How to Eliminate Proposal Weaknesses Before Submission

Proposal weaknesses are rarely accidental. In most cases, they are the predictable result of incomplete capture, underdeveloped solutions, or failure to explain execution in measurable terms. Teams that wait until a customer debrief to understand why a weakness was assessed have already lost valuable ground.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines a weakness as:

“A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.”

This definition establishes the evaluator’s standard. A weakness is not about writing quality or presentation; it’s about whether the proposal provides enough detail to demonstrate that the work can be executed successfully at an acceptable level of risk.

What an Evaluated Weakness Looks Like

The following is a common and preventable example taken from typical evaluation language:

The Offeror proposes working closely with the Government to manage transition activities. However, the proposal does not explain how transition risks will be identified, mitigated, or managed. The lack of a defined transition approach increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

The proposal met the requirement and expressed the correct intent. However, it failed because it did not explain execution. From the evaluator’s perspective, the proposal did not answer basic questions, including:

• Who owns transition risk management?
• What process is used to identify and track risks?
• When are risks reviewed and escalated?
• How are mitigation actions implemented and measured?
• What specific controls reduce the likelihood of transition failure?
• Have you ever implemented this solution successfully on any prior contract?

When proposals omit this level of detail, evaluators document risks that meet the FAR definition of a weakness.

How Weaknesses Appear Across Proposal Volumes

The same pattern that produces transition weaknesses appears throughout proposals. In each case, the proposal states intent but does not demonstrate execution. Table 1 depicts five common examples describing how risks creep into proposals.

Table 1: Five Examples of Weaknesses in Proposals

Proposal Section	Description of Proposal Weakness
Staffing and Key Personnel	The Offeror proposes qualified staff. However, the proposal does not explain how staffing levels were calculated, how vacancies are covered, or how surge requirements are met.
Management Approach	The Offeror describes a management structure but does not define decision authority, escalation procedures, or issue-resolution timelines, increasing the risk of ineffective management responses.
Technical Approach	The Offeror describes tools and processes, but does not explain how they will be configured for the Government environment, integrated with existing systems, or secured, creating execution uncertainty.
Risk Management	The Offeror identifies risks but does not assign ownership, define mitigation actions, or describe monitoring and reporting methods, reducing confidence in effective risk control.
Past Performance Relevance	The Offeror provides past performance examples but does not clearly explain how the scope, scale, and complexity relate to the current requirement or how well they performed, which increases uncertainty regarding applicability.

In each case, the weakness results from missing execution details—not noncompliance.

Why Weaknesses Originate Before Proposal Writing

Most weaknesses are introduced during capture and solution development rather than during proposal drafting. When teams enter proposal kickoff without validated assumptions, defined processes, or measurable approaches. Common causes include:

• Solutions that describe activities without defining methods or outputs
• Unvalidated assumptions about customer priorities or constraints
• Staffing and management models built for flexibility rather than requirements
• Capture strategies that are not translated into executable approaches

Strong writing cannot compensate for an incomplete solution. Proposals reflect the maturity of the underlying plan.

Five Practical Methods to Prevent Proposal Weaknesses

Reducing weaknesses requires disciplined execution throughout the business development lifecycle. The practices listed in Table 2 directly address evaluator risk concerns.

Table 2: Five Practical Methods to Reduce Weaknesses in a Proposal

Risk Reduction Method	Description
Conduct Disciplined Capture	Effective capture produces specific, usable inputs for proposal development, including: •    Documented requirements, constraints, and success measures •    Validated assumptions with supporting rationale •    Identified performance risks and planned controls •    Competitive assessment tied to likely evaluation discriminators Capture outputs should enable solution development without guesswork.
Validate the Solution Before RFP Release	When access allows, teams should test proposed approaches with the customer to confirm feasibility and relevance. This validation focuses on: Operational practicality of the approachAlignment with customer prioritiesIdentification of technical and management execution risks Solutions that are validated are easier to explain and easier for evaluators to assess as low risk.
Analyze the RFP Using Evaluation Criteria	RFP analysis should be structured on proposal evaluation criteria. This includes: A compliance matrix that traces every requirement to proposal contentAn outline aligned to evaluation factors and subfactorsPage allocations based on execution details rather than background information Proposals should allocate as much space as the page limitations allow to explain processes, controls, and performance management backed up with proof points.
Connect Execution to Demonstrated Capability	Proposals should explicitly link approaches to proven experience. This requires: Clear mapping between proposed processes and past performance examplesExplanation of how prior results will be replicatedIdentification of systems and personnel who have executed similar work These connections reduce evaluator uncertainty about performance outcomes.
Use Visuals to Clarify Execution	Visuals should be used to reinforce understanding of execution, not to decorate the proposal. Effective visuals: Show process flow, decision points, and interfaces Identify responsibility and timing Align directly with narrative descriptions Well-designed visuals reduce ambiguity and enhance evaluator confidence.

Conclusion

Evaluated weaknesses document uncertainty about execution. That uncertainty is usually avoidable.  Lohfeld Consulting supports teams by identifying execution gaps early, strengthening capture discipline, and ensuring proposals demonstrate credible, low-risk performance before submission. If your objective is to submit proposals that withstand evaluator scrutiny, contact Lohfeld Consulting; we can help you achieve it.

Relevant Information

• Master Capture Management for Ultimate Victory Now

• How to Build Proposals that Win and Wow

• Secrets to Building a Proposal Powerhouse

---

By Brenda Crist, Vice President at Lohfeld Consulting Group, MPA, CPP APMP Fellow

Lohfeld Consulting Group has proven results specializing in helping companies create winning captures and proposals. As the premier capture and proposal services consulting firm focused exclusively on government markets, we provide expert assistance to government contractors in Capture Planning and Strategy, Proposal Management and Writing, Capture and Proposal Process and Infrastructure, and Training. In the last 3 years, we’ve supported over 550 proposals winning more than $170B for our clients—including the Top 10 government contractors. Lohfeld Consulting Group is your “go-to” capture and proposal source! Start winning by contacting us at www.lohfeldconsulting.com and join us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube^(TM).