Shredding the Competition: What a Winning Proposal Revealed About Ours

Webinar Introduction and Housekeeping Welcome and housekeeping Micheál McGrath: Hello and welcome to today’s webinar. My name is Micheál McGrath. I’m the VP of Marketing here at VisibleThread, and I’m delighted that you’ve taken the time to spend with us today. We have a super webinar. We have two real proposal experts with us today who have given up their time to share their story about technology, process and workflow, and we’re delighted to welcome them. Before we get started, a little housekeeping. First things first, this is a live webinar, and we’d love to have your questions. We have some interactive polls throughout the webinar, and there’s a live Q&A box on screen. If you have a question at any point, feel free to drop it in. We’ll allow time at the end to tackle questions, but if one is relevant, we might tackle it in the middle as we go. There’s also an attendee chat, so if you’d like to say hello, let us know where you’re joining from. I’m Micheál, and I’m based here in Cork, Ireland. The chat is also a great place to share LinkedIn links or links to resources. Feel free to get involved. So without further ado, I’m going to welcome Karisha and Michele to today’s webinar. They’ve kindly given up their time, and we’re delighted to have them. Karisha, would you like to start by introducing yourself? Introductions and opening poll Karisha Stanley: Hello, everyone. Karisha Stanley here, joining you from Washington State, about an hour south of Seattle. I’m with the Bremerton Housing Authority, working on the revenue-generating side, Contract Management Services, and I’m our business development analyst. Micheál McGrath: Michele? Michele Raymond: Hello, and thanks for having us. I’m Michele Raymond, the quality assurance analyst with Bremerton Housing Authority and CMS. Micheál McGrath: We’re delighted to have you both. Thank you for giving up your time. I’ve looked ahead at the deck and the presentation, and we’re in for a treat today. We’re going to see a real behind-the-scenes view, with some really good nuggets throughout. To start off, we have some interactive polls in today’s presentation. They get a little deeper than this one, but we wanted to start here to set the scene. You can click directly on the slides to answer. What best describes your role? Are you a proposal manager? Are you on the capture or BD side? Are you a writer or SME? Are you in quality or compliance? Or are you something else completely? If you’re something else, drop it in the chat. We’d love to know who’s on today’s webinar. About half the audience have filled this in. We’re a little over half now. I’ll give it a few more seconds. Karisha Stanley: Can I chime in? If you’re similar to me and you’re doing all of those roles wrapped up into one, drop a 007 in the chat. I think there’s something special about all of us who have all of these roles bundled into one. Micheál McGrath: I’d agree totally. If you’re doing the whole cycle, let us know that too. And we might actually have a lot of that, because 22% are in that scenario. Over half the audience are on the proposal or coordinator side. We have 7% in BD, 11% writers or SMEs, and about 4.5% in quality. And people are chiming in on the chat. Jamie is a 007, doing the whole thing, and Steven as well. That’s great. We have a couple more polls like that, so keep the messages coming in the attendee chat. At this point, I’m going to pass over to Karisha, who will explain what we’re going to go through today. Agenda Karisha Stanley: First off, shout out to all the 007s out there, and thank you all for participating in the poll. Let’s hop into what we’re covering today. First, I want to take you on a bit of a journey: where we started, and a couple of the ways my agency is using VisibleThread. Then, as in all things business development, we’ll talk about a perfect storm: what happened under pressure, how my team coped, and what VisibleThread allowed us to do. We’ll talk about hot buttons, shredding, compliance matrices and gap analysis, some best practices we’ve learned, and our takeaways along the way. And of course, we’ll open the floor to your questions and see how we might be able to help. Micheál McGrath: Fabulous. I’ll let you take over from here, Karisha. How CMS uses VisibleThread Chapter Document Comparison for HUD Compliance Karisha Stanley: Let’s talk about the two main ways my agency, CMS, uses VisibleThread, starting with how we got started: comparing documents, quickly analyzing a new document against an older one. This could be a property document setting out house rules. Or it could be HUD, which, for those who don’t know, is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD has regulations, data sets and limits that we have to know, and occasionally they change. Someone like Michele or me will take the original document or regulation, pull in the new one that just came down the pipeline, and use VisibleThread to run an analysis. What has changed? What is the impact? It helps inform our next steps. We have a whole team of compliance staff who conduct audits on behalf of HUD. VisibleThread lets them quickly analyze hundreds of property documents from the last audit to the new one, so they understand what has changed and what is in or out of compliance before the audit. For a long time, that was our main use of VisibleThread: comparing documents and data sets. But as we grew, we realized VisibleThread had more to offer and that we should explore it. That’s where our business development processes really started to develop, and you’ll see that when we talk about hot buttons, the compliance matrix and gap analysis. Document comparison for HUD compliance Let’s start with the compliance team. If you’re familiar with auditing, this might resonate with you. Our compliance team receives documents to ensure they adhere to HUD requirements. They might come from a property, an owner, or a HUD official. We run each