Mistakes Experienced Government Contractors Still Make in RFP Proposals

Even the most experienced government contractors — firms with years of past performance and many contract awards — still make avoidable mistakes in their RFP proposals. Familiarity breeds confidence, but sometimes, that confidence leads to costly oversights that quietly undermine a winning bid.

Agencies aren’t just looking for qualifications anymore; they want low-risk, high-value, fully compliant solutions delivered with clarity and transparency. One misplaced assumption or overlooked instruction can derail an otherwise strong proposal.

This article outlines the most common and damaging mistakes that seasoned contractors still make in government RFP proposals. If you’re committed to protecting your win rate and refining your proposal process, consider this a strategic checklist for smarter bidding.

1. Relying Too Heavily on Boilerplate Content

Templates are valuable—up to a point. For time-strapped proposal teams, prewritten content can help accelerate the writing process. However, heavy dependence on boilerplate responses often results in generic, lifeless proposals that fail to connect with evaluators.

Government evaluators can identify recycled content. If your proposal reads like something that could’ve been submitted to five different agencies with minimal edits, it sends the wrong message: that you’re not invested in this specific opportunity.

Consider the difference:

• Boilerplate: “Our team offers end-to-end IT services across federal agencies with a proven performance record.”
• Tailored Response: “For DHS, we will deploy our FedRAMP-certified cloud infrastructure, which reduced deployment time by 37% during our CBP project in 2023.”

The second example directly aligns with the agency’s mission and includes relevant, measurable results.

Best practices to avoid this mistake:

• Use boilerplate only as a starting point—never as the final draft.
• Customize past performance narratives to match the agency’s terminology and objectives.
• Reframe general capabilities in terms of the specific RFP requirements and evaluation criteria.

Overusing boilerplate can make your proposal dull, reduce credibility, and create scoring gaps in technical understanding and responsiveness.

2. Underestimating the Incumbent’s Position

Many seasoned contractors fall into the trap of treating open competitions as equal playing fields, when, in reality, incumbents often have a significant edge.

Incumbents:

• Know the operating environment intimately.
• Have built trust with program and contracting officers.
• Understand the real (not just documented) challenges the agency faces.
  

Experienced bidders sometimes assume that it’s anyone’s game if the incumbent’s performance was merely average or if the solicitation is recompeted. However, you’ll likely lose unless your proposal addresses the incumbent’s strengths and articulates an apparent reason to switch.

Here’s how to counter the incumbent advantage:

• Highlight risk reduction: Show how transitioning to your team will be seamless and safer.
• Provide superior technical solutions: Propose innovation where the incumbent has stayed static.
• Address known pain points: Refer to past agency challenges and how your approach directly addresses them.

Example: A contractor vying for a recompete at the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to demonstrate sufficient integration with the agency’s recently implemented electronic health record (EHR) system. The incumbent, showcasing seamless data exchange and interoperability within their proposed solution, was rated more favorably on ‘technical feasibility and system integration.

Avoid the mistake by:

• Actively participate in any pre-proposal conferences, industry days, or site visits. These events can provide valuable insights into the agency’s priorities, challenges, and any changes in requirements since the previous contract. Review publicly available documents like agency strategic plans, budget reports, and any related news articles or press releases.
• Building win themes that clearly articulate why your team is the better (not just qualified) option.
• Planning strategies to neutralize the “change risk” perception.

3. Ignoring Subtle Compliance Traps

Seasoned contractors are typically well-versed in proposal compliance, but even they can fall victim to hidden compliance traps, especially in large, multi-volume RFPs with complex instructions. These mistakes are often not about blatant noncompliance, but rather the failure to meet subtle formatting, submission, or structure requirements buried deep in attachments or addenda.

Common oversights include:

• Missing page limits in appendices or resumes.
• Overlooking essential information like key performance indicators (KPIs), critical milestones in project schedules, specific technical specifications, or mandatory reporting requirements. Even experienced contractors sometimes fail to thoroughly address these details, leading to lower scores on feasibility and understanding of the project’s complexities.
• Misplacing required content into the wrong volume or section.
• Forgetting to include required certifications (e.g., ISO, CMMI), licenses, or supporting documentation for key personnel or proposed technologies. Agencies often require specific proof of qualifications, and omitting these can lead to disqualification or significant point deductions.

