How to win more public sector work through QBS

For firm owners, QBS is both a pursuit process and a management decision. Each opportunity draws on technical leaders, project staff, and proposal capacity. A disciplined process helps the firm choose suitable pursuits, present its qualifications clearly, and learn from each result. It also helps protect delivery teams from commitments made by a proposal group that has not checked availability or scope.

The owner’s selection process is intended to assess qualifications, but the firm still has to make a business case for its fit. That means showing relevant experience, assigning capable people to the work, understanding the owner’s stated needs, and communicating clearly. Treat each pursuit as a decision about where to invest the firm’s time and reputation.

Understand the procurement before pursuing it

Start with the full solicitation and all incorporated instructions. Identify the owner, requested services, eligibility rules, selection stages, evaluation criteria, submission format, deadline, question process, interview expectations, and negotiation steps. Find the official source for amendments and answers, and assign someone to monitor it.

Do not rely on an old template, an informal summary, or an earlier version of the request. A change to the scope, page limit, form, or deadline can affect the whole response. Save the original documents and amendments in one opportunity record, along with official answers. Note when each file was downloaded and who checked for updates.

Translate the scope into a working outline. List the services, deliverables, interfaces, schedule constraints, and information the owner expects from the selected firm. Mark dependencies and unclear points. If questions are allowed, submit them through the stated channel and before the deadline. Keep the official answers with the record because they may change the team's response.

Check eligibility against the sources named in the solicitation. Requirements may cover firm or individual licenses, registrations, certifications, geographic conditions, or team composition. Assign a person to verify each item. Confirm that proposed staff are available and that subconsultants agree to their roles. If the solicitation calls for a form or certification, check the exact requested version and who is authorized to sign it.

A useful first review checklist:

What services and deliverables does the owner request?
Which requirements could make a response nonresponsive?
What are the evaluation criteria and selection stages?
Where will amendments and answers appear?
What information is missing, and can the owner answer it?
Who will verify eligibility and team availability?
Are there stated limits on contacts with owner staff?
What needs to be saved in the opportunity record?

A worked hypothetical example: A city requests civil engineering services for a drainage program and allows questions through its procurement portal. The owner expects a prime consultant to coordinate survey and environmental services, but the solicitation does not say whether the owner will provide existing utility records. The firm should record that gap, submit a concise question if allowed, and plan a response that identifies the relevant assumption. It should not promise a schedule based on records that may not exist.

Make a deliberate go or no-go decision

A public pursuit uses time that could otherwise go to client delivery, business development, or staff development. Before committing, compare the opportunity with the firm's services and capacity. Then assess its qualifications and priorities. Consider the submission schedule, available technical leadership, likely teaming needs, and the work required to produce a credible response.

Name the person who can make the pursuit decision and set that decision date early. The decision should happen before the team has invested heavily in proposal work. Record the reasons, staff time committed, known risks, and assumptions. Do not let sunk effort keep a weak pursuit alive.

A practical go or no-go discussion can cover:

Does the scope fit work the firm performs well?
Can the firm cite relevant experience with a clear account of its role?
Are the people named for key roles available for the expected period?
Does the schedule leave enough time for a careful response?
Can the firm meet every eligibility requirement?
Is there a partner gap, and can the firm form a credible team in time?
What other commitments would be displaced if the firm pursues this work?
What conditions would make the firm withdraw?

A go decision needs a short pursuit plan. Name a proposal lead, technical contributors, forms owner, reviewers, interview participants if applicable, and final submission approver. Set internal deadlines for content and review. Schedule approval, production, and upload. If the scope requires partners, confirm their interest, availability, responsibilities, and approval process for statements about their work.

A no-go decision can still create useful planning information. Record lawful, relevant details such as service needs, schedule patterns, or registration requirements. Distinguish verified information from assumptions, and follow confidentiality and procurement rules. If the firm lacked a capability or registration, decide whether that gap belongs in a future readiness plan.

Richard’s perspective: A concise, specific explanation is easier to assess than a broad claim about being the best. That principle applies to a pursuit decision too. Write down why this project fits the firm, which people make the fit credible, and what the team can deliver. A clear answer makes it easier for an owner to commit resources without confusing persistence with fit.

