February 29, 2008
Shill Sites
I'm not sure if there is another name for the type of websites that I describe here, but my name for them is shill sites.
If you are looking for a grantwriter, then you may have come across these sites. There are at least two of them that I know of, and they purport to rate and rank "the top 10 grant writers." Lucky me -- I'm "fortunate" to have my name listed on both of these sites. Most likely, there are similar sites for other professions.
These sites are fakes. They exist only to promote and get business for the top-ranked site, which is of course their own site and which is given 5 stars. The other 9 sites that are listed have lower rankings and are often described in negative terms, many of which are half-truths or outright lies.
The shill sites claim to back up their listings by describing their methodology for rating and ranking the 10 sites on their lists. They claim to collect and verify information on the success rate of the proposals written by each grant writer or grant writing firm, as well as on customer service/satisfaction, and the value of the grant writer's services in terms of fees. This, too, is hogwash, at least with respect to me and with respect to some of the other grantwriters on the "top 10 list." I know this is the case because I've talked with some of them.
One of the ways that you can identify shill sites like these is to go to the website of the top-ranked #1 grant writer. If you do, you will see that they are selling packages of grantwriting services that are "guaranteed to win." That's a tipoff right there. No legitimate grant writer or grantwriting firm can guarantee that the proposal they prepare for you will result in a win.
So take these sites with a grain of salt. Anyone can set up a website and make outrageous claims. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean that it's true. As always, do your homework.
Posted by Deborah at 4:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 28, 2008
Done and Gone
The food services proposal is finished and gone from my office. I'm not exactly sure why, but we decided to put it together here so that my client could deliver it to the government in the morning. She got here around 4 PM yesterday and we spent a couple of hours making changes to the text. Then for the next two hours we printed out a total of 16 copies of two separate proposals each of which was over 100 pages (she had brought copies of the cost proposal separately).
We stuck them in binders, inserted a few dividers, and they were done and ready to go. Amazingly, there were no serious glitches. She loaded them up in her car and took them home. But not before she paid me on the spot, as she always does.
What's not to like about a client who gives you immediate gratification via an immediate payment?
Posted by Deborah at 5:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 27, 2008
Round and Round
My computer-adverse client called yesterday to say she would be coming by my office to work with me on the proposal and that she would be bringing "a big round diskette" that had some material on it that we could use. I got a little panicky because I had no idea what a big round diskette was. Could she have been referring to the old 5" floppy disks that don't exist any more? Finally I realized that she was probably bringing a CD with files on it. And that's what it was.
When she got here, we worked on the proposal for a bit, and then she dropped a bombshell, telling me that she did not need to submit a cost proposal. She said that she had gotten this information at the bidder's conference. I told her that this did not make sense, and she pointed to a section in the RFP that said that bidders would not need to submit a financial statements or details on their burdened rate until just prior to contract execution. Plus, she thought that the evaluation criteria related to cost was confusing. I tried to explain, but she was convinced that the Contracting Officer had said no cost proposal.
So she decided to call the Contracting Officer. Except she dialed the wrong number and got hold of the Technical Officer (COTR) instead. The COTR could not find the page in the RFP that my client was referring to and insisted that there was no such page. They went round and round on this:
COTR - what page is that?
Client - it is page 54.
COTR - there is no page 54.
Client - yes, on page 54 it gives the evaluation criteria for cost
COTR - the evaluation criteria ends on page 53
Client - no, there is another page
COTR - I have the RFP right in front of me and the page after page 53 is this one (reads the first sentence).
Client - no, that it not it.
COTR - I will have to check with the procurement office because it is not in my copy. Oh, wait a minute, here it is. The pages in my copy are out of order. At any rate, you need to talk to the Contracting Officer about this because I don't know the answer to your question.
So my client gets hold of the Contracting Officer and asks the question about submitting the cost proposal. He said yes, we have to submit a cost proposal, but not price. As for an explanation of the evaluation criteria related to cost, he cannot tell my client what it means. She has to interpret it for herself the best she can. They go round and round on this for a while, but my client finally hangs up and says to me:
"I better get started on my cost proposal."
Posted by Deborah at 4:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 25, 2008
More on Re-Competed Contracts
You might think that incumbents who will be bidding on a re-competed contract have advance knowledge of the ways in which the new RFP will be different from the old RFP. After all, they are currently performing the contract and hopefully have good relationships with government technical and contracting officers who might just give them a little advance information about the new RFP. But this is not always the case.
