The chemistry of experts
Reviewing a technical response can be a dense and challenging read. Feelings of overwhelm creep in as I read something that feels foreign. It's as if I'm seeing a chemistry equation but haven't yet grasped the key concepts to understand and solve the problem.
After a full read of the document, and not understanding how say how systems automation works, I remind myself I'm not a technical SME. Nor do I need to be. I am an expert in tenders. And it's my role to ensure that a technical document is communicated effectively to a broad audience of evaluators and that it responds fully to the question or questions posed.
Approach to the non-SME areas
There are many "non-technical" areas that a tender specialist can add value to in a technical review. Focusing on the below areas will make a technical response robust, increase its readability and make complex concepts engaging.
1. Does it respond to the question?
This may seem obvious but often I see responses that respond to a part of the question and not its entirety. Generic responses that don't directly respond to the question or simply look like a boilerplate statement are also common as is information overload that doesn't lead to much.
When this happens it's helpful to break down the content that is there and to see what content needs to be developed further. Using existing content and categorising it into -
Understanding - Have we demonstrated that we understand the Client's challenges or risks?
Solution - Is the solution clear, and comprehensive and is it broken down to what, who, when, where, and how?
Evidence - Can the solution be supported by relevant and previous projects or experience?
Benefits - How will the Client benefit from your proposed solution?
This is a useful way to work with the technical SME to develop a client-focused response. It also helps identify what content gaps you have in your solution.
2. Does it focus on the client's objectives and evaluation criteria?
Providing a response to the question posed ensures that it is compliant and meets the minimum requirements. However, a response that addresses the Client's objectives and evaluation criteria shows that you understand the Client's core needs.
The evaluation criteria and their weighting tell us what the Client considers to be the most fundamental areas that a provider needs to be considered the lowest risk provider. For example, if 25% of the evaluation criteria is weighted on demonstrated project experience, provide examples of similar project challenges and how your organisation solved them and the resulting benefit. If the benefit can be quantified, even better.
3. Are the key messages reflected in the response?
Key messages form the bid's overall solution and are supporting statements on how your organisation will help the Client with a challenge. These key messages need to be captured and reaffirmed in every schedule including the technical document.
Are the key messages easily found in the technical document/schedule? If not, have a thorough read of the document and find statements that can be supported and backed up by the agreed key messages.
Using hydraulic engineering as an example, the technical SME describes the methodology for designing pipes to meet the demanding pressure and flow of a dam. If one of the key messages is the team's experience in designing and delivering similar projects, this can be backed up by the team's expertise in designing similar works and the outcomes of their design.
4. Does the response identify the client's challenges, and have we offered a solution?
As a tender specialist and reviewer, you have a critical role in ensuring that the Client's challenges and/or project risks are acknowledged and articulated.
This demonstrates your organisation's depth of understanding of the Client and their issues. A considered solution can only be offered if the organisation understands the Client's challenges both present and future. Perhaps there are future impacts that can be noted.
Similar to point 1 - Is there a clear solution that addresses the Client's challenges? Does the solution have a clear approach that focuses on what, who, when, where, and how?
5. Is it structured and flowing?
Lastly, does the document and its content flow? Are there sections or paragraphs that would be more appropriate if introduced earlier in the document to create a top-level overview and then go into more detail? Or are the content and concept presented in sequential order?
One other essential question is whether there is content that can be simplified as a visual?
For example -
A table can show a relationship at a quick glance
A simple process map with chevrons can show the steps required for your solution, and
Creating a graphic of the technical solution will simplify the concept and assist the evaluator/s.
Also, are there any headings and subheadings that can be included to assist the evaluator locate key concepts? Using headings and subheadings provides structure and supports the readability of complex technical information.
And that is how, together, you and your SME can create great chemistry - a technical response that is compliant and compelling.