MANY BIDDERS INCLUDE
LIGHTLY EDITED, THINLYDISGUISED VERSIONS OF THE
SAME MATERIAL THEY INCLUDE
IN THEIR MARKETING MATERIAL
OR ON THEIR WEBSITES
One of the most fundamental mistakes bidders
make when answering a call for Expressions of
Interest or Requests for Proposal, is submitting a
response that’s full of unsubstantiated claims.
Too often, a statement is made in an EOI or RFP
response that offers no substantiation, no demonstration of
its accuracy.
It appears the evaluation committee is simply expected
to accept the claim at face value. Yet the evaluators would
not be doing their job if they do . . . and you, as bidder,
haven’t done ‘your’ job if you expect them to.
Further, how can an evaluator award you selection
criteria-related points when you answer a question with an
empty, unproven claim?
Respondents and their writers should ask these
questions as they plan and write their answers:
What is the proof that this is true / fact?
Offer adequate and genuine substantiation – whether of a
“third party” nature or by providing some form of provable
quantification.
Table a statistic, for example, and state the source
(which should be a reputable body recognised either by your
industry, their industry, or the business sector at large).
What is the credibility of this information?
Many bidders include lightly edited, thinly-disguised versions
of the same material they include in their marketing material
or on their websites. The credibility of this information is
generally nil, since it is based on opinion-based claims the
bidder is making about its own service or product.
To be authoritative, you must be able to show that any
opinion is, in some form, supported by a credible third party
e.g. by accreditation.
Why is it relevant / critical to the client / customer
organisation?
Don’t just state facts or table data and leave it to the
evaluation committee to determine their relevance.
Explain why, in the context of this bid, you consider that
fact or datum important. In that way, you strengthen the
support those inclusions loan to your proposition. If, on the
other hand, you neglect to do this, you will have potentially
wasted that opportunity. Worse still, the evaluator may
misinterpret the connection you intended him or her to
make.
With regard to the answer generated by the above
question, what is the proof point of this high-relevance
criticality?
A savvy bidder will offer a double layer of substantiation.
First, it will offer proof of a claim, and/or demonstrate that
the claim is proven or provable.
Then, after drawing the relevance of that information
to the client organisation’s specific needs or challenges,
the bidder will go on to demonstrate and/or quantify
the benefits that will result from the evaluator making a
decision in the bidder’s favour, based on this information.
In summary, table proof that your claim is true (not just
your opinion); provide some authoritative indicator of thirdparty concurrence; make it relevant to the client and, in turn,
prove this relevance. Finally, if possible, quantify the benefits
to be gained by taking the action the claim suggests should
be taken.