A worked hypothetical example: A small firm receives an invitation to pursue a municipal bridge inspection contract. The firm has relevant experience, but the technical lead is scheduled to manage another critical project during the response and likely startup period. The owner should weigh whether another qualified person can lead the work, whether a teaming arrangement is practical, and what existing client work would be affected. If the firm cannot offer a credible, available lead, a no-go decision may protect its delivery record and client relationships.

Organize the response around the evaluation criteria

Build a compliance matrix from the solicitation. For each instruction, record where the response addresses it, who prepares that part, and who checks it. Include page limits, file formats, required forms, signatures, and submission steps. The matrix helps manage the work, but the solicitation itself remains the authority.

When the owner’s format permits, use the stated criteria as the response structure. Give reviewers a direct path from each criterion to evidence. Explain the relevant qualifications, identify the role each person would perform, and connect experience to the requested services.

Project descriptions should be accurate and specific. State what the proposing firm did, what each team member did, and whether the work is complete or ongoing. If a project involved a joint venture or multiple firms, describe the proposing firm’s role accurately. Do not imply that your team performed another organization’s work or claim an outcome that cannot be documented and approved.

Select examples that support the requested scope. Check the client name, services, team role, dates when requested, and reference permissions. Obtain approval before using client names, logos, images, or references when required. Make sure project sheets and resumes use consistent terms. Check the forms and narrative for consistency too.

Describe a project-specific approach. Explain how the team would coordinate, manage information, and handle known decision points within the requested scope and its authority. Avoid generic claims that could fit any proposal. When an input is unknown, identify the assumption or ask an allowed question instead of presenting a guess as fact.

A criteria-based response review can ask:

Does each evaluation criterion have clear supporting evidence?
Are team roles and project contributions described accurately?
Are claims supported by approved records?
Do resumes and project examples match the proposed roles?
Are assumptions and unknowns identified without overpromising?
Does the response follow every required format and page limit?
Can a reviewer quickly see who will lead the work and why?
Do proposed commitments fit the scope the owner described?

Have a second reviewer check the response against both the matrix and the original solicitation. One review should focus on facts, project roles, and commitments. Another should focus on compliance, including forms, signatures, page limits, file requirements, and submission steps. Leave enough time for corrections and final production. The person who uploads the response should have a final check list and should save the submission receipt.

A worked hypothetical example: A county requests qualifications for on-call roadway design and evaluates project experience, key staff, and approach. A firm includes a large corridor project completed by a prior employer of its proposed project manager. That experience may be relevant to the individual, but the firm should state clearly that the project manager worked on it before joining the proposing firm. The firm can pair it with a project it delivered directly, so the owner can distinguish individual expertise from firm experience.

Coordinate the team and protect the record

The proposal lead needs authority to request corrections and resolve conflicting information. Each technical contributor should verify the claims about their work. The prime and subconsultants should agree on responsibilities, section ownership, availability, and who approves statements about each firm.

Set a simple version control method. Store the solicitation, amendments, questions, answers, draft and final response, approvals, and submission receipt in the opportunity record. Limit access to people who need it. Follow the owner’s rules for confidential or procurement-sensitive information, and do not use another firm’s proposal material without permission and review.

Review reusable material before each pursuit. Qualifications statements and resumes can become stale when staff leave, titles change, licenses lapse, or project examples lose approval. Assign an owner to check standard content periodically. Keep visible materials current and remove details that are no longer accurate.

Questions to ask internally before final approval include:

Has each named person approved their role and availability?
Has each firm approved the description of its work?
Do staff licenses, registrations, or certifications meet the request?
Are resumes consistent with the project examples and response narrative?
Have we removed confidential details that are not approved for release?
Is the final file the version reviewed and approved?

A common mistake is to treat a resume or project sheet as harmless boilerplate. These materials contain commitments and claims. A mismatch between a person’s stated role and actual availability can create trouble during interviews, negotiations, or delivery. Keep an owner for every claim that matters.

Prepare for interviews and discussions

If interviews are part of the process, prepare from the stated topics and evaluation approach. Choose speakers who can explain the work they would lead. Assign someone to track time and manage transitions. Agree on who will answer questions about scope and technical work. Assign people to cover coordination and delivery.

Rehearse concise answers, but do not memorize claims that sound detached from the question. Practice listening, answering directly, and making clear when an answer depends on information the team still needs to verify. Do not introduce new commitments casually. When a question is outside the team’s knowledge, identify the person who will confirm the answer and follow the owner’s rules for responding.

Use slides or other visual material only when allowed and useful. Check readability and accessibility. Make sure the material is consistent with the submitted response. Confirm attendance and logistics from the owner’s instructions, including permitted tools.

After the interview, record requests and commitments in the opportunity file. Follow the owner’s communication rules for any follow-up. Do not seek confidential information about competing firms.

A short preparation checklist:

Which stated criteria may be discussed at interview?
Who answers each likely subject area?
Who tracks time and takes notes?
Are examples consistent with the submitted response?
Have speakers practiced direct answers without adding unsupported promises?
Are the logistics and materials permitted by the owner?

Negotiate scope and terms within the applicable process

Many QBS processes place compensation discussions after qualifications-based selection. For federal A/E services, the Brooks Act and FAR Subpart 36.6 provide a framework for qualifications-based selection. The order and requirements for a specific procurement depend on the solicitation and applicable rules. Check those materials and seek qualified procurement or legal advice when needed.

Prepare a clear basis for the proposed scope and staffing, using the firm’s approved practices. Clarify deliverables, assumptions, schedule, client inputs, review cycles, and how changes will be handled. Make sure the team understands who is responsible for each task and where the scope depends on others. Ensure the staff plan reflects the people who can actually perform the work.

Contract terms can affect delivery and risk. Review payment, insurance, indemnity, intellectual property, records, and other provisions with the appropriate professionals. Do not begin work until the authorization required by the owner’s process and the firm’s policies is in place.

A worked hypothetical example: After selection for a planning and design assignment, the owner asks the firm to discuss scope and compensation. The initial request assumed that the owner would provide current survey data. During discussions, the parties learn that the data may need to be collected. The firm should describe the effect on tasks and schedule. It should also describe effects on staffing and fee, then follow the owner’s process for documenting any agreed change. It should not quietly absorb a new service into a scope that does not describe it.

Build a repeatable capture routine

Opportunity research works better as a regular business process than as an emergency response. Decide which official portals, agency pages, and procurement notices the firm will monitor. Assign a primary owner and a backup. Use search terms that fit the firm’s actual services, then confirm fit in the source documents.

Keep an opportunity record with the official source, agency, scope, submission route, question deadline, decision date, team lead, and status. Distinguish early notices and market soundings from active solicitations. Mark unconfirmed information as such in internal records and do not turn it into a public claim.

Review procurement readiness periodically. This may include registrations, insurance documents, approved project descriptions, staff resumes, and standard forms. Keep sensitive information protected and avoid retaining personal data without a business need.

The owner should make capture work visible enough to manage. A brief recurring review can look at opportunities, upcoming deadlines, stale materials, partner relationships, and staff capacity. Keep the discussion practical. The goal is to spot missing readiness items while there is time to address them, not to build a large administrative process that consumes the capacity needed for client work.

Learn from each result

Follow the solicitation’s process for feedback or debriefing. Ask focused questions about the firm’s response and process. Separate confirmed feedback from internal interpretation. A non-selection alone does not prove that the firm’s qualifications were weak or that the procurement was defective.

Review the pursuit effort, response quality, team coordination, document control, and any avoidable errors. Record recurring requirements and lessons. Update reusable material only after confirming it remains accurate and approved. Consider whether the pursuit effort fits the firm’s capacity and priorities.

Questions for a post-pursuit review:

Did the team make the go or no-go decision early enough?
What response sections took more time than planned?
Were any claims difficult to verify or approve?
Did the team meet every submission requirement?
What feedback came directly from the owner?
What should change before the next similar pursuit?

A repeatable QBS process begins with official information, an early pursuit decision, and a response mapped to the stated criteria. Clear qualifications help an owner understand who will do the work and why that experience is relevant. Team coordination, careful review, interview preparation, and contract review support the work from initial decision through delivery. The owner applies its governing process, and the firm remains responsible for truthful claims and professional obligations.

General education only, not engineering, legal, tax or investment advice. Licensed PE judgment and local codes govern.