Proposals . . . and proposals

Architectural, engineering and construction industry marketers face constant challenges in responding to RFP deadlines -- especially when technical staff fail to provide materials in a timely manner. Society for Marketing Professional Services (SMPS) members recently discussed these issues on their email Listserve.

Many members of the Society for Marketing Professional Services (SMPS) have the sometimes unenviable task of preparing the documentation for RFP (Request for Proposals) submissions for large scale architecture, engineering or construction projects. The problem is the people doing this work are not the technical experts: They can't (themselves) decide if the proposal makes sense, has a realistic chance of success, and should be submitted in the first place. Adding to the problem, the technical specialists are often 'too busy' on current projects to bother providing the documentation and resources necessary to complete the proposal, so they wait until the very last second. And things are even worse now, because with work drying up, companies are rushing out more and more proposals for "possibilities" rather than "probabilities" in the faint hope that somehow the out-of-the-blue proposal will stick.

Jack Hennings at Bartlett & West headquartered in Topeka, Kansas, observed:

Please don't all laugh at this.

Getting technical staff to meet proposal production schedules has always been a challenge. The task of developing persuasive project approaches and updating project profiles and team resumes frequently takes second (or third) place on the priority lists of busy engineers faced with client deadlines.

We have lived with this for years and tried to manage it as best we could. And, of course, we have never missed a submittal deadline.

With the economic downturn has come increased competition for a shrinking number of projects, and the situation has gotten worse. In addition, firms are going after more and more projects.

Our marketing coordinator is facing situations where PMs are turning in key elements of proposals just hours before it is due with increasing frequency.

I won't ask how many of you are seeing similar trends. The question is, what practical steps are you taking to keep technical staff on a schedule to make sure not only that a proposal is submitted on time but that the process has had the necessary time for effective quality control.

Share your secret weapons!

Larisa Langley at Facility Programming and Consulting in Texas, responded with a short (and elegantly simple) solution:

Don't laugh at this back.

Lie about the deadline.

Others shared more comprehensive answers.

Fellow SMPS Marketer contributor Matt Handal at Trauner Consulting Services in Pennsylvania, wrote:

Jack and everyone.

I wrote an article called "What if the proposal doesn't get there." It appeared in the August 2007 Marketer. I think the whole issue can be downloaded from the SMPS website. I suggest anybody who interacts with proposals read it.

Here is what I said regarding this problem back then.

Solutions
1. Remember this is your responsibility. If there is anything you can do to work around them, do it. Don't wait for their piece to do everything else.
2. Be proactive with help. If you feel confident enough to take a first stab at the technical approach, do it. You probably read a million of these and your best attempt might be equal to their version of "calling it in." It may be less intimidating for them if they only have to improve upon what you have already done. Just make sure your first draft doesn't end up in the final proposal.
3. Be empathetic, often these people are "last minute" because they have too much on their plate. Think in terms of what you can do to help them.
4. Never be late with your internal deadlines. You must lead the proposal process by example.
5. Decide on a firm deadline for their section and then move that deadline back a day or two.
6. Talk in terms of when the proposal is "going out" not when it is "due."
7. Never lie about deadlines, but refer to #5 and #6.

PMs giving you stuff "hours before it is due" is not something you fix in a day. Because you enabled that behavior for so long. Its going to take some time to change behaviors, starting with yours.

I personally schedule proposals going backwards. The due date is when it gets delivered. The day before that its in the air, on the ground, or in an email. The day before that it is in production. The day before that we need a full day for revisions. The day before that we need a full day of review. And the words "Proposal is due on ____" never crosses my or any of our marketers lips. We always say the "proposal is going out on _______." People now ask "When is this proposal going out?"

You have to get it out of your head and the heads of others that proposals get delivered the day they are due.

Another thing that I mention in the article is that this whole proposal thing is your responsibility. If that technical person gets hit by a truck, the owner is still going to expect you to get that proposal to its destination. So the question is not "how can i get them to do this by the right timeline?" The question is "what physical thing can I do to help them get this done within the timeline?" That may entail you and
your co-ordinators "stepping up their game." Going from someone who listens to a song to someone who can pick up a guitar and play the song. You don't have to be a Beatle to play a Beatles song. And you don't have to know how to design a streetscape to draft a proposal about how you will design the best streetscape project.