document through VisibleThread to see exactly what has changed. Over the course of a year, a property owner might add details or new policies. HUD might introduce a new requirement that must be built into these documents. VisibleThread lets us analyze these changes quickly, which saves our reviewers a great deal of reading. Some of these policy documents run to more than 100 pages. VisibleThread helps us capture the changes and create a summary and talking points for when we arrive on site for an audit. The outcome is faster, more intentional document reviews, and the ability to identify exactly what changed and where. That gives us better information for our next steps. The perfect storm Chapter Managing Proposal Pressure and Chaos Karisha Stanley: So let’s talk about the perfect storm. I was new to my role, having just transitioned from another department of the agency into business development. And of course it was summertime, so everyone was planning personal time off, myself included. As we said with the 007s, I am business development, I am capture, and I am the proposal manager and writer. I’m all things bundled into one. And just as I was getting acquainted and getting ready to go on PTO, a request for qualifications dropped with a super tight deadline. But I had scheduled PTO. I was getting on a plane, and there was no pushing it back. So what happened? We tapped our writers, quality assurance and our marketing team, and they were left to figure out what they could get done without me, their BD point person, at the helm. What happens under pressure I think we can all relate to this. We go to a retreat, ask how we can improve, exchange ideas, and leave energized and ready to take action. But when pressure hits the business, that’s when we find out whether we’ll act on those ideas or fall back on old habits just to cross the finish line. We fell right back into old habits as the pressure built. The marketing team relied on old information, old campaigns and old visuals, because that’s what we had available. Our writers didn’t feel confident in the work they were producing. They needed structure and guardrails. How were they supposed to write to qualifications? What was the requester actually looking for? How could they know they were doing a good job? Then there’s Michele, who was already working in VisibleThread and doing all she could to plug the gaps. She was running analyses and trying to build the compliance matrix. But things were moving so fast that the quality reviews had little to no follow-up action, because there wasn’t enough time. We didn’t have a structure that said, “After we do this, the next step is that.” So we fell back on what we’d always done, just to get the product out the door. If I could turn to the chat: put a 1 if you’ve been in this position before, or a 2 if you haven’t. Has anyone been energized and exchanging ideas, and then fallen right back into old habits when the pressure hits? Go ahead and drop a 1 or a 2. Okay, I love that. So it’s not just us. I see some exclamation points, and I love that enthusiasm. This is perfect for our next poll. When a tight RFP lands, what do you fall back on? Do you pull old content from past proposals? Do a few people carry most of the load? Do you use a spreadsheet tracker, a proposal tool or a process you trust, or does it depend on the week? I’d love to hear from you. Micheál McGrath: I love your energy, Karisha. That’s brilliant. Karisha Stanley: I’m seeing “1, a lot” and “all of the above” in the chat. Yes. Sometimes it can feel like whack-a-mole. I don’t know if we’re all familiar with the game, but here we have a place for kids called Chuck E. Cheese. There’s a game where a little mole pops up and you whack it with a soft mallet. Then another pops up, and the more you whack, the faster they pop up and disappear. Sometimes that’s what this feels like: you’re just trying to whack the moles back down and keep moving forward. About 44% of you have chimed in. I’ll give you a few more seconds. All right, let’s take a look. 50% pull old content from old proposals. Yes, that’s easy, right? It’s almost like a library, so why not pull from it? A few people carrying most of the load, absolutely. Then spreadsheet trackers, proposal tools and processes we trust. And “honestly, it depends on the week.” That is very relatable. What I’m taking away is that we’re all swimming in the same lanes. It depends on what is being asked of us, our current capacity, and what is going on that week, and that dictates how we respond. That’s pretty much where we were: rinse and repeat. Where do we have capacity? That really dictated how we showed up for proposals. But that can leave us feeling not so thrilled. When I asked everyone how they felt and how they coped, this was the sentiment: everything is on fire, but this is fine. We were acting like the chaos was normal, and like the anxiety about meeting the deadline was fine. I couldn’t help but ask how I could hold these humans with a bit more tenderness, so they don’t feel like the room is on fire. I see a comment in the chat: 20% of the people doing 80% of the work. That sounds like such a lift for that 20%. I can only imagine trying to get information from others in the proposal process and move things forward. That must be frustrating for everyone involved. So did we have a complete product? Yes, we did. And when we reached the end, how did everyone in the proposal process feel? It was a resounding “I don’t ever want to do it again.” I was thinking, oh my gosh, we’re celebrating, but no one wants to be involved again. Steven says in the chat: “Celebrating getting it done rather than getting it right.” Steven, I couldn’t agree more. We crossed the finish line, so let’s just be excited about that. Did we recycle content that was old and maybe outdated? Maybe. Did we miss the chance to tighten up our visuals and graphics? For sure. Was there last-minute formatting right down to the wire? Michele, we know about