For example, some RFPs require exact replication of section headers or numbered instructions in the proposal narrative. Misslabeling a header—even if the content is present—could possibly result in the evaluator marking it as nonresponsive. That one omission could cost you technical points or even lead to disqualification.

How to prevent compliance breakdowns:

• Build a detailed compliance matrix. Map every requirement to a section in your outline, including even formatting instructions and submission rules.
• Assign a “compliance champion.” This person is solely responsible for reviewing the proposal from the evaluator’s perspective, focusing on the structure, adherence, and completeness, rather than the content quality.
• Conduct a Gold Team review that focuses solely on compliance. This final check can catch errors introduced during last-minute revisions.

A costly example: A contractor submitted a winning solution but failed to include a signed organizational conflict of interest statement, which is required as a separate attachment. The proposal was deemed nonresponsive and rejected before scoring.

Even small mistakes can be fatal. Treat compliance like a legal checklist, not a suggestion.

4. Failing to Connect Features to Real Benefits

One of the most common—and least acknowledged—mistakes among experienced government RFP proposal teams is assuming that features speak for themselves. Listing what your company does well is not enough; you must link every capability to a specific benefit for the agency.

Consider these two versions:

• Feature-heavy: “Our solution includes a custom-built analytics dashboard with real-time metrics.”
• Benefit-driven: “Our real-time analytics dashboard empowers program managers to make faster funding decisions—cutting monthly reporting time by 40%.”

Evaluators don’t assign value to features unless they understand how those features reduce risk, improve outcomes, or increase efficiency. Especially in technical volumes, it’s easy to describe systems, tools, and certifications without explaining their practical impact.

Why does this happen?

• Subject-matter experts often write sections without translating technical value into mission outcomes.
• Teams assume the agency understands the benefit, or that it’s self-evident.

How to correct it:

• Use the “Feature–Advantage–Benefit” (FAB) model for each central capability:
  • Feature: What it is.
  • Advantage: What makes it better?
  • Benefit: Why the agency should care.
• Ask: “So what?” after every central claim. If the answer is unclear, the proposal needs revision.

Example: A contractor wrote three pages on its advanced encryption protocol but failed to tie it to the agency’s data security pain points. The proposal scored low on “understanding of requirements.”

In competitive evaluations, strong proposals distinguish themselves from forgettable ones by tying every technical or management feature to a specific evaluator benefit.

5. Writing for Themselves—Not for the Evaluator

Even well-written proposals can fall short if not tailored to the right audience. One of the most overlooked mistakes in government RFP proposals is writing from the company’s perspective instead of the evaluator’s.

Seasoned contractors sometimes fall into this trap because:

• They assume the agency is familiar with their work.
• They use internal terminology, acronyms, or branded language.
• They focus too much on organizational strengths and not enough on aligning with their mission.

Evaluators are under pressure, have limited time, and are working from a scoring rubric. Your proposal must be structured, worded, and formatted to make their job easier, not to impress them with corporate jargon or self-congratulations.

How to keep your focus evaluator-centered:

• Use clear, simple language. Even technical sections should be accessible. A technical expert may not be your reviewer.
• Mirror the evaluation criteria. If the requirements mention “understanding of the operating environment,” your response should include that exact phrase, tied to clear examples.
• Avoid self-praise. Replace statements like “we are a leader in…” with “our solution reduces onboarding time by 30%, minimizing operational disruption.”
• Evaluator mindset: “Can I easily score this section? Does it meet the criteria? Is it low-risk? Can I defend this score?”

Checklist to stay on track:

• Review each section and ask: “Would this make sense to someone unfamiliar with our firm?”
• Avoid unexplained acronyms unless defined at first use.
• Incorporate “you-focused” language—speak to the agency’s goals, not your company’s history.

Writing for the evaluator isn’t just about tone—it’s a strategic advantage.

