposal down into sections, assign writers and let those assigned reach out to others for help in those sections instead of having so many hands writing in the same section.

Example Response – Improve Pt 3 • • Schedule: Suggest a schedule from day 1 be made for each deadline (pink, red, gold teams, etc. ) that everyone adheres to and have the proposal manager force the due dates. Review: Suggest after red team and before gold team – several people be assigned to different sections to ensure every section is reviewed fully so non-compliant issues aren’t found at the last minute. More use of stop light chart – at times we had no idea where we were; compliance matrix use; reviews were, basically, useless as there were too many items found late that should have been caught at the reviews, especially Gold Team. Share. Point was very problematic. We could have had a huge problem when the document got corrupted several times. Additionally it seemed very slow and many times I had trouble saving my work. <<Person>> reported that it works better when hosted by a service provider, so I would recommend trying that next time. Also related to Share. Point, there was too much editing going on outside the document. That might be acceptable at the very beginning, but afterward it got messy. But the difficulties with Share. Point might have pushed people to do that. There was a significant amount of time, more than a week after the RFP dropped, when the writers didn’t have a good sample section to model our writing after. If we had some well written samples of what was wanted from another contract it would have made the document more consistent from the beginning, with less churn at the end. This might be out of our control, but we didn’t get good support from the main subcontractor. The material that they gave us was poorly written and often didn’t address the requirement from the RFP. I think the only way that could have been improved would have been for <<Person>> to lean on <<Person>>’s boss, though that might not have helped either.

Example Response – Start Pt 1 • Schedule of availability for everyone working on the proposal that all can see. • Prepare a consolidated, focused (no more than two pages ideally a single page) of capture information. Reference other documents for more detail when necessary. Ideally, this is an electronic document with hyperlinks. The document should include SWOT and customer hot buttons. • Consider “strength themes” rather than win themes. Win themes tend to be inwardly focused stating, “Why we think we can win!”, also often confused with “Win Strategies. ” Strength themes are customer/evaluator centric responding to the question, “What will the evaluator perceive as a strength? ” • Reduce themes to no more than one overarching theme with up to two secondary themes. If we really have more unique themes, consider making them section themes. • Take some extra time prior to the proposal writing to develop the most likely and alternate operational scenarios. This can be very beneficial to pricing. It affords the ability to consider alternatives to just cutting the wrap rate or profit. It can lead to “get well” approaches. Not as clear but it could have resulted in a closer bond between technical responses and staffing response, thereby making the proposal stronger. In my opinion, solutions/approaches for 3 major areas would have been appropriate Technical – day to day operations, as expanded from current contract. Technical – getting to the end goal – Scenario 2 Managing both in a significantly expanded subcontractor environment. • Better coordination with our teammates regarding pricing information. An up- front meeting with all parties should have been done. Vacation schedules made that difficult • Allow for additional time for input requests if possible. I’m sure this is dependent on proposal turnarounds but anything to alleviate the “time crunch” when requesting information from process owners could result in improved quality. • I think we need to do a better job of defining roles and writing assignments earlier. This may not have happened this time because the RFP was released just as we were preparing the storyboard process in anticipation of an RFP release, so we may normally do a better job of this. I haven’t worked on that many proposals so I can’t be sure.

Example Response – Start Pt 2 • Schedule of availability for everyone working on the proposal that all can see. • Prepare a consolidated, focused (no more than two pages ideally a single page) of capture information. Reference other documents for more detail when necessary. Ideally, this is an electronic document with hyperlinks. The document should include SWOT and customer hot buttons. • Consider “strength themes” rather than win themes. Win themes tend to be inwardly focused stating, “Why we think we can win!”, also often confused with “Win Strategies. ” Strength themes are customer/evaluator centric responding to the question, “What will the evaluator perceive as a strength? ” • Reduce themes to no more than one overarching theme with up to two secondary themes. If we really have more unique themes, consider making them section themes. • Take some extra time prior to the proposal writing to develop the most likely and alternate operational scenarios. This can be very beneficial to pricing. It affords the ability to consider alternatives to just cutting the wrap rate or profit. It can lead to “get well” approaches. Not as clear but it could have resulted in a closer bond between technical responses and staffing response, thereby making the proposal stronger. In my opinion, solutions/approaches for 3 major areas would have been appropriate Technical – day to day operations, as expanded from current contract. Technical – getting to the end goal – Scenario 2 Managing both in a significantly expanded subcontractor environment. • Better coordination with our teammates regarding pricing information. An up- front meeting with all parties should have been done. Vacation schedules made that difficult • Allow for additional time for input requests if possible. I’m sure this is dependent on proposal turnarounds but anything to alleviate the “time crunch” when requesting information from process owners could result in improved quality. • I think we need to do a better job of defining roles and writing assignments earlier. This may not have happened this time because the RFP was released just as we were preparing the storyboard process in anticipation of an RFP release, so we may normally do a better job of this. I haven’t worked on that many proposals so I can’t be sure.

Example Response – Stop • Set ground rules for team tag up calls that there will be no pricing discussions of any kind • Assuming that if there is a proposal extension that everyone will be ready way ahead of time with deliverable products • Stop working weekends I know… wishful thinking. • Unfettered editing access by too many folks to the volumes • The storyboard process before the proposal took way too much time for very limited benefit. Either it wasn’t taught very effectively or else the storyboard approach wasn’t well suited to this contract, or possibly both. As I mentioned earlier, I think simply giving everyone some well written sample sections from another contract would have helped a lot more than the storyboards.

Critical Points • • Small number of questions generates large amount of response People respond to topics that were actually important to them Notice all the opportunity for positive feedback and capturing what is working well There is some conflict in the responses Remember this is just peoples’ opinions The key is to pick from the feedback items for process improvement By collecting the feedback ahead of time – it can prevent the after action sessions from becoming a blood bath or blame game Participation in response was 90% (required only a little nagging)

Interactive Session • You have been at the APMP Conference for a little while at this point and it is a shared experience for everyone in the room. • Let’s practice this method. .

Keep • Let’s start with the positive • What does APMP do well that it should continue doing with respect to this conference?

Keep

Improve • Staying still, relatively positive. . . • What are things that APMP does, but it should work to improve and do better?

Improve

Start • What are some things that APMP is not doing, but it should start doing with respect to this conference?

Start

Stop • What are some things that are not working? • Things that in your opinion that APMP should cease doing with respect to this conference. .

Stop

After Action • Based on the results we obtained, the natural next step would be to pick the items with the most heat and try to do process improvement activities on them

Last Thoughts • The process is fast, simple and compact • It can be applied in many situations • You do not need to wait until the end if things are not going well

Questions? • • Neal A. Levene 703 -217 -4250 nlevene@sentel. com https: //www. linkedin. com/in/neallevene/ please connect with me