that, right? Michele Raymond: That was not fun. That certainly happened. Karisha Stanley: So hearing all that, it’s no wonder people were ready to tap out. Yes, we got it done, but please, next time, don’t call on me. The “good sports mode” poll Karisha Stanley: So let’s talk about that. How often does the proposal team at your organization hit “good sports mode”? Almost every pursuit, a few times a year, rarely, or do you have enough lead time to avoid it? I’ll give you a few moments to chime in. This one could be tricky. It might depend on the pursuit, your capacity, and what guardrails you have in place, if any. Do you have a structured process that you consistently follow? These things are always on my mind, because they shape how we show up during proposal management. We have 19 responses out of 65 so far. I’ll give it a few more moments, because I’m interested. And if you do have enough lead time to avoid it, I’d love to hear in the attendee chat how you make that time. Let’s share that knowledge. We’re at 22 out of 65. About another ten seconds. I know a few of us were just getting to our coffee or another hydrating beverage. All right, let’s take a look. More than half of us hit it a few times a year. A third of respondents hit it on almost every pursuit. And to those who said rarely: I love that for you. I’d love to hear in the chat about the circumstances, environment, culture and processes you’ve created so that it rarely happens. Let me look at the chat. Lauren says it depends on whether it’s something they’ve been tracking, whether the RFP comes out looking the way they thought, and how quick the turnaround is. Yes, Lauren. Those are the variables I just touched on, and they tell us whether we’ll be in good sports mode. If the RFP doesn’t look the way we expected, that changes our mindset. If we expected to dedicate a certain number of staff and it now looks far more exhaustive, that changes how we show up. Great job naming those variables. Jill says that in her organization it depends on the proposal players and their experience with large proposals. Absolutely, and on where it’s coming from. Proposals can look different coming from the federal government versus state, local and education, the smaller levels of government. Experience is something that isn’t touched on enough. Where are your technical writers in terms of experience? Do they need additional support to get started? Are there prompts we can give them to build confidence in writing? All of this needs to be taken into consideration. Hitting the reset button Karisha Stanley: So let’s keep going. Now I’m back from PTO, and my technical writers never want to do this again. That’s unfortunate, because the whole point of my role is to do this again. The point of my role is to generate revenue so we can keep providing rental assistance to our local community. These aren’t just dollars. These dollars represent hope: hope in the form of new units, so people have a place to live; hope through rental programs that help residents reach economic self-sufficiency; and hope through programming that supports young people living in our buildings. So this is about more than growing as an agency. It’s about doing this again so we have money to support the community where we work and where people live. So I had to hit the reset button, and it didn’t take long. A new opportunity came, and I was determined to use every resource we had so that the pain of the last round wasn’t felt this round. The problem VisibleThread helped us with was turning proposal chaos into an organized symphony, with a little chaos still sprinkled in. If you’ve been in proposal management, you know what I’m talking about. How we changed Chapter Identifying Implicit RFP Hot Buttons How did we put structure in place? First, we used VisibleThread, which we already had for comparing documents and data sets. But we pulled that thread further and used VisibleThread to identify implicit hot buttons. When an RFP drops, what are they not explicitly telling us, but that’s hidden in how they wrote it? VisibleThread helped us identify that. VisibleThread also helped us focus on the RFP requirements. We were able to shred the new RFP and find the keywords: must, shall and should statements. These let us focus and helped me create structure I could pass to our technical writers. That structure from the shred turned into a compliance matrix, which let me assign response sections to technical writers. I could tell each of them: this is the one thing we want to focus on, this is your section, here’s a prompt, and here’s what a response an evaluator would score highly looks like. It also let me run other analyses, such as where our response fell short or where we had unsupported claims. We all want to write “we can do this, we can do that,” but a claim is only as good as its supporting evidence. VisibleThread really let us dissect what we were writing. Let’s dive deeper. Chapter Developing Strategic Win Themes Hot buttons and win themes Karisha Stanley: Hot buttons and win themes: spotting what the RFP doesn’t explicitly say. Sometimes the things that really matter to the customer aren’t expressed directly, and I’m sure we can all relate. I go back to Lauren’s comment: it depends on whether it’s something you’ve been tracking and whether the RFP comes out looking the way you thought. That speaks directly to this. If you’ve been working with a customer and helping them shape the RFP, you probably know what they’re not saying, because you’ve built that relationship. But if you just found the RFP on an agency or procurement website, those things aren’t stated. You have to dig deeper. What are they really asking? What are they really afraid of? What are they trying to mitigate with this RFP? You need to uncover the hidden issues they care about, then draft win themes from those hot buttons. That’s exactly what I did. I handed the win themes to the writers, so they knew what messaging to weave into their responses. Three