You gotta give to get. The "This is my job. That is your job." mentality is BS. Too many marketers have it and it only causes internal strife. One thing I did at my job was tear down a 20-year long animosity-filled relationship between marketing and the technical staff. If you honestly care about them, show compassion, and go the extra mile...they will do the same for you. Proposal success is often dependent on the internal relationships you build.

P.S. Lying is never a good strategy in this life.

Pamela Rigling Caffrey, Director of Marketing at John Poe Architects, Inc. in Dayton, Ohio, observed:

I learned very early on not to wait for project approaches, work plans, schedules, etc. After the first couple, I started writing them myself. You will be amazed at how
much you can regurgitate, just by having read a few and learning the lingo. And I would say that, as a GENERAL rule, marketing professionals are better writers than technical professionals. I also think the technical folks find it more palatable to edit something rather than write from scratch. And they like bullet points. If you ask for bullet points (which you can then eloquently transfer into poignant, passionate
and persuasive prose) you are much more likely to get something back.

The December issue of "Marketer" has a cover story that asks "What does it take to get to this table?" I would say we have to immerse ourselves in this world to the point where we can confidently author project approaches and work plans. We need the technical people to review things, answer questions and guide our understanding of project work but I think it might be easy to pile things on them that we should be able to do ourselves.

Marketing IS the voice of this business. Don't buy into the intimidated belief that we are on the outside looking in to some mysterious, inexplicably technical world. Jump in there and grab the bull by the horns! Think of how empowering it will be to not have to wait on someone else!

Here are my thoughts on this issue:

• The most important thing in RFP situations is the 'go/no go' decision. You need to know whether you have a reasonable probability of success. Most publicly set proposals are wired ahead of time and you won't win the job no matter how much effort you put into it; and if you put in a half-baked effort you will undoubtedly lose. You need to ask "why bother" before even straiting the process.
• Really good internal communications processes are absolutely essential. Hopefully your business has a systematized weekly meeting process. In these routine meetings (which can be co-ordinated by teleconference for remote offices) clear rules and schedules are set and followed -- and you don't waste time. You may find effective a meeting process including review of go/no go decisions, and then, once they are made, specific action item commitments on the part of technical and marketing staff.
• The marketing department should have template material honed and developed over time for the basic proposal structure. This will lessen the stress and speed up production and sign-off of the document. Note: There is an argument that a picture is worth 1,000 words, so include images of relevant work examples if allowed in the RFP documentation rules.

Finally, although Laurisa Langley's answer "lie about the deadline" is probably not the entire solution (or even the right answer), something is said for simple, brief, and insightful solutions (which this blog posting is definitely not!). Does it feel right to proceed? Is this a waste of time? You need to know -- and have the courage -- when, and how, to say "no" to wasteful or ineffective proposals. Otherwise, you are wasting your company's time and draining its energy from real opportunities.

More on Montes

Tim Klabunde in When an award is "pre-wired" outlines some ethical guidelines on when and how to handle bidding/RFP situations where you have an unfair advantage -- when does the advantage from great marketing/relationships step over the line and become something you should not touch?

"Wiring" the job (or three card monte) (2)

In case you want to learn how three card monte is played on the street, you can learn how in several youtube videos, such as this one.

SMPS members have added further insights into Matt Handal's observations about the way the bidding in supposedly fair projects is played -- where the winner is often decided up front and other professionals are invited in purely to legitimize the selected original client. Handal compared the process to the street con game Three Card Monte in a provocative posting reported earlier here.

The challenging issue is of course not in the cases where you know things are fixed or there are strong existing relationships and you are trying to get in through the front door when you see an RFP or invitation to bid notice. Most professional service firms avoid these situations -- they don't flail around submitting proposals for every project and opportunity that arises -- and they can usually smell a 'rat' when the conditions and terms of the proposal would favour someone else.

