I am about to issue a solicitation for a requirement that, in the past, has attracted a lot of proposals. I'd like to limit the size of proposals to, say, 15 pages, given the minimal amount of information required (basically, simple pricing, plus some information about company experience and some past performance references). I've never put a limit on proposal size, and haven't located any samples of this in our office. Is there some commonly accepted (and perhaps unambiguous?) way of stating a proposal size limit? I did a search in GSA's prototype Knowledge Retriever and found Integrated Technology Works, Inc.-Teltara, Inc., B-286769.5, August 10, 2001 where the Navy and a vendor arm-wrestled over this question.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 09:18 am:

Try Coffman Specialties here.

http://www.wifcon.com/pd15_208.htm

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 09:39 am:

Here is a way to obtain the information you need without excess information. Ask for the experience and past performance information in a prescribed format, providing the offerors the desired format. I can send you an example, if you'd like.

You can also state that that you want no more than XX projects completed or underway in the past 3 (or 5?) years, prior to the date for receipt of proposals.

This system works well and simplifies evaluation - all information from everyone is in the same format and you get the details you need to evaluate, without the superfluous gobblygook. happy sails! joel hoffman

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 09:57 am:

The usual way to limit the size of proposals is to specify a limit on the number of pages. For example, Your proposal may not exceed 15 8.5"x11" sheets of paper, printed on both sides, with one-inch margins all around. If you don't define what you mean by "page," i.e., the size of a sheet of paper, an offeror may try to get around the limit by using large sheets, such as 11"x17" instead of 8.5"x11", or by using even larger foldout sheets. If you expect offers from foreign firms you should consider the acceptability of different standard sheet sizes, such as A4 versus our letter size.

Some agencies have specified font (type) character (e.g., Arial or Times New Roman) and size (e.g. "no smaller than 10 point"). Another potential issue is character spacing.

Specification of such limits was quite common in the past, though it is perhaps less so these days, I'm not sure. The General Accounting Office will require that you enforce any limitation that you establish in order to treat all offerors fairly, so make sure that whatever you specify it is something that you can inspect and enforce upon receipt of proposals. As a general rule, the GAO will not let you reject an entire proposal because the offeror violated your limit, so you should have some reasonable remedial action in mind in the event of a violation. For that reason, don't make your limitation too complicated.

One way to avoid excessively large proposal submissions is to be very clear and specific about the information that you want. Offerors sometimes submit excessive amounts of information because they aren't sure what you want from them and they are trying to cover all the bases. Another thing that you can do is to design a proposal form, using the tables feature in your word processing software, and instruct the offerors to simply fill in the blanks, using continuation sheets only if absolutely necessary.

Another thing that you can do is make compliance with proposal preparation instructions a minor evaluation factor. If highlighted properly, such a factor will get offerors' attention. You can say something like: When evaluating your capability we will consider how well you complied with our proposal preparation instructions. We may consider any failure to comply with our instructions to be indicative of the type of performance that we could anticipate after contract award and evaluate you accordingly. Several agencies have used such language in their RFPs.

The bottom line is that a certain number of offerors simply will not read the RFP carefully or comply with all of your instructions. Thus, enforcing proposal limitations will become yet one more thing to worry about upon receipt of proposals.

By ASK on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 10:29 am:

Thanks for these quick and insightful responses to my query. I now understand from Mr. Edward's remarks that it is probably more trouble than it's worth to enforce a mechanical page limit. I do like the idea of a fill-in-the blanks response format, which would provide a path of least resistance to getting exactly what we need to evaluate. Thanks again for your comments.

By joel hoffman on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 06:09 pm:

I wholeheartly endorse the idea of prescribed forms for as much information as is practical.

I found that sheets for "Key Personnel Resumes" and "Recent Experience" (including reference names and phone numbers) work GREAT. We no longer receive pages and pages of meaningless project lists and references. Like Vern said, if they know exactly what you want to evaluate, they'll provide it. If you give them the format, it makes it MUCH simpler to evaluate and to compare during the trade-off analysis.

As some of you know, I detest mandatory forms or checklists for past performance references to fill in and return.

I don't think you get the same quality response as a phone interview. Offerors can manipulate the information furnished in a written form and can coach a reference. I'd prefer e-mailing each identified reference a copy of the form, them call 'em up and ask the questions over the phone. Some folks say it's hard to catch up with people on the phone. That is true. There are ways to work around that problem.

You can also include a copy of the form as a reference, in your Section "M", or equivalent "Evaluation Criteria" section. Shucks, that's the shortest solicitation section I've seen in most agencies' RFP's (sad but true). The extra material would make it look like it actually says something!

Another idea which works well for me is asking for information in tabs (e.g., TAB A for key personnel resumes TAB B for experience, etc.). Organizes every offeror's proposal the same way. It facilitates assignments for review teams -they know were to find their material, facilitates trade-off comparisons and it is much easier to quickly find something, later. happy sails! joel

By Anonymous on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 11:37 pm:

ASK: You really should consider limits. They are worth the trouble taken in preparing instructions. It may not be worth trying to cover the sometimes weird ways some will use to exceed limits, but you need to put a reasonable cap on what will be sent. Some offerors seem to think winning will be based on volume and you will get tired of the whole mess, including possible back strain.

I suggest, based on experience using Vern Edward's wording, that you make an addition to his words or perhaps turn the wording's thrust a bit. My experience has been that a good group of offerors will tend to turn the warning words into a throw away factor. Without a really bad actor the thing will be a wash. I do not think it has to be that way.

You want from your contractor clear, concise and precise communication that, where applicable, follows your guidelines. For example, you want them to follow data deliverable instructions and formats or, better when allowed, use an industry standard that improves the deliverable. Then you want to do so with effective communication of content. You will benefit from a contractor that communicates effectively and even creatively.

Use Vern's warning words as a base and extend them into a factor that is an evaluation of how well the offeror follows your expressed needs with clear, concise and precise communication. They have a chance to lose points for misbehaving and gain them for behaving and doing it well. Be sure to have the factor count enough to reflect the value of a contractor's future performance in this regard and be worth evaluating. Performance in communicating is important enough over the contract's life that it should not simply be a little stick used against excessive proposal delivery.

By joel hoffman on Thursday, February 07, 2002 - 07:53 am:

Anon, for the RFP at hand, ASK will only be evaluating experience/past performance. I suggest that all he/she should do is limit the number of projects in the last 3 (5?) years and provide a form for the information.

The rest will take care of itself. happy sails! joel