| |
|
 |
Have you answered the question? Analytical service studying the ITT and the responses. Has the question been answered properly and in depth, or have we ignored/missed the essential thrust of the question? |
| |
|
 |
Construction of a valid Executive/Management Summary. Bad ones tend to be waffly essays/introductions. Good ones are an extraction of key offers and benefits from the body of the bid, expressed in non-technical terms. (There is also a case, in highly technical bids, for a separate Technical Summary too). |
| |
|
 |
Analysis of bid content and structure. Accepting always the prescriptive diktats of the ITT, is the bid structured to deliver its key messages quickly? Or is the reader required to plough through the document to sift the message from the detail?
Creation of sub-heads which tell the truncated essential story on a scan. Elimination of waffle – less can be more. Repositioning of text for better communications hierarchy. Relegation of large quantities of detail, which might obscure the main messaging, to Appendices. Shortening of sentences. |
| |
|
 |
Overall editorial watchdog. For spelling, grammar, typos. Rewriting to word-count limits. |
| |
|
 |
Sense checking. Are we saying something on page 3 which we contradict on page 597? |
| |
|
 |
A library of templates. Creation over time of standard content and expressions, so we don’t keep re-inventing the wheel. |
| |
|
 |
Master classes and workshops. Training of client’s staff in Drewry’s tools and techniques applied to bids per above. So first drafts become better, and wisdom is rapidly transferred. See Winning Bids & Proposals crash course |
| |
|
| |
|