Explanations of a Proposal's "color Reviews"

One of the most important aspects of responding to Government Requests For Proposals (RFPs) is the review process. Following are the explanations of a proposal's Major "Color" Review Activities and Tasks:

GREEN TEAM REVIEW:

A review in which proposal team members:

* Assess our competitive position

* Establish win strategy/themes

* Generate a detailed outline of the proposal

* Finalize the proposal schedule

* Build the proposal organization

* Assign writers and section leaders

* Identify key personnel to be proposed

* Select past experience projects

* Identify key discriminators that match RFP evaluation criteria

* Outline the executive summary

PINK TEAM REVIEW:

Pink Team offers the last opportunity to suggest major changes to the proposal approach (he next review, the Red team, is designed to only offer quick fixes). The Pink Team provides early verification of the proposal baselines through an outside review of mature annotated mockups. Reviewed data includes complete technical, management, schedule and past performance baselines, as well as sufficient material to evaluate the realism of the cost targets. Pink Team also acts as a vehicle to provide senior management buy-in. The Pink Team reviewers must have read and understood the RFP as well as the proposal win strategy, and evaluate the proposal from the customer's perception. The Pink Team reviewers must put their suggested improvements in context of the Red Team schedule. For each problem Pink Team reviewers discover, they provide comments and a recommended solution on the Proposal Review Form. The Pink Team Review uses a numerical rating approach, as shown on the Proposal Review Form.

* During Pink Team, reviewers evaluate by asking the following questions:

* Are we telling a winning story?

* Is our response complete and credible?

* Does the proposal correlate easily with the RFP?

* Do the graphics convey a clear (and relevant) message?

* Is our win strategy apparent and reflected in the proposal?

* Are the claims and assertions in the proposal consistent and effectively supported by facts?

* Are we "missing something?"

* Does the proposal comply with each