The issue is much more complex when you have a very good relationship -- perhaps current or ongoing work -- with a client -- and that client asks you to bid a job knowing someone else is selected. Here, the issue is whether you play the game knowing you will 'lose' the immediate contest, while maintaining your client relationships and ongoing work opportunities.

Ellen Moore at Aker Solutions in Houston describes this process in a fascinating story:

My personal "Three-Card Monte" experience occurred in a previous professional life when I worked in Marketing for a civil engineering firm. At (literally) 3:45 p.m. one afternoon -- as I was packing up to leave promptly at 4 p.m. for a badly needed and long-anticipated haircut (having arrived at the office that day at 6 a.m. to assure an on-time departure for this important event), I got The Monte Phone Call. One of our regional office managers informed me that we "had" to submit a proposal to an existing municipal client by 11 a.m. the next day. This was, of course, the first I'd heard of any proposal to this particular client. I asked a lot of rapid-fire questions and found out that yes, our regional manager had been "asked" by the municipal client to "propose" on a project. The client actually informed our regional manager that we would not be awarded the project, but the client needed a proposal from two other firms besides the Designated Winner to make this procurement "official." As our firm currently had a significant project underway for this client, the client judged correctly that our regional manager would not say no. And, in fact, he said yes, then
called me.

I consulted our Senior VP of Marketing, who called the regional manager from my office to elicit all the sad details. At the end of that conversation, the Sr VP told the regional manager we would comply this time, but added "don't EVER do this again."

I worked from 4:30 p.m. that day until 8 a.m. the next morning to write, produce, and box up our Monte proposal. To deliver our Monte by the client's "submittal deadline," one of our engineering staff was waiting in my office at 7:30 a.m. to take the box of Montes from my hands and drive it to the submittal city. Once I handed over our Montes, I went home, poured a large glass of wine, and rescheduled my haircut appointment at the earliest possible date: 4 1/2 weeks in the future. I did not have a happy day.

Once I calmed down, I tried to look at this situation from both sides. Our regional manager held ultimate responsibility for feeding his staff (and their families). In a smaller municipality, there are far fewer opportunities to win and execute significant projects than in a city the size of Houston. Everybody really does know everybody, and most everybody knows who is friends with whom, whose brother-in-law owns what company, who golfs with the mayor or city manager, etc. etc. Doing business in that environment really is a lot like being a fish in a fishbowl. I can sympathize with a regional manager who is called to the office of one of the firm's largest clients -- while the firm is in the middle of executing a significant project for that client -- and being blindsided by a Monte. I suspect that, taken by surprise, the regional manager's first thought was to do whatever was necessary to protect the existing contract and, by extension, his ability to pay all his surbordinates without a significant revenue interruption. It could not have been a pleasant conversation for the regional manager.

On the other side -- MY side -- it seemed to me we were setting a VERY bad precedent, certainly with this particular client, but also with any other existing or future clients in that municipality who might learn about this travesty called Monte. We also were not providing a very good, professional "lesson learned" for our regional manager -- or anyone else in the firm who might face the same situation in the future. Instead, we caved. And, of course, it was patently unfair for me or any other Marketing professional to be pressured to work all night to produce a Monte proposal regardless of the sacrifices required or the impact on me. Since we already knew we were NOT going to be considered seriously for the "new" project, this Monte exercise truly was a slap in my face as a Marketing professional. I noticed that no engineer or CADD designer was asked to stay all night to work with me on Monte. I guess their time was much more valuable than mine, and their need for rest, ditto. Instead, I was told to take text from this and that previous proposal, combine it, edit it, format it, and produce the required number of Montes. Back then, I stupidly thought I HAD to comply to keep my job. Now, it would be great fun to get a Monte "request." I assureyou, I would laugh amusedly all the way to my hair appointment.