hot buttons VisibleThread surfaced This is a real opportunity, so let’s take a deep dive. 1. Processing accuracy and regulatory compliance. It seems simple, but the underlying concern was the direct financial and legal consequences of inaccurate processing or failing to meet regulatory requirements. We took that to mean evaluators would be closely focused on how offerors describe their quality control architecture: the structure and the checkpoints. Vague language about review processes would score poorly. Just saying “we use a checklist” wasn’t going to be enough. So we went back to the technical writers and asked them to tell us more. How does the checklist improve accuracy? How does it mitigate risk? Now we understood the hot button and what it was really telling us. 2. Transition risk and continuity of operations. What they were really saying was that anniversary dates and fixed processing windows had to be met. The work was time-sensitive and cyclical, and missed deadlines had consequences. In our world, if a contract isn’t signed, a person may end up paying the wrong rent, because the wrong rent was set at the property. Utility allowance reimbursements would be wrong. That affects people who are already financially strained, so it was important to get it right. This showed us that evaluators would be looking for transition plans, with particular attention to knowledge transfer. If we say one processor is dedicated to this work, what’s the plan if they get sick or are suddenly pulled from it? Do we have language showing we can manage a transition, with plans in place so nothing jeopardizes the outcome they want? Again, this wasn’t explicitly stated in the RFP, but using VisibleThread to dig into the hot button helped us uncover it. 3. Staffing capability and key personnel. It wasn’t just about whether we had people to do the work. It was whether they had the knowledge. Can they interpret the requirements? Can they navigate the systems unique to HUD? Can they communicate with owners, agents and landlords to get the information needed? Do we have experienced staff? We realized evaluators were really asking whether the people we committed to the project were real. Not AI bots, but real humans committed to the work. Did we have résumés supporting the claim that they had genuine HUD multifamily experience? And did we have a credible retention strategy? If a processor left, how would we fill that gap? They wanted to know we were prepared to process accurately, mitigate risks that could threaten deadlines, and that we knew what we were doing. I’ll pause here to see if there are any questions. I don’t see any in the chat. Q&A: prioritizing hot buttons Micheál McGrath: I have a question, Karisha. How do you decide which hot buttons are particularly important, and which ones are noise? Take the key staffing one: how did you prioritize that over all the other topics you could have picked? Karisha Stanley: That’s a great question. For me, it came down to risk. In BD, it always comes down to risk. What could get in the way of reaching the desired outcome? Staffing could. Not having a fully fleshed-out continuity plan could. Maybe I don’t need to spend as much time on one area but need to say more about the transition. So it’s about focusing on what could prevent us from being successful for the customer. Micheál McGrath: And that’s the human in the loop. That’s your expertise, and what you bring to the table. And when you say hot buttons, are you referring to the shredding capabilities? Is this an AI prompt you’re running? What are you doing exactly in VisibleThread? Karisha Stanley: I love that you asked. It’s built into the VisibleThread business development platform. You load in an RFP, for example, and then you can ground your questions in it. You basically have a conversation with the platform. It uses artificial intelligence, but it doesn’t make decisions for you. It helps you uncover things. I think of it as my research assistant. Sometimes I even call it Clarisse. It’s my assistant for uncovering things that may not be readily apparent, through a back-and-forth conversation. “I’m looking at this document. Help me see what I might be missing. If you were me, what would you want to see differently? As an evaluator, what would you prioritize?” The AI doesn’t know what I know, but it can quickly look at information and give me an output. Using what I know, I shape and challenge that output, and that lets me decide where to focus and what my next steps are. Micheál McGrath: That’s great. Thanks for the answer. Karisha Stanley: Absolutely. Shredding Karisha Stanley: It’s great that we were talking about shredding, so let’s talk about it a little more. I see we have some 007s here, and some folks who are purely proposal writers or capture. Chapter RFP Shredding for Requirement Capture When I talk about shredding, I mean this: when an RFP drops and a customer says they’re looking for someone who can do X, Y and Z, they use explicit language. “The offeror must be able to do this.” “The consultant shall provide all personnel and supervision.” “Ensure all calculations…” “Proposals must be received no later than…” These key phrases are laser-focused statements that you don’t want to overlook, because they become requirements. If you overlook them and they’re not in your proposal, you could be disqualified automatically. If the RFP says proposals must be received no later than January 1 at 4:00 PM and you submit at 4:15 PM, you’re out of the running. You want to know that from the start. So you take an RFP or opportunity, drop it into VisibleThread, and start that conversation with the AI to find the must, shall and should statements and understand what they’re asking. That’s so important. This is also valuable if you didn’t have time to shape the opportunity and you need a go/no-go decision. Understanding the must, shall and should statements tells you what the customer is asking for, so you can give leadership an informed