I’ve seen a lot of proposals; all sizes and all types of work. There are a few specific "red flags" that can indicate potential risks, issues of compliance, or even fraud when the Government sees them in a quote, offer, proposal, or bid. These flags aren’t always deal-breakers, but they definitely trigger a closer look and add a layer of concern where none may not need to be. Here’s a quick list of some common red flags I've seen over the years, along with practical insights to help you spot these warning signs in your own proposals.
Red Flag 1 -- Non-Compliant Proposal Format (FAR 15.305(a))
FAR encourages a clear evaluation of proposal format and completeness, especially for negotiated procurements. Proposals that fail to follow the required format, exceed page limits, or lack necessary sections can indicate poor attention to detail or an unprepared or inexperienced team. These types of errors leave the Government asking, “If this is what the proposal looks like, what errors will there be during performance?”
A tip from my days as a secretary when I first started as a Fed; proofread your proposal in this order—
Forwards for formatting.
Backwards for typos.
Forwards for grammar, punctuation, and flow.
Backwards for capitalization, spelling out acronyms, paragraph numbering, etc.
Check images and/or graphics.
Complete a page count.
It may seem like a lot, but it works. Nothing will slip through the cracks.
Red Flag 2 -- Vague or Inadequate Technical Descriptions (FAR 15.305(a))
FAR emphasizes the importance of a thorough technical evaluation, highlighting the need to ensure the proposal is specific and realistic. Proposals that provide generic or unclear descriptions of how the Contractor will accomplish the work, or simply parrot the Government's requirements back to them as a response, suggest a lack of the necessary expertise or resources. Make sure your technical descriptions are clear, specific, and directly tied to the requirements. Avoid vague language without specific outcomes and remember that while not every detail is necessary, your proposal will be reviewed by a team with expertise in the subject matter and some who aren't experts . The latter requires the need to baseline your approach with information to provide a necessary level of detail to ensure evaluators can see how what you provide meets the contract requirements. "The Devil is in the Details," as they say. It is very true with an offer / proposal from both a pricing and technical perspective (however, never mix technical and price info...read more about that below).
Red Flag 3 -- Frequent Personnel Changes or Lack of Key Personnel (FAR 15.304(c)(3))
FAR allows for evaluation of individual personnel qualifications as part of the technical approach when key personnel are essential to performance. Proposals that don’t identify key personnel or suggest frequent personnel changes (such as short times in an assigned position or role) are a red flag. Rapid turnover or a lack of named experts signal potential performance risks. Stable teams generally indicate better chances of contract success. What does a stable team look like? It’s a team of individuals within a company or a team of companies (primes, subs, suppliers) that have worked together on similar projects in the past. Ensure key personnel, particularly for complex projects, are identified by name and role and that resumes and qualifications match the contract's scope. It is always helpful, but not always required (depending on solicitation instructions) that resumes match in terms of format. The easier it is for the evaluation board to find the information, the better you will be rated. (Hint, Hint, HINT!!!!)
Red Flag 4 -- Overly Aggressive or Unsubstantiated Promises (FAR 9.104)
FAR outlines contractor responsibility, emphasizing the need to assess whether an offeror can realistically meet their proposed terms. Proposals with promises of quick turnarounds, guarantees of substantial savings, or ambitious technical claims indicate the contractor is overpromising. The Government will verify whether the proposal’s claims are substantiated with past performance evidence or technical data, especially when a contractor claims outcomes which are not easily achievable. Be sure that your proposal has a balance of realistic expectations, no pie-in-the-ski promises you cannot deliver on, and it is believable. It's always better to under promise and over-deliver but there is a balance in that which comes into play as part of your risk / reward decision with how competitive and aggressive you want to be. Play to win but don't be stupid about it.
Red Flag 5 -- Unverified Past Performance Claims (FAR 15.305(a)(2))
FAR requires the assessment of past performance, requiring agencies to review the relevance and quality of previous work. Questionable past performance references or lack of verifiable past performance on similar contracts can be a sign of inexperience or poor reliability. Yes, the Government isn't good at always getting that past performance recorded timely either, but follow up WELL BEFORE you need that past performance and tap your Contracting Officer on the shoulder with a friendly reminder.
When writing your proposal, be sure to use SPECIFIC examples of past performance, tied to an easily identifiable project in your experience (either as an entity or individually), and provide valid current references. Lack of relevant or verifiable past performance indicates higher risk to the government, meaning a less desirable rating, particularly for complex requirements. However remember that Government employees retire and move on to different agencies, going back to why getting that past performance memorialized in CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) is SO IMPORTANT.
Red Flag 6 -- Inconsistent Pricing or Unrealistic Costs (FAR 15.404-1(b))
FAR governs price analysis and outlines the necessity of fair and reasonable pricing. A few red flags are:
Significant price variations between similar line items or services is always questionable.
Overly low bids suggest inexperience or an attempt to win the bid at any cost (i.e., “buying in”), possibly leading to performance or financial issues during performance.
Unbalanced offers where costs are "front loaded" (priced) in contract line items (CLINs) or tasks that are paid earlier in contracting performance.
Prices near, similar, or the same as a competitor’s price can indicate collusion (i.e., price fixing), which is also a red flag and will invite more in-depth review.
Unrealistic or unsubstantiated proposals prompt Government questions about how the offeror plans to deliver within the price proposed.
Ensure all pricing is consistent and justified by clear calculations when required to be provided. And if calculation details are not required to be submitted, ensure your proposal can withstand audit scrutiny should it be required, as is the case for larger contracts.
The Government views red flags as indicators of potential issues and may, at best, be investigated by the Government before making a final award decision, or at worst be grounds for low evaluation ratings that express that risk or even elimination of your proposal from further consideration. Red flags also leave a not-so-great impression with Contracting Officers and technical personnel involved in the evaluation. Rigorous evaluation and due diligence are part of the Government’s charge to ensure that any concerns are substantiated or resolved before award and do not hinder performance later.
Clearing red flags should be an important part of your proposal writing and submission process. Look at the proposal with a critical. Better yet, hire someone to do it for you (I can recommend a detailed-oriented former Contracting Officer...lol). However, it is accomplished, you won't regret taking the time to assess your proposal objectively from the Government’s lens. You're giving your team and your proposal the best chance of success. And isn't that the whole point anyway?
Comments