Typically I would respond to Matt that the BD professional assigned to a client trying to pull a Monte ought to have spent enough time with the client to know a Monte when he saw one, and therefore, to anticipate the possibility of a Monte and be prepared to side step it adroitly. But, as my own up-close-and-personal experience with Monte shows, this response really wouldn't have precluded our Monte. Our regional manager WAS savvy. That is why he was the regional manager. He knew a Monte when he saw one -- but what he didn't have ready was an Official Response from Our Firm.

Perhaps the best lesson learned from my Monte experience is this: Principals of a firm are supposed to be street smart, practice wise, savvy, fearless, and ferocious guardians of the firm's resources. The latter does, of course, mean greenbacks, but it also includes the human element. I am sure our Sr VP knew about Montes -- look how firmly he told the regional manager "don't EVER do this again." My question is:
Why didn't he tell this younger regional manager about Monte and give him the firm's Official Response BEFORE the poor guy was staring Monte eyeball to eyeball? Give your staff some muscle in advance -- tell them about Montes when you are training younger engineers to become PMs or managers of practice areas. I sincerely HOPE any AEC firm that prides itself on operating with integrity would provide a one-word Official Response: NO.

In my current job, one variation on the Monte theme involves being asked by a prospective client (no existing client would think we were stupid enough to fall for it) to provide a proposal for, say, one subsea Christmas tree (the single largest and most expensive piece of carbon production equipment we design and manufacture). Just one, lone tree. The tip-off here is that no subsea Christmas tree -- regardless of which
company designs and manufactures it -- operates without a set of controls attached to it. Sometimes a prospective client might choose to buy a set of controls from a company other than mine, but wishes to use our subsea tree. However, I can think of no LEGITIMATE (i.e., real, valid) request for a tree that does NOT involve telling us whose controls that tree will carry, if not ours. We must know that piece of information to ensure that our subsea Christmas tree will operate properly with another company's controls. When the prospective client insists we propose for a lone subsea tree and refuses to say whose controls will operate the tree -- that's a Monte even I can spot a mile away. Monte = Price Check in my world. That means this is no way, no how a LEGITIMATE request for proposal with a real Purchase Order waiting to be awarded at the end of the procurement process. Instead, it means the prospective client simply wants our pricing info to use to beat down the price of subsea trees from the company already earmarked as the Winner. We got one of these requests this past spring, and promptly called a bid / no bid meeting. Thirty seconds into that meeting, everyone in the room agreed this was a very poorly disguised effort to obtain price check info. We declined to bid. That, to me, is the best, most effective way to protect your firm and your staff from Monte. Just
say NO.

Frank Lippert, Marketing Manager, Water Environmental Business Line at David Evans and Associates, Inc. in Portland, OR, added his thoughts:

I have to say that there is tremendous opportunity for us as business professionals when the Monte is in play. As Ellen Moore pointed out in her wonderful and thoughtful response, there is a degree of professional judgment at play and it represents a very good opportunity to for all of us to demonstrate our value to our company's leadership.

That value centers on good, sound business judgment. It rises above the fears like, "I have to feed my staff and their families, so I must do as many backflips as our clients demand, no matter what the cost." (Aren't we really all ultimately responsible for feeding ourselves and making reasonable judgments on what's right and wrong?)

As marketers, we have a unique position and written or unwritten responsibility in most of our firms, and that is, to present the business case in every decision. Most of us work with brilliant engineers, talented architects, creative contractors; but few of them wrapped up their A/E/C education with an MBA and set out to be business people. In many cases, marketers are the business people. Our value to our firms is so much greater than "working from 4:30 PM to 8:00 AM" to get a proposal out the door.

I've built my reputation and know many marketers in SMPS that have built their careers by being the voice of reason, the voice of business logic. Yes, it's also the role of the No Go Policeman, the Wet Blanket, the Spoil Sport. But, in the end, over time, that voice of reason is a valued resource to the firm. It doesn't always result in a "no go" either. I've certainly submitted on enough Montes, but I've pulled a few rabbits out the hat in this case too.