recommendation. Should we pursue this opportunity or pass? You’ve broken down the requirements and understand what they’re looking for. From shred to compliance matrix Chapter Building Compliance Matrices and Guardrails This is one of the tools we didn’t have when that request for qualifications dropped, and it really came in clutch in the end. The shred became our compliance matrix. We took those should, shall and must statements, created response sections, and I assigned them to the technical writers. I also used VisibleThread prompting to add guidance on what a good response looks like for each section. I was essentially saying, “Give me some guardrails. Help me shape this. If I were an evaluator, what does a good response look like?” So I could say: you’re assigned to this section, here’s the requirement, and here’s a comment. For example: “Describe the review process for rent adjustment requests, and the process for confirming that information is complete and accurate.” I know that’s what they’re looking for. And because I also had the hot buttons, I understood what they were asking for but hadn’t explicitly said. So I could tell the writer what they should write: speak to how our personnel, supervision, equipment and resources support reviewing these submissions for completeness and accuracy. Q&A: cultural bias in hot buttons Karisha Stanley: We have a question here from Steven: is there a cultural bias in VisibleThread? You can bid for similar work with different clients, and their underlying culture can change the hot buttons. I think that’s absolutely true. Even the way you as an individual view an RFP might change the hot buttons, because your experience shapes what you see as potential hot buttons. What I’d say, Steven, is that it’s not there to make a hard-and-fast decision. It gives you an idea of something that might be an issue that wasn’t explicitly stated. Then you might have to go and validate it. You might end up on their website, reading board minutes, or looking at past RFPs they’ve issued, to confirm whether these are real issues, whether there’s some kind of hallucination in the AI platform, or whether some other bias is creating the hot button. What I’m hearing in your question is that just because something is identified as a hot button doesn’t mean the decision is made. You still want to research and validate it. Thank you for that question, or statement, I should say. Gap analysis Chapter Conducting Comprehensive Gap Analysis Karisha Stanley: But it didn’t end there. Another way we created structure in our response was by running a gap analysis, dissecting what we had already written. This is so important because, as I said earlier, we tended to pull from past proposals, even ones we didn’t win. We needed to know whether that language left gaps in our response. A gap analysis showed us whether each item was fully addressed, partially addressed, or missed the bar completely. And there were several ways to do that. Before I show you some examples, I’d love to hear from you. When do you check your response against the evaluation criteria? Before writing starts, while drafting, at pink or red team, or after the draft is done? If it’s something different, put it in the chat. I’m on a learning journey. I see some questions coming in the chat. Q&A: why not Microsoft Word? Karisha Stanley: While you’re doing the poll, I’ll touch on one. Jeff asks: why not just use a built-in document comparison tool, like Microsoft Word? Jeff, that’s a great question, and you’re right, there may be a tool that does that. We all have to use the tools available to us at the time. We were already invested in VisibleThread because of how many documents and data sets we had to review and how many people were involved. At that time, VisibleThread was the path of least resistance for us. For you, it might be Microsoft Word, and if that works for you, I love that. It’s like sunscreen: as I tell everyone, the best one is the one you’ll use consistently. If that’s Microsoft Word for you, use it. For us, it was VisibleThread. That’s what we kept coming back to, and it gave us the outcomes we needed to do our work. Thanks for that question. Poll results: checking against evaluation criteria Karisha Stanley: About half of you have responded, so let’s see. Many of you are checking your response against the evaluation criteria before writing starts and while drafting. I love that. It’s like checking the pulse while you draft. At pink and red team, that’s ideal when you’re about 60% done: let’s pause and check. Red team, yes, before we hit the final stretch. After the draft is done: 18.5% of you. I’d be curious how that works out. If you have to make edits after the draft is done, how does your team feel afterward? Micheál McGrath: A couple of people are saying they’re somewhere between B, C and D. Karisha Stanley: Yes. Someone says they bake the evaluation criteria into the compliance matrix and annotated outline, and it stays a check all the way through the last review. I love that. We may float between stages, but ultimately we need some kind of checklist we follow all the way through the last review. For me, I want to make sure nothing gets missed. How we ran the gap analysis Karisha Stanley: Let me keep going and show you several ways we ran a gap analysis. First, by evaluating each section. Here, the cost proposal was weighted at 30%, with a gap rating and a recommendation. We got a “moderate” rating, with a recommendation. Then we had to decide: it’s only moderate, so do we want to spend time on it? What’s our deadline? How close are we? What’s our capacity? How many other edits do we have to make? Maybe we address it. In this example, we got a “weak” rating, with a recommendation. Our own words were quoted back, so we could see what we wrote against the criteria and why it was rated weak. There’s a recommended fix, but that’s just the machine making a recommendation. Ultimately, the human has to decide whether to act on it and plug