BUS 505 Week 6 DiscussionWeek 6 DQ 1

"Analyzing Customer Requirements" Please respond to the following:

Based on the e-Activity, describe how you could leverage the ambiguous language you found in the RFP. Provide specific examples to support your response.

Analyze each of the key proposal preparation documents discussed in

Osborne’s “Developing a Proposal Preparation Plan” and recommend at least one additional document that would help you analyze customer requirements.

Answer:

•Based on the e-Activity, describe how you could leverage the ambiguous language you found in the RFP. Provide specific examples to support your response.

The ambiguous language in an RFP can be used to the contractor’s advantage. It can be used to highlight what you think is the best course of action, and any other course of action would be too risky or too costly. Osborne gives a good example on how his company read an ambiguous RFP to save the customer money and win the contract (2011).

However, interpreting the ambiguous language in your favor can backfire. For instance, is the case of the Ambush Group and District of Columbia (D.C.). The RFP released by D.C. was to have a company to audit the “telecommunications lines and circuits,” did not mention any auditing of AT&T, while Ambush’s proposal did (Tillery, 2013). Ambush was selected for the contract, and Ambush audited the telecommunication lines, circuits, and AT&T so see if there were any billing errors. D.C. refused to pay Ambush for the auditing of AT&T as it was not in the RFP. Ambush alleged that the RFP was ambiguous, and that auditing AT&T was necessary because “organizations with leased AT&T equipment and/or Centrex systems have been erroneously billed…”(Tillery, 2013). D.C. and the Ambush Group went to court over whether or not language was ambiguous, and if D.C. should pay the outstanding balance. The District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board found that the language was ambiguous, and that D.C. owed Ambush the money. However, the decision was later overturned in the District of Columbia Courts of Appeals.

A contractor can use the ambiguous language in his or her favor, but he or she must be prepared to either lose the contract or, like the Ambush Group, win the contract, but lose the money.

•Analyze each of the key proposal preparation documents discussed in Osborne’s “Developing a Proposal Preparation Plan” and recommend at least one additional document that would help you analyze customer requirements.

An additional document would be one that listed which person was working on which section, and the timeline hacks for draft proposal submissions. I think that people should be aware of who is working on what, and I, for one, often forget who is doing what. A list would be beneficial, especially if you have questions, someone working on another section may have the answer. Additionally, I think there should be draft deadlines. The draft deadlines ensure the team is working on their sections, and not waiting to the full draft deadline. The deadline hacks can also help if it appears one member is having difficulty writing his or her section. The issue can be corrected early one instead later when the final draft is being assembled.

Reference

Osborne, S. (2011). Winning Government Business: Gaining the competitive advantage. Vienna: Management Concepts.

TILLERY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD. (n.d.). In FindLaw. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-ofappeals/1303475.html

Week 6 DQ 2

"Developing a Proposal Plan" Please respond to the following:



The author states that a proposal outline that deviates from the order of instructions in Section L will almost guarantee a losing proposal. Discuss possible

strategies for not following the instructions in Section L that might still result in winning the proposal.



Analyze the contents and intent of the author guide outlined in Chapter 10 of the textbook. Determine the section with which you believe most proposal teams would have the most difficulty. Explain your rationale.

Answer:

Osborne is contradictory in his statement about never deviating from the order of instructions in Section L. For instance, Section M may not have any criteria that correlates "in any meaningful way with Section L" (Osborne, 2011). To remedy this, a SOW will be more than sufficient, and the proposal would not be deemed unresponsive. The hardest part would be Page 2, Themes section. I think this would be difficult because of what it is named. People have difficulty picking out themes, but if it were reworded to be called claim, writers would have an easier time writing that section. The writers will know what claims their proposals are making. I also believe that it would be easier to write if the proposal writers were taught the Toulmin Model of Argumentation, which will not only help develop a well developed proposal, but also arguments as to why it is better than the other competitors and what the benefits of the customer would be (Toulmin, 2013).

Reference

Osborne, S. (2011). Winning Government Business: Gaining the competitive advantage with effective proposals (2nd ed.). Vienna:

Management Concepts. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation. (2013). In The Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://wwwrohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm