Proposal/Bid Presentation


An often overlooked aspect of the RFP evaluation process is for the candidate to conduct an oral presentation / demonstration of their proposal. This can be a valuable way to:

  1. Further assess a candidates ability to deliver the proposed service/solution that may not have been presented accurately or precisely in the written response.
  2. Assess those requirements in the RFP that could not be effectively conveyed or measured due to their subjective context.
  3. Effectively shortlist candidates where scoring in the previous round is evenly matched;
  4. Allow candidates to demonstrate (or prove proof of concept) of the solution or technology.
  5. Assess the candidates bidding team, implementation team, cultural fit and synergies of strategic alignment.

The presentation process as part of the competitive RFP process is not the same as post tender negotiation (PTN) and it is not recommended it is treated as such, but as a open platform for the candidate to emphasise key features and aspects of their proposal and supporting documentation.


If you have not already done so it is worth including a paragraph in your RFP document to cover such a requirement, even if you decide to to pursue such a requirement.

Example wording:

Each candidate will be given the opportunity to conduct a mid RFP bid presentation, it is agreed that the objective of this meeting is as follows:

  1. As an open forum to discuss queries raised.
  2. To update any changes or additions to the RFP document and process.
  3. To further discuss the business aspects of your proposal
  4. A demonstration your technical solution providing a basic user functionality against the scope of services proposed. [We] will provide a scenario script from which the candidate will demonstrate the solution.

Responses to RFP queries and any points of clarification will be copied to all candidates, if appropriate, but will not identify the originating candidate.

As with the proposal evaluation it is wise to evaluate your candidates in a consistent and measured approach so it is useful to develop an evaluation template similar to your RFP evaluation matrix.

Typically such presentations focus on the business aspects of the response that require clarification with a technical solution review held separately but I am a strong supporter of a technical solution review/demonstration as part of the presentation where their is a significant relevance and weighting of the technical solution, its delivery and support against the RFP. By reviewing the technical aspects of the solution the candidate will be able to demonstrate to the evaluation team a proof of concept, basic functionality, usability etc.

Further technical aspects such as integration, code etc. (the in-depth technical aspects) should be held as a separate meeting.

Often I have seen a different side to a candidate through a face to face presentation that they have failed to deliver in a formal document.

Areas of evaluation

Their are two/three key areas that a presentation should address, these are the general aspects (a focus on the relationship interface and strategic fit), business aspects (a focus on operational and effectiveness management) and solution demonstration. The details within each of these areas will differ for every bid presentation but I have tried to cover, in a general manner, some core assessment criteria.

  • General Aspects. This section allows the presentation panel to assess the candidates organisational focus, relationship model and strategic fit. Criteria should be developed with the proposal in mind but below are some points for consideration:
  1. Representatives are relevant to the service/solution offering.
  2. Has the account manager to be assigned to your account, should the candidate be awarded the contract, been brought along to the presentation.
  3. Relationship interface model is robust and aligns to your companies communication channels.
  4. Does it appear that the candidates representatives have reviewed the proposal prior to the presentation.
  5. Presentation has been customised to the service/solution offered.
  6. Strategic objectives alignment.
  7. Accountability of candidates account management structure.
  • Business Aspects Of The Proposal This section focuses on the business aspects of the candidates proposal that requires further clarification or scrutiny and will be developed largely on the comments produced by the tender evaluation team or from omissions from the candidates proposal but some general points for consideration are the:
  1. Candidates ability to deliver the proposed service/solution and develop a program of continuous improvement.
  2. Candidates environmental management systems fit with your company.
  3. Ability to improve users experience.
  4. Candidates process for new product and service creation.
  5. Candidates business improvement/change management program.
  6. Ability to meet office requirements, SLA’s and measures.
  7. Candidate demonstrates understanding and ability to control TCO model .
  8. Candidates solution fit with your companies operational model.
  9. Credibility of  the proposal.


Best of luck.

Daniel Walsingham-Watts

Strategy, Methods & Sourcing

Increase profitability by reducing costs, providing field proven documents and tools, strategic sourcing, methods consultancy, and project management services.



2 thoughts on “Proposal/Bid Presentation

  1. Nokufa Matitoane

    Dear Daniel

    Thank you for this enlightening blog, fortunately I also strongly believe in bid presentations. Just this one query from me regarding the process:

    1. Since the presentations would normally take place after the evaluation committee has seen, analyzed and even scored the written proposals, what happens in case the presentations affect the scores (negatively or positively)?


    Nokufa Matitoane

    1. Post author


      Thank you for your comment, you raise a good point.

      After each evaluation step (tender, product, cost and due diligence) the scores of the evaluation team should be assessed by way of a round table, wildly varying scores compared with others of the team should questioned in case of bias or miss-understanding of the answer to the question. Version control of your scoring matrix is important here as you want transparency throughout the process including the addition of comments where the scorer feels a score given requires adjustment. The round table is not a pressure group, therefore if an individual stands by his/her scoring no matter how radical compared to other members it must stand. I always provide the stakeholders with a business proposal that covers the evaluation methodology, scoring and financial aspects of the process and where individual scoring requires highlighting I will do so. From my background it has been for the stakeholders to make a final decision and that requires all the facts to be presented, especially where the results are tight due to scoring.

      By ensuring participation from the right people including a balanced number of evaluation members at each step (where appropriate) during scoring along with section weighting employed in the matrix it tends to balance out erroneous scores.

      Best regards,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s