Reiterating the Requirements

 During the Government’s evaluation, they are especially watchful for offerors who simply state they’ll fulfill the requirement, providing little or no details to back it up.   This is often referred to as “regurgitating the requirement,” and it is not sufficient in conveying a clear understanding of the work.  In fact, some solicitations will include the following statement:       “Proposals which merely offer to conduct a project in accordance with the requirements of the Government’s scope of work will not be eligible for award.”   Notice it doesn’t say, “will not receive a high score” or something like that.  They clearly state “not be eligible for award.”  They’re not messing around.   For example, if the requirement were to paint the house, and the proposal stated, “I will paint the house,” you’ve simply regurgitated the requirement back to the Government.   This is an unsubstantiated claim.   They are interested in the who, how, where, what, etc details to differentiate the offerors. 

Often the Government reviewers are looking for whether the offeror has “demonstrated” a capability or claim.   The past performance section can address this, however this can get difficult for service-type contracts.  For example, if the requirement is to provide “customer service,” how does the offeror demonstrate that?   Again, past performance may help, especially if you’ve been cited (or even received an award) for outstanding customer service.   Surveys of prior customers or on-line feedback can help too.  Without past performance data to substantiate the claim, you’re forced to go into more detail on what “customer service” may actually entail, and include specifics on responsiveness and quality.