that gap. So we’re not letting AI write this for us. If anyone is taking that away, let me challenge it. No. We use the VisibleThread platform to support our decision-making and help us see things we might have missed as humans. And of course, what we love to see is when we’re doing great work: here’s the requirement, here’s exactly what you said, outstanding, no gap. Whether a report says partially addressed, fully addressed, moderate, weak or outstanding, it gives us structure. As the point person, I’m like a point guard in basketball, or a midfielder in soccer or football. I get to call the play: this is what we’re focusing on, here’s where I’m sending the ball, this is the direction we’re going. It saved us time, let our technical writers focus, and dialed down the anxiety, because people had a roadmap. That’s what was appreciated most. Checking for unsupported claims Chapter Verifying Claims with Proof Points Karisha Stanley: Checking for unsupported claims is just as important. We all want to make sure we’re addressing every requirement, but as I said earlier, a claim is only as good as the evidence supporting it. When I came into my role, and Michele can attest to this, one of the things I kept saying was, “What are our proof points?” Proof points, proof points. We said we could do it accurately, so show me. I almost felt like Jerry Maguire shouting “Show me the money!” Show me the proof points, because we had all these claims and I just wanted to see the proof. It was great not only to say “show me the proof” myself, but to run our response through the platform and have it back me up. It’s not just Michele or Karisha saying we need it. Now there’s a third party that doesn’t care whether we win or lose, also saying, “You have an unsupported claim.” Here’s an example about our backup processor contingency protocol. We said we had a team in place and processes so that if something happened, the work would continue. But it was vague. As an evaluator, I wouldn’t know what that meant. The platform flagged it as an unsupported claim, and suggested we address it if we wanted to tighten up the response. That was very valuable as we wrote: not just saying what we can do, but showing it, with evidence and proof points. Q&A: handling client revisions and Q&A responses Karisha Stanley: Here’s a question from Steven: how do you accommodate client revisions, reissues and Q&A responses, and make sure writers are working with the evolving approach? I love that. The way we usually get Q&A is that there’s a deadline: you must submit questions by a certain date, and they’ll respond by another date. In our experience, once we have the responses, the writing pretty much stops and we review the answers together. I loop in the technical writers and we ask: this is how they responded, so does this change how we respond? Does it affect the regulation? Does it change anything about what we do? Then we decide whether to change how we’re writing or leave it as is. So it is an iterative approach, Steven. That’s something I really had to drive home with our technical writers. It’s not one and done. You drafted something, awesome, and I’ll take a look. Now we have Q&A responses, so let’s talk about it again. Now we have some unsupported claims, so let’s come back to the table. It’s a game of catch, back and forth, until we cross the finish line. Best practices Chapter Proposal Management Best Practices Karisha Stanley: We’re winding down, so let’s quickly talk about some best practices I’ve learned. First, if you’re in government contracting, search for new opportunities on SAM.gov. And whether or not you rely only on SAM.gov, as someone mentioned earlier in the chat, shape the opportunity by building relationships. Reach out to people and find out what’s challenging them. Understand your market and the people in it. If you understand their pain points, you can start shaping your offerings and how you show up. Second, if you’re already using VisibleThread, use the VisibleThread proposal outline generator as a guide, but follow the formatting set out in the RFP. You can use an AI tool, which is awesome, but you still need to follow the required format, and sometimes what the AI produces isn’t the format you need. As some commenters said, if another tool works for you to create the outline, use it, but follow the RFP’s formatting. Third, shred each solicitation when it arrives, to understand the requirements and support your go/no-go decisions. As soon as you get an RFP or opportunity, shred it so you fully understand what you must do, what you need to ensure is done, and what should be done. Those requirements help you understand capacity needs and whether this is an opportunity worth investing your time, resources and personnel in. Finally, find a way to run a gap analysis on your writers’ responses, to find claims lacking evidence and anything missed or only partly addressed. We all want to say what we can do. But it’s really important to tie it to a proof point or piece of evidence. I say that especially to anyone new to BD and capture who is trying to figure out how to bring what you do to life: connect it to a proof point. That’s how. Learning from competitors Chapter Learning From Competitor Submissions Another best practice: learn from your competitors. Earlier we talked about the RFQ, which was a bit chaotic. But it was a win, so yay for us. It’s always great when someone reaches out to you specifically and asks you to respond. There was some chaos, but they knew they wanted us. Other times, we have all the guardrails, the razzle-dazzle and the structure, and despite the wording being exactly as it should be, it comes down to cost. That’s not something we can control. It’s down to the customer’s budget. But that doesn’t mean the learning journey stops. I’m sure many of us are familiar with public records requests. We didn’t win, but give me all the documents, because there’s still something to learn. That’s where learning from competitor