It's definitely not the case in the three re-competed bids that I am working on. For the food services contract I mentioned the other day, the government has split the current contract into two separate contracts to be bid: one contract for each of the two government facilities where the food services will be provided. Currently, my client is providing these services to the two facilities under one contract. The government has also substantially changed their menu requirements. So what does that mean for my client and me? More work on the proposal than we anticipated. In addition to addressing the changes in technical requirements, we have to prepare and submit two separate proposals.
The RFP for the second re-compete that I'm working on also has some substantial changes from the previous RFP, none of which were known in advance by my client. Fortunately, they have already begun preparations to deal with these new requirements. My third client is also anticipating major changes in the RFP when it is released (we not sure when this will be). But they don't know what those changes will be or how much more work it will take to address them.
Changes from one RFP to the next can occur because the government believes that improvements can be made in the way that work is currently being performed, or because they are not getting the outcomes and results they had anticipated. Other times, they make changes to an RFP because they have less (or more) money to spend. And sometimes, my clients and I think that they make the changes just to make life more difficult for us.
So non-incombents take heart. You're not always the only ones who aren't in the know about what's coming down the pike.
Posted by Deborah at 4:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 22, 2008
Weather Watching and More
I'm supposed to go to Virginia early this afternoon to meet with one of my re-compete clients who is in town for some other business. But here in the Washington, DC area, they are calling for bad weather -- some snow and possibly an ice storm. Right now, at 5 AM, it seems to be sleeting. No way am I going to travel with ice on the roads. So I'll be watching the weather closely to see how things go. I suspect that I'll be staying in today and talking with my client by phone.
I also have to start work on one of the other re-compete proposals that is due on the 28th. I've put it off because it is very similar to the prior proposal that I worked on three years ago. But still, there will be some changes. This particular proposal is for food services for a local government agency -- operating a cafeteria and coffee bar, and providing as-needed catering services for special functions. It is kind of interesting because, as part of the proposal, my client has to submit a detailed menu and prices for each of these services.
I've been doing work for this client for a number of years. She's a wonderful client except for one thing -- she doesn't use a computer or e-mail. Instead, she comes to my office to bring me RFPs, review and pick-up the proposals I've prepared for her, and drop off or discuss anything else needed for the proposals. It would just be so much easier if we could e-mail things back and forth. But she has no time or interest in learning how to use a computer, so this is the way things have worked for the past five years or so. On the other hand, when she comes to my office, she often brings yummy food that she's made.
I'm hoping for some bulgogi when I see her next week.
Posted by Deborah at 4:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 21, 2008
First Reading of RFP
Last night I got around to looking at the RFP for one of the re-competed contracts. Many people, when they first get their hands on an RFP or RFA, begin reading from the first page. They start with the cover sheet/cover letter, go on to the pricing forms in Section B, the scope-of-work in Section C, the Representations and Certifications, the incomprehensible list of government contract clauses, and so forth. By the time they get to the end, they often have no idea of what they have just read.
This isn't the way that I do it. Whenever I get an RFP or RFP, I immediately go to the back of the document. I don't even care what the subject matter of the RFP is. The first thing that I read is the Instructions to Offerors (bidders), which is often in Section L. This tells me a lot about the work that will need to be done -- how many pages the proposal will be, the type and extent of information that will be required in the technical and cost volumes, how that information should be organized, the deadline for submitting questions, whether the proposal will need to be submitted electronically or via mail or courier service, etc. Even after reading this stuff, I still don't know what the RFP/RFA is about. But at this point, I don't care.
After reading the Instructions, I immediately go to the Evaluation Criteria which often follows the Instructions. This tells me how the proposal will be evaluated by the government -- the number of points will be given to each section of the proposal, what the most important elements of the proposal will be, and any further elaborations on the Instructions that I just read.
Next, I go to Section H, which is sometimes called "Special Requirements" or something similar. Section H is often overlooked. But it shouldn't be, because this is where the government often hides important stuff. Things like insurance requirements, special security requirements, and the like.
Finally, finally, finally, I am ready to read the Scope-of-Work in Section C and to look at the pricing forms in Section B. All the stuff in the other sections can wait until later...
Try this technique in the next RFP or RFA that you receive and see if it doesn't give you a better sense of what's going on and what you'll have to do to prepare.
Posted by Deborah at 9:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 20, 2008
Lovely E-Mail
I get quite a few e-mails each day. Some are from people asking about my services, others want me to answer their questions, and still others write rather lengthy stories about various hardships that they want to overcome by getting grants that don't exist. Then there is the e-mail I received yesterday asking for a donation so that the sender could attend a conference in Las Vegas, which she can't pay for because she doesn't have any consulting work. Hmmm, I would like donations so that I too could go to Las Vegas.