6. Skipping Post-Submission Learning Opportunities

Many experienced contractors focus so intently on proposal development that once the submission is complete, they move on without fully capitalizing on what comes next. Failing to learn from each submission—whether winning or losing—is a critical mistake that prevents continuous improvement and long-term growth.

The problem:

• No debriefs requested. Many firms skip debriefs due to time constraints or a sense of pride.
• Superficial analysis. Teams may briefly discuss the win or loss, but no structured insights are captured.
• No process changes. Even when feedback is received, it’s often not implemented in future bids.

Every proposal is a rich source of intelligence. Upon request, the federal government provides debriefs that include scoring feedback, comparative strengths and weaknesses, and insights into evaluation decisions. These are goldmines for refining pricing strategies, messaging, compliance structures, and teaming arrangements.

Post-submission best practices:

• Always request a debrief, even if you win. Understanding what worked is just as valuable as knowing what failed.
• Prepare tailored debrief questions, such as:
  • “Were any parts of our proposal considered noncompliant?”
  • “Which evaluation factors impacted our score most significantly?”
• Document key takeaways in a central knowledge base or lessons-learned tracker.
• Adjust future capture and proposal plans based on repeated feedback themes.

Real-world example: A contractor discovered through multiple debriefs that evaluators consistently downgraded their transition plans. They overhauled that section with more detail and customer-specific risk mitigation, resulting in a 17% increase in their win rate.

Skipping post-submission analysis guarantees you’ll repeat the same mistakes. Use every opportunity to sharpen your competitive edge.

7. Chasing Poorly Qualified Bids

One of the most common—and expensive—mistakes in government RFP proposal bidding is bidding on too many opportunities without proper qualification. Even seasoned contractors fall into the trap of “chasing everything” to meet revenue goals or fill a pipeline, draining resources and diluting focus.

Red flags of low-probability bids:

• No prior relationship with the agency.
• No relevant past performance.
• Lack of a differentiator or innovative solution.
• Known incumbent with intense customer satisfaction.
• High price sensitivity or Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) model.

Submitting weak or poorly qualified bids wastes labor, increases burnout, and lowers win rates. In competitive environments, quality, not volume, is the winning play.

How to qualify opportunities more effectively:

• Use a Go/No-Go process with weighted criteria:
  • Customer relationship strength
  • Solution fit
  • Past performance relevance
  • Competitive positioning
  • Resource availability
    
• Hold weekly bid qualification reviews to filter out low-priority or unrealistic pursuits.
• Align your capture plan with strategic goals, not just available solicitations.

A brilliant example: One midsize firm reduced bid volume by 40% but increased its win rate by focusing only on opportunities where it had three or more years of relevant performance and the bids were best value-based.

Bidding less can win you more—if every proposal is built on a firm, qualified foundation.

Conclusion: Even Experts Need Tune-Ups

Experience in government contracting is a powerful asset, but it can also lead to blind spots. Over time, assumptions, shortcuts, and outdated habits often sneak into proposal processes. The most successful contractors are the ones who remain vigilant, self-critical, and committed to continuous improvement.

Let’s recap the key government RFP proposal mistakes even seasoned firms make:

• Overusing boilerplate content without tailoring.
• Failing to account for the incumbent’s edge.
• Overlooking minor compliance rules that disqualify proposals.
• Listing features without tying them to benefits that evaluators care about.
• Writing from the contractor’s perspective instead of the evaluator’s.
• Ignoring debriefs and missing improvement opportunities.
• Pursuing bids with a low probability of success.

Winning government contracts today requires more than a strong solution. It requires precision, discipline, and strategic execution at every step.

You’ll gain a real competitive advantage if you’re willing to challenge your current process and fix what isn’t working. Because in government contracting, the difference between winning and almost winning can come down to one small—but critical—mistake.

Your competitors are evolving. Are you?

Government contracting has undergone significant changes, and your proposal strategy must adapt accordingly. SAS-GPS gives experienced firms the tactical edge to outscore incumbents, meet every compliance mark, and win smarter. Partner with experts who understand what it takes to succeed.

Let’s talk →