responses comes in. You can request the proposal submissions and evaluation scores. We then used VisibleThread to run analyses comparing our response to the winning competitor’s, to take lessons from them and strengthen future responses. For example, we tied with the competitor on familiarity with the systems. We love that, because it shows we have strong expertise there. But on processing, Competitor A beat us, and it came down to how they described the work. The analysis showed why Competitor A came out stronger from an evaluator’s standpoint. That’s what we need to improve. How do we describe the work better? If we’re all in the same pool doing the same work, how do I make sure we’re at least describing it as well as they are? Then if it comes down to cost, I’m not already losing points because I failed to describe it in a way that resonated. There was a lot to learn by getting the winning proposal, dissecting their approach, and figuring out how we can show up better. If it comes down to cost, let that be the only deciding factor, not a failure to accurately describe our processing method. Why VisibleThread So why VisibleThread? We needed a system to make proposal writing and management easier and to manage all the moving parts. We wanted to grow and to do this over and over again. That needed a structure that was previously missing, so we leaned further into VisibleThread. Timing had never let us fully explore it before. Meeting deadlines and tracking proposal progress turned out to be where this system really came in clutch. Key takeaways Karisha Stanley: Here are some key takeaways from our after-action review. Remember, after the RFQ we had people sitting in the burning room drinking their coffee: “This is fine, but I never want to do this again.” After this pursuit, even though we didn’t win, it came down to cost. Everything else was great, and I want to point that out. The pursuit was strategically aligned, and team collaboration was strong. VisibleThread and the compliance matrix were repeatedly cited as valuable tools. Again, it was that structure and those guardrails. People commented again and again on how much they appreciated having something to rely on that shaped and prompted their writing. The response was seen as an improvement on the Utah RFQ. We went from feeling like we were in the middle of a tornado, with the chaos, the flames and the coffee in the burning room, to feeling like things were getting better: “Yes, I would do this again, Karisha. Sign me up.” That’s what I need in BD. Final poll Karisha Stanley: I want to hear from you. Which of these would make the biggest difference to your next proposals? Faster shredding, a live compliance matrix, gap analysis while writing, unsupported claims review, or learning from competitors? Micheál McGrath: While we have a moment, Karisha: you’ve done an excellent job of articulating all the different functionality, and people and technology versus process. If you had to pick one, which would make the biggest difference? Karisha Stanley: Oh my gosh, you’re really putting me on the spot. It’s so hard, because I love them all. But for getting started, it’s the gap analysis. If we have a gap, we’re already disqualified. We don’t even get to cross the finish line and have the conversation; the evaluator is already putting it in the trash pile. You need to understand your gaps to make sure you’ve hit every requirement and have a compliant proposal. So for me, hands down, gap analysis. Michele, I said I wouldn’t put you on the spot, but I’m curious. Which do you think is most valuable? Michele Raymond: I 100% agree with the gap analysis. It’s super important before and during, and even after, when we’re comparing against competitors. That’s my favorite. Micheál McGrath: Yes. What you’re doing against competitors is really progressive. We did a webinar yesterday on benchmarking, and it’s about that after-action review: learning from where you lost, learning from the process, and adjusting. A lot of organizations aren’t doing that, or are too tight on time and resources. The fact that you’re using AI and technology to lead the way there is progressive, and it’s a super use case. Karisha Stanley: Absolutely. It also supports introducing best practices. When it’s so easy to fall back on old habits, and you know something is a good practice, like turning content into a visual, you can feel the challenges and a bit of pushback. But when you can point to a competitor and say, “Look how they describe this work, especially when it’s the same work we do, and look how they use visuals,” it becomes another piece of evidence for why we should change the process and move away from “this is the way we’ve always done it.” It really is a learning tool for showing up better next time. We have about 41% of attendees responding, and about six minutes left, so I’ll click to the results. Most people would love to get their hands on competitor responses, and also gap analysis while writing. Absolutely, those are two spectacular tools. And if I could always get my hands on competitor responses, that would make me happy as a proposal writer. Audience Q&A Chapter Obtaining Public Competitor Information Obtaining competitor information Micheál McGrath: We have a question that connects to that. Lizanne asks: what is the suggested way to obtain competitors’ information, and how far in advance should the request be made to receive it on time? Karisha Stanley: It depends on the space you work in. In general, for us, the submission deadline closes and we wait until the award is announced. Once it’s announced and we know it’s not us, we reach out to their procurement team. Sometimes their website has a direct portal for public records requests. That’s my typical flow: I go to their website, find either the public records request page or the procurement site, and request the records. Where I am, specific regulations allow us to do that, so you may need to check the rules where you are. But