When the Monte comes up, recognize it. Be creative in your response to it. Offer back something a little different from what the Monte is asking. If the client wants you to respond, so they can get their three responses; then they want an "apples to apples" comparison... that doesn't mean you can't give them a Golden Delicious when they are expecting a Granny Smith. Of course, that means everyone involved stays and works on the effort from "4:30 PM to 8:00 AM," but if they really "want" the job (have a real passion for it or truly fear that they must feed their staff) wouldn't they want to be there anyway?

In the end, I truly believe that clients aren't intentionally evil. They aren't trying to make us spend our money unwisely and they aren't playing games with us. It's OK to educate them on the cost of submitting at the last minute, odds are, the smart clients know this already. Sometimes, your "apple" can be as simple as a one page letter that states your fee for the work (ballpark it high) and a copy of your general firm brochure.

So, should you play the game? I would argue if the work required isn't great and you can finesse your way out of it (and keep your client happy) then, sure, go ahead, but you need to draw the line at burning all nighters and tying up your staff for an urgent proposal preparation just to keep a client happy. in these cases, the simple process of informing/educating your client about the true work and cost or preparing a compliant proposal might be enough.

Now, of course, if you know you are the winner, pull all the stops out and don't take it for granted! In these cases, I think you should deliver your absolute best, most thoughtful and carefully researched proposal that really delivers value to the client and would, if the competition really is fair, would really be the best.

Notably, if you are on the winning side of a three-card monte game, it can be really easy to pull together your team of sub consultants and professionals to help on the proposal: They know they are not wasting their time on a wild goose chase, and are usually quite willing to pitch in. Thus, we have the intriguing situation where indeed by pre-selecting the person/organization to 'win' the job in a seemingly unfair competition, the client truly receives the best value. Which, I suppose, is why the game is played so often in the real world.

"Wiring" the job (or three card monte)

Matt Handal at Trauner Consulting Services, Inc. in Philadelphia, PA, sent members of the SMPS Marketer editorial committee a provocative article: "Learning to Accept the Three Card Monte" which touches on one of the most fundamental challenges (and opportunities) within the marketing universe -- the stacked deck, or "competition" where the winner is decided in advance.

Handal's story isn't public yet, so I can't reproduce or quote from it directly here, but the topic he discusses is certainly not a secret -- and is of real importance for anyone marketing architectural, engineering or construction services.

In the bidding and competition game, there are three possible situations. First, the bidding process is truly fair, and you will honestly be evaluated on your proposal's merit. In the second, you know you are going to win, from the start (if you don't blow things totally). In the third, well, Matt describes you as a "mark" (though I'm not sure I wish my name to be associated that way!)

Why does this happen?

Relationships are often forged over the years, and vendors wish to work with particular suppliers. In the pure private sector, this often isn't a problem; you just engage in an ongoing relationship -- if your work quality is top notch, and your relationships are strong, you'll win the repeat business.

But in the public sector and in certain corporate spaces, bidders must be seen as fairly evaluated -- and subject to a competitive process. So competing bids are encouraged and solicited -- and these competing bids can look 'real' to the victims of this game (because if they didn't then the process could be overturned by more senior officials concerned about possible improprieties or bid rigging.)

Often the game is subtly stacked, with terms of reference, and variations that only the insider knows -- in many cases, the insider is invited to prepare the bid documents. If you aren't there -- bam, you've just wasted your time on an expensive bid preparation exercise for a job you have no hope of winning. (As Matt says in his article, sometimes an organization legitimately wishes to spread the work around, so you need to play the game and submit your losing bid for the real opportunity later -- but I think if you are in that position, you'll know where you stand from the start, so the effort isn't really wasted.)

How bad (or good) is this stuff?

No one is going to go out and say they've been part of this process on the winning side, at least gloatingly to outsiders, but I think if we are honest, we'll acknowledge that if we are really successful in business -- that is, if we do really good work, and maintain the highest standards in our relationships, the good news happens -- we get the call and know we are on the inside. Do we turn down the business, act high and mighty, and shout: "We're behaving unethically because we have an unfair advantage?"

No, in the context of this blog's readership, this is just a sign that you've achieved true success in branding and building your business -- and you can claim to be a true success at marketing.