But every so often I receive an e-mail that just plain makes me happy. I got one of those yesterday too. Here it is:
I am 30 yrs old with little to no experience in writing up
proposals. I am currently working in a middle management position in a
small company. I feel I have an idea that would greatly benefit the
company I am currently working for. After approaching one of the senior
management with it, he told me he liked it and to write up a proposal.
I have been searching the internet for the past week and a half
attempting to gain insight and advice into how to create a quality
proposal. I am not the type of person how expects, or even wants, to
have someone else do my work for me. Most of the sites I found offered
to create a proposal for a fee. It is my belief that unless
circumstances require otherwise that a person should learn to do things
for themselves. It was a nice surprise to find on your site a starter
list of sorts that I could use to begin to make a proposal on my own.
Your "Proposal Preparation Checklist" and Proposal Pointers and
Pitfalls" are wonderful tools and I wanted to take a moment to thank you
for freely distributing them. It is a welcome relief when someone sets
forward information to allow people to empower themselves. The links
you have provided to other websites are also wonderful. Just skimming
over the Checklist and Pointers, I have already noticed some points I
would never have considered.
So again, thank you so very much. I really appreciate the effort you
have put into your site and also the information you have offered freely.
What a beautifully-written thank-you note. And to boot, it expresses my own mantra -- "do your homework" -- just perfectly.
It's just so nice when something like this pops up in your mailbox!
Posted by Deborah at 4:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 19, 2008
A Slew of Re-competes
Does three equal a slew? I don't know, but very soon I will be working on three proposals, all of which are re-competes for my clients. For those of you who don't know, this means that each client currently holds the grant or contract that is being put out for bid -- they are re-competing for it. For two of these re-competes, the clients have been performing the work for the past five years. On the other re-compete, the client has worked on the contract for three years.
Re-competes are usually very important to bidders because they don't want to lose the work. In some cases, they can't financially afford to lose the grant or contract because it is the only one they have, or because it brings in the bulk of their money. So keeping the grant or contract often requires a good amount of work on the proposal -- sometimes more work than if they were bidding on it from scratch.
Fortunately for me, I have worked with each of these three clients before. In fact, I worked on each of the previous proposals for all three of these bids. So I am familiar with both the clients and the type of work that they will be bidding on for the re-competes. This definitely helps with respect to the learning curve.
But for today, I am going to try to finalize the index for the manual (sigh).
Posted by Deborah at 6:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 18, 2008
Oh Yeah, We Need a Better Index Too
More on this manual...
The original manual had an index, but my client wanted a more comprehensive one. So now I've become an indexer. I've done some basic indexes for a few proposals in the past, but not anything that was really complex. Indexing is a real profession and it's hard work. It requires logical thinking, a good eye for detail, and lots of concentration. I could probably be pretty good at indexing if I took some courses and learned how to do it properly, but I don't want to be an indexer. There are also programs that are made specifically for indexing which of course I don't have.
So I'm having to use Word to re-create this index. Indexing in Word is a real pain. It's not hard to do, but it is time-consuming. I decided to try to reduce the time by using what is called a "concordance file." Creating a concordance file is pretty easy to do but the end result leaves a lot to be desired. When you create and apply the file to your document, it marks every single entry of the word or phrase you are indexing. So many of the index entries end up with way too many page references that you don't want or need. That's what I have right now, so I have to either go back into the concordance file and edit it, or go back into the manual to take out the marked index entries that I don't want.
Either way, this is not good.
Posted by Deborah at 6:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 17, 2008
Deborah's Proposal Writing Blog is Back!
I'm not going to go into all the reasons that I stopped blogging. But now I've decided to resume. If you were a former subscriber or if you are new to my blog, you now have the option of receiving new postings by email. You'll find the subscription box at the top of the page. So please sign up!
What have I been up to since I last blogged? Proposal writing, of course -- sprinkled in between with a few other things like proposal reviews and criitiques, editing and the like. For the past few weeks, I've been revamping a major manual for one of my clients. This has been a rather interesting but frustrating experience. I've written a lot of manuals from scratch, but this client wanted an updated version of an existing manual that is about 250 pages long.
The first step in the process involved gathering the info that they wanted updated. Sounds easy, no? Well, it started off being easy. I was given some written materials to start with. What the client wanted me to do was to take this 250 page document and lay it out so that when you opened it, the proposed changes were on the left page and the original version was on the right-hand facing page, so that it looked like this:
Hahaha. Just try doing something like this in Word with a 250-page document. Some of the comments and proposed changes were so long that they went on for 2-3 pages. When this happened, everything shifted so that the orginal pages or parts of them sometimes ended up on the left side instead of the right side and vice versa. Never, never, never try to do anything like this.
More to come on this exciting task.
Posted by Deborah at 6:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
