Any Questions?

5 Best Practices for Questionnaire Format Proposals

In 2025, I want to get back to basics to help proposal teams either implement best practices or assess the quality of their proposal processes. A few years ago (okay maybe a little more than a few), my industry colleague Anne Farro and I presented a version of this list to a PAICR conference - PAICR was an asset management proposal association that no longer exists. It was a surprise hit with attendees who were hungry for fundamentals. I think it’s appropriate to revisit and update.

Here goes:

1. Answer the question asked.

“Well, yeah,” you say. But you would be surprised at how many RFP teams just chunk in boilerplate responses even if only limited content (a sentence, a paragraph) answers the question from the prospect or client. Put your hostile evaluator glasses on and assess.

If a response does not answer the question asked in the first two sentences, mark the Q&A set as non-responsive. That’s right, give it a ZERO on that evaluation scale. Train your writers on how to appropriately edit boilerplate content library language. You’ll need some policies on where additional language is absolutely required (think disclosures or regulatory requirements) and where content must remain “as is” and “as approved” (think your litigation response). Ensuring that your response answers the question being asked pushes your writers to interact and assess the content in your knowledge library. It encourages accountability and critical thinking, and builds organizational knowledge.

If your team implements this critical eye with each response, you’ll make great strides in being compliant with the demands of the proposal. Those of you who follow me will also recognize that this best practice impacts scanability in your responses. Evaluators can review your documents with greater ease and trust.

2. Respond in the “language” of the client.

It is important to change the vocabulary in your response to match the words in the question asked. If the question is “what is your firm’s history?” your response should not describe your “organization’s history, background and success.” Just change the lingo synonyms to match what the client is looking for.

I think these small edits will be important as AI evaluation becomes more widely used by prospects, clients and third-party consultants. Implementing these little editorial changes also positions your proposal as being “client centric.”

Often a questionnaire format proposal is limited to how an organization can demonstrate putting their clients first. Questions are, of course, focused on your organization - tell us about yourself; what services will you provide; and how do you do such-and-such?

General client proposal feedback (at least in my experience) includes the impression that organizations talk about themselves ad nauseum in RFP responses. It’s all “me, me, me” instead of “you, you, you.” It takes extra effort to pull out how your organization will benefit the client. The least you can do is meet those prospects and clients where they are and talk to them in their “language.” This one is easy.

3. If a question contains multiple items to address, make sure your response aligns with the order of those items.

Now, this one should be self-explanatory too, but you’d be surprised at how many writers just use boilerplate language and feel that manipulating the content is taboo. Encourage your writers to rearrange paragraphs to match the order and flow of the question. Encourage your writers to use sub-headings and organizational devices by pulling topics out of the question. Encourage your writers to take ownership of how their work will be evaluated by the end client.

You may have to train your team on material vs. editorial changes to content. You may have to have some peer review to ensure that your writers can be trusted with this charge. This expectation makes your writers better technical writers and professionals.

4. Ensure that any additional content is value-added.

Once you are focused on answering the question asked, in the language and the order in which the question is asked, you need to address the additional content left over from your approved boilerplate response. What to do with it?

Sometimes the answer is to cut it. Or maybe it’s the actual answer to a question that appears elsewhere in the proposal. But sometimes, the additional content is a value-add to the response. It is so good that you just can’t let it pass the reader by.

Maybe it’s a case study or some accolades. Maybe valuable insight that the client doesn’t ask about somewhere else. In this case, move the content to the bottom of the response and use sub-headings to let your reader know that this is additional information. You are visually helping the evaluator and bolstering your response effectiveness.

5. Be reader/evaluator friendly.

My last article focused on scanability. It’s a soapbox I love because most proposal writers came to technical writing by happenstance and not by way of literacy theory. I may have told you this before…

Evaluators do not read a proposal word for word. They will only read an entire response on a select list of Q&A sets - probably driven by their RFP goals or the evaluation criteria included in their original request or provided to the proposal team by way of hot-buttons relayed by your sales or relationship management team.

Excepting this subset of questions that need extra time and attention, the remainder of the proposal is likely to just be scanned by the evaluator. In scanning, a human reader will look at the first two lines of a response (left to right for English readers) and look for expected words. This is why it is so important to answer the question being asked directly in the first two sentences and using the language/terms from the question asked.

The reader then takes a quick glance downward back to the left bottom of the page - in a Z motion. The eyes will stop on anything that is different. Graphics will jump out. Bolded or different fonts will catch interest. A sub-heading will capture attention.

After this quick scan, the reader goes to the bottom paragraph of your answer (or the bottom of that paragraph if it is long). Again, think two sentences where the reader checks to see if the information is consistent with the initial part of the answer and the scanned middle.

If there is something amiss or confusing, the reader will return to the top of the answer and do a more thorough reading of the content. “Well, good,” you think, “should have read the answer in the first place.” The result is counter-intuitive here.

Your evaluator may be annoyed that you were not clear. Your evaluator may be confused about where they lost the bubble. Your evaluator may see your proposal as difficult and unclear.

Reader friendly proposal responses are an evaluator’s dream. They can find your answers easily. They learn impactful things they didn’t expect. They can focus on the top 20% of your work that is going to make a difference in decision-making.

Now that’s customer service!