Debriefing - Most Common Errors Vendors Make

Yesterday I alluded to the fact more vendors who would not otherwise respond to RFPs are now jumping onto the bandwagon. I've had a number of debriefings with vendors over the years, and not just the 'newbies' are appreciative of the information given in a debriefing. However, it might be nice to understand the process, have this information without having to be 'unsuccessful' in an RFP process in order to receive it! So I give you my summary of the most common errors vendors make in the RFP proposal:

(I generally start debriefings with the following - NOTE: these are GENERALIZED examples, not specific to any individual proposal at all!)

Common Errors:
1) Skipping Requirements in the response - you will get 0 points on items without even knowing how much it was weighted in final score! Even if you are weak in an area - address it to grab at least 1-2 points - that may be enough to get you past the minimum score!

2) Simply making a Statement in response to a requirement - ie saying "we have 20 years doing this" or "we've done this for most of our customers" - doesn't prove anything - so will get a score of "arguably meets requirements". Better to demonstrate experience/expertise/methodology through case study examples, action statements (what the problem was, what you did, and outcome) - see examples in the BC Guide to the RFP Process of good versus better responses to requirements (I helped a little with this guide years ago! http://www.bcbid.gov.bc.ca/custom/ProponentRFPGuide.pdf )

3) Answering a weak area or proposing something 'unusual' without addressing risks - Attack risks/perceived risks upfront rather than glossing over 'not perfect' areas - gets more points that way

4) Not considering the buyer's point of view of risk - eg: using subcontractors that have never worked together/using junior staff on a strategic initiative - cover off how this 'learning curve' would be mitigated and/or why you believe it poses minimal risk.

5) Not understanding the scoring method - Scoring is not like school - ie A, B, C, D - the scoring matrix is on a scale with 'just meeting requirements in the middle' - to get the higher scores one needs to clearly demonstrate how they surpass the minimum requirements
An example of the scoring matrix is below - some score on a 0-10 scale, some 0-5, some use letters, but basically follow the same format of "not meeting, arguably meeting, meeting, clearly meeting, exceeding, exceptional"

Each requirement has been assigned a weight prior to the evaluation commencing. Evaluators will make an assessment of the Proposal's ability to satisfy a requirement and will assign a score by consensus according to the following scale:
Guideline	Quality	Score
Excellent information provided and creative and relevant ideas	Exceeds All Requirements	5
Excellent information provided - addresses criterion clearly and in sufficient detail demonstrating understanding and ability to meet or exceed;	Exceeds Some Requirements	4
Good information provided - Addresses the criterion clearly and with sufficient detail;	Meets All requirements	3
Reasonable information provided - Information is reasonable and relevant but perhaps lacking in clarity;	Meets Most, but not all, Requirements	2
Some information provided - Some information but not sufficient detail, or of little relevance;	Meets Few Requirements	1
No information provided - No response or information is irrelevant;	No Information Provided	0

If anyone has tips they have learned in their debriefings, please add them here in the comments!!