Proposal Review from the Evaluation Side of the Table

The problem

​

Companies entering the defense market write proposals that describe their technology brilliantly but score poorly.

​

This is not a writing problem. It is a translation problem. You are describing what your product does. The evaluation board is doing something else entirely: working through a scoring matrix based on Section M, assigning ratings to specific criteria, and — critically — writing narrative justifications that must withstand review.

​

That last part is the piece almost nobody outside government understands. An evaluator who wants to give you a strength has to explain why, in language that holds up when the Source Selection Authority reads it and, if it comes to that, when a protest attorney reads it. If your proposal doesn’t provide that language, they cannot score you high, even when they can see you are the better company.

​

Most losing proposals are not beaten. They are not aligned with the criteria.

​

What actually happens to your submission

​

Before anyone assesses your technology:

​

Compliance screening. Page limits, format, required volumes, certifications, and representations. Failures here are eliminated before evaluation, not scored down. This is the single most common way a first-time offeror loses.

​

Assignment to criteria. Your proposal is broken down and distributed to evaluators by factor. The person scoring your technical approach may never read your management volume. Anything that depends on the reader assembling it from three places will be missed.

​

Scoring is against Section M, not against your competitors. Evaluators apply the stated criteria. A discriminator you consider obvious counts for nothing if it does not map to a factor.

​

Consensus and documentation. Individual ratings are reconciled. Every strength, weakness, and deficiency is documented. Whatever cannot be documented does not survive.

​

Cost and price analysis, separately. A technical volume that promises an approach your cost volume does not fund creates a realism problem. Different people read these two documents and compare them.

​

What Illumina does

​

Three defined engagements, each with a fixed fee and a stated turnaround time.

​

1. Solicitation Assessment

​

Before you commit to bidding.

​

A structural read of the solicitation: what the evaluation scheme rewards, where the discriminators are, whether the acquisition was structured so you can win, and what a realistic bid decision looks like. Delivered as a written assessment with a recommendation.

​

Most useful when you are deciding whether to spend six weeks and real money on a pursuit.

​

2. Compliance Review

​

Before you submit.

​

A line-by-line check against Section L and every instruction, certification, and representation required by the solicitation. Delivered as a defect list, prioritized by whether the issue would eliminate you, cost you points, or simply weaken you.

​

This is the least glamorous service on this page and the one that most often changes the outcome.

​

3. Evaluation Review

 

The full read.

​

Your proposal was scored the way a board would score it — factor by factor against Section M, with strengths and weaknesses written in evaluator language and specific rewrites where your narrative does not give an evaluator what they need to rate you well.

​

Delivered as a written evaluation plus a working session. When warranted, this pairs with a cost and price volume review against FAR Parts 15 and 31.

​

Why me

​

I spent 22 years in Army contracting and held roles that decide these outcomes:

​

• Source Selection Advisory Council Chair, $12.1B Information Technology Enterprise Solutions-3 Services multiple-award IDIQ

• Source Selection Evaluation Board Chair, $4.1B Communications and Transmissions Systems IDIQ — directing 27 evaluators across three locations

• Source Selection Authority, $180M multiple-award Automatic Identification Technology IDIQ

• Source Selection Advisory Council Chair, $249M Enterprise Information Technology Services and the $494M / $496M Subscriber Unit Radio and Accessory contracts

• Author of Source Selection Plans, Acquisition Plans, and Sections L and M — the instructions and criteria boards apply

• Warrant with unlimited procurement authority through my federal service

• Panelist on source selection discussions at the Army Pre-Brief to Industry, and moderator of the LPTA versus trade-off panel at ACC-RI Industry Day

​

I have also sat on the other side of the cost table: as lead government negotiator, I achieved $173 million in documented cost avoidance across two actions and negotiated directly with L3Harris, Motorola, Boeing, Raytheon, Bechtel, Parsons, KBR, and Fluor.

​

What this is not

​

Not a proposal writing shop. I do not write your technical volume. Your engineers know your technology; I make sure the board can score it. If you need writers, I will tell you and can work alongside them.

​

Not access. I don't sell introductions. What I sell is the ability to read an acquisition the way the people who built it do.

​

Not export control or cybersecurity certification. ITAR, EAR, CMMC, and facility clearance work goes to specialist firms, and I will point you to them.

Engagement terms. Fixed-fee, milestone, or hourly rate*. No contingency, no success fees.

​

* Used for more detailed, comprehensive research and analysis.

 

Start here

​

Send me the solicitation. The first conversation is free and usually ends with a straightforward answer about whether the pursuit is worth your time.

​

Dean C. Brabant | President, Federal Services, Illumina Consulting LLC 563-346-1718 | deancbrabant@illuminaconsulting.net | illuminaconsulting.net