| ||
|  | How To “Prove” You’re The Most Qualified In past articles we’ve advised against using phrases such as “We have extensive experience,” or "We are uniquely qualified,” and letting it go at that. You may be all those things, but unless you show that you are, the evaluator is left with just your claim. And that usually won’t be enough. Substantiate your claims. We like to say how good we are because we really believe we are. Just saying it, though, convinces no one. Too often proposal writers forget that a proposal is a sales document, and that the readers don't know as much about the nifty qualities of your technical solutions as you do. Whenever you make a statement about how you'll do something during the project, you must show just how your approach benefits the client. But to really get an edge on your competition, you need to go a step further by substantiating your claims. Take a look at the following example: We have extensive experience in and fully understand the design techniques required to arrive at a solution that will meet the Navy’s needs. This example says to the client, “Trust us; we know what we’re doing.” The problem is that the client has no basis on which to trust that the team does understand the design techniques involved. The paragraph conveys no information that can back up the claim. It also poses another danger: It makes the writer seem too lazy to take the time to show that he understands the design techniques involved. It’s also pretty arrogant; the assumption is, “Hey, we know what to do. Just let us do it.” The example in the box below expands on the original by demonstrating that the team not only understands design techniques, but they have already applied one—an alternatives analysis in this case. Of course, that means that the team will have had to take the time to conduct this preliminary analysis. But that small investment will pay off. The client comes away with the feeling that the team understands design techniques—at least one of them—and can apply them during the project. In addition, the team sends the message that they are serious enough about solving the client’s problem that they have devoted time to it before winning the contract. You probably don’t fall for the “trust us” approach. Don’t expect your clients to. Chances are they won’t.
We understand the design techniques required to arrive at a solution that will meet the Navy’s needs. A key technique is an alternatives analysis that weighs each design option against specific Navy requirements. We have conducted a preliminary analysis; the following paragraphs summarize our findings. We have investigated several design approaches to resolving the problem. Table 4.2-1 shows the results of our studies. Alternative A increases crew accommodation capacity to meet Navy requirements, but at a 23% reduction in space allocated to HVAC and electric systems equipment. This design would require specialized equipment for the HVAC system, which would significantly increase costs. Alternative B gives room enough for the systems equipment, but because of the awkward location so far forward makes it inconvenient to access the controls. Plus, that alternative actually reduces the space allocated for crew quarters by 3%. Alternative C, on the other hand, produces a net gain of 10% more crew accommodation capacity. In addition, the design allows room for all HVAC and electrical systems equipment, and its central location makes it easily accessed through hatches from both the top deck and the second level machinery maintenance room. This approach makes the most of the existing ducting and conduit, which minimizes replacement costs. Plus, since the equipment is located on the upper deck, noise filtering into the crew space below will be reduced. This is an important consideration in light of the Navy’s requirement that the vessel have high habitability. Our preliminary analysis shows that Alternative C is best suited to meet the Navy’s requirements. However, we will conduct a more detailed analysis during the Preliminary Design phase of the project to verify these results. < Return to Proposal Writing Techniques< Return to Articles
|
|
|
©2005
- 2007 Proposal Writing Today, All Rights Reserved |