This blog was a collaborative effort between Louis Kerestesy of Louis Coaching and Consulting and Brian Lindholm of FedSavvy Strategies. We first published this via an APMP webinar with a registration of over 200 attendees.
In solution and proposal development, winning isn’t about having the most amazing offer. Instead, with your technical volume, it’s about having the best evaluation score. To maximize your rating, you must demonstrate that your solution is tightly aligned with the customer’s needs and understand how it is positioned against your competition.
This starts with an Inside Out approach to creating a solution that addresses the customer’s needs, followed by an Outside-In consideration of your competition’s approaches. We then need to compare and integrate the two points of view to find the true path to a win.
Phase 1: The Inside-Out Approach (The SDSR Audit)
Before you look at the competition, you must perform a cold, clinical audit of your own solution using the SDSR construct. This mirrors the evaluation the government will do.
| Element | Definition | Your Goal |
| Strengths | Aspects that exceed requirements in a way that benefits the customer. | Identify your likely areas in which you score well. |
| Deficiencies | A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. | Identify areas in which you will quickly be eliminated from the competition (so you can fix them). |
| Significant Weaknesses | Flaws that appreciably increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. | Work to close these gaps through internal resources, hiring personnel, teaming with other businesses. |
| Risks | Potential for negative impact on cost, schedule, or performance. | Identify potentially perceived risks in your performance due to poorly explained approaches or not being direct with risks of performance anyone may encounter, but you address these risks directly and explain how you overcome risks to perform reliably. |
Evaluations conducted using SDSR document them for the decision record. A careful audit serves you well by “catching and correcting” before evaluators catch and lower your score. Evaluations conducted using degrees of confidence score differently and might or might not document SDSR. Regardless, your audit fulfills the same purpose: It ensures that you demonstrate how you’ll meet the government’s technical requirements to meet its business requirements, as judged by the stated evaluation factors.
Phase 2: The Outside-In Approach (Competitor Counter-Analysis)
Once you know your own SDSR profile, you must flip the script to examine competitors. Analyze your competitors to predict their SDSR profile via a Black Hat review and competitive analysis.
The use of a simulation-based Black Hat drives realism in how you evaluate an array of competitors.
- Predict their approaches: Based on available intelligence on known behavior patterns, technical strengths, relevant investments in technologies / processes and personnel…how could they create a solution that resonates with the customer?
- Assess likely approaches against known / suspected evaluation criteria: Take each aspect of the competitor’s likely approach and how it would score in a real evaluation. This is challenging to be objective, but it is imperative.
- Define possible weaknesses: Where is their past performance thin? Where is their technical solution perhaps flawed?
Check out our latest Black Hat blog for more in-depth dos and don’ts of running an optimal black hat session.
Phase 3: Synergy of Inside Out and Outside In to Define the Best Position to Win
This may be best defined as a Mirror Image analysis. This has you examining yourself vs. another version of yourself (your competition) to come to a conclusion of “Who is the fairest prime contractor of them all?” We integrate both assessments (of yourself and your competition) against each other. Inevitably, this makes you realize where you stand out and it is likely only in a few areas.
This gives us the “Four Quadrants of Victory.”
- Our Strengths vs. Their Weaknesses: The Attack Zone.
- Both Strong: The “Me-Too” Swamp.
- Our Weakness vs. Their Strength: The Mitigation Zone.
- Both Weak: The No-Fly Zone.
Defining the Attack Zone
As you compare your solution against likely opposing solutions, you compare features of both to find features you offer that others do not that you fully expect (and can verify) would score favorably. Inevitably, this is usually only 2-3 features that truly stand out.
Avoiding the “Me-Too” Trap
One of the biggest scoring killers is the Me-Too Statement. If both you and your competitor claim the same feature, the evaluator marks it as “neutral”—it provides no competitive advantage.
However, if you are aware of this situation, you have the opportunity to refine your features that are likely “Me-Too”, then you may be able to shift them to be scored more favorably especially if you can anticipate how a competitor will articulate the same feature. Stand out through better storytelling even if you offer the same thing.
Your Weakness vs. Their Strength
Inevitably, the Black Hat will reveal or just confirm weaknesses in your solution. Ideally, you can address this gap through any number of actions (teaming, hiring, etc.) to minimize a gap that could negatively impact your chances of winning. Use this focus to reduce the chances of a weakness being present.
The Takeaway
Purely considering your own position is not likely to lead to a win. Similarly, just doing a Black Hat against an array of competitors without leveraging that to adjust your solution is a waste of time. This Inside Out and Outside In construct is critical to help you find a path to a win.