that’s how it works for us. We simply submit a public records request in accordance with the laws and regulations, and tell them what we want: the evaluation scores, the winning proposal, and all the other submissions. They send what they can under the law, and if there’s something they can’t send, they cite why. That allows the deep dive. Micheál McGrath: Awesome. Great answer. Stopping the scramble Micheál McGrath: Another question: we talked about the scramble hitting at a certain point. Is there something you do in the first hour that helps stop the chaos? A tip you’d give a team on where to focus first? Karisha Stanley: It starts with the shred, and then the compliance matrix. First, you need the go/no-go decision, and the shred lets you make it by understanding the non-negotiable requirements you need to laser in on. That tells you whether you even want to give time, energy and resources to this. If it’s a yes, you create the matrix, a spreadsheet listing each requirement, and assign each one to people. So yes, you have to have the shred to fully understand the opportunity and help your writers understand what the customer is looking for. Advice for newcomers Chapter Advice for Proposal Professionals Micheál McGrath: What’s unique about your use case, and what we’re seeing a lot more of, is that you’re using VisibleThread end to end. Historically, VisibleThread was used mainly on the writing side. You’re using the AI functionality at the beginning, competitive analysis at the end, and, as Michele said, gap analysis throughout. If someone is new to bidding, is there an area you’d focus on first to develop in or learn more about? Any advice for newcomers to the field? Karisha Stanley: If you’re new to this role, get comfortable shredding requests for proposals and creating a compliance matrix, because that’s your first guardrail for supporting your technical writers. I’d also learn how to support your technical writers. They know how to do the work, but writing and describing that work is a whole other ask. Have resources available to get them started so they don’t feel stuck, because they’ll want to get it perfect, or they’ll feel like they’re not writers. So first, give them resources to get started, and then give them guardrails: a template, something that says “this is what I’m looking for.” That way they don’t feel like they don’t know what a right answer looks like. Supporting them is how you build champions: people who want to come back and do it again and again with enthusiasm. Closing remarks Micheál McGrath: Absolutely. I’ll let you both summarize and give a final word in a moment. But first, there’s a survey on screen. Please give us your feedback on this webinar, and if you have any other questions, drop them in there and we’ll pass them to Karisha and Michele afterwards. Karisha, Michele, do you have any final comments for the audience? Karisha Stanley: Michele, do you have anything you want to add? Michele Raymond: I do. When we were on fire and Karisha was out of the office, it was really easy to reach out to VisibleThread and say, “Listen, Karisha’s gone and I’m trying to help. How do I do this? Give me some prompts.” The customer support was fantastic, and we really appreciate you helping us through that difficult process. You helped us get to a win, so thank you. Micheál McGrath: You’re very kind. Chapter Community Support And Process Adaptation Karisha Stanley: For me, I’d say you never walk alone on this journey. If you know other people who are new to capture or proposal writing, reach out to them and share knowledge. You can reach me through VisibleThread; I didn’t include my LinkedIn. Don’t ever feel like you’re on this journey alone. Sometimes you have to reimagine a process to fit your agency or a specific opportunity. Don’t be afraid to do that, and don’t be afraid to try something different to get something different. And if you ever need a sounding board, I’m always here. I love engaging with others in the BD, capture and proposal world. Let’s take it to infinity and beyond, together. Micheál McGrath: I really appreciate it, Michele and Karisha. That was fabulous. It’s wonderful when customers and users like you come on webinars like this and speak about your journey with the platform in such positive terms. I found it really enjoyable, and I hope the audience did too. I think it’s a wonderful webinar on technology and process. You’ve deployed the platform really well and you’re using lots of different functionality, but it was your expertise and how you use the platform that came across most strongly to me. Whatever tools people in the audience are using today, there are loads of takeaways. Thank you both for your time. Chapter AI Traceability And Source Truth If you enjoyed this, we have lots more coming up. Tomorrow we have an office hours session on traceability with AI. I think traceability is one of the biggest strengths of VisibleThread. We talked a lot about gap analysis, pulling threads and building proposal outlines, and what VisibleThread does really well is show you exactly where that information came from. That’s what we focus on most: giving you a source of truth. You can sign up for that on the console or on our website. Later in November, before Thanksgiving, we have a webinar on workflow management: when nobody owns a section, assigning tasks, notifications and so on. That’s with another customer, whom we’re excited to announce soon. And if you’re in the DC area near Tysons Corner, or want to fly in, as lots of people did last time, you’re more than welcome to join us in person at our office for a workshop. We have one in November and one in December. We held one in October recently, and it was very beneficial. There’s lots coming up, so feel free to get involved, and please do give us your feedback in the survey. My final words: thank you, Karisha. Thank you, Michele. And thanks to everybody for joining us today. We’ll see you soon. Karisha Stanley: Thank you for having us.