Yes, the trick is knowing how much to share. Or…

Wouldn’t it be great if the majority of processes, people and tools employed were truly unique to a contractor? For example, a contractor had a process for ensuring compliance that even if disclosed in writing, wouldn’t be able to be performed by anyone else. At least not as well, nor produce the higher levels of results.

This might be easier for a technology advance, but may have some traction in process or system as well.

This is a post that is music to my ears, just not good music. It is reflective of contract RFP reality. The only question that this begs an anser for is how much information is too much? If we as contractors generally do not have trust in potential customers (remember, not current customers, where we have a limited or introductory relationship) how much of our good process is the right amount to disclose (and subsequently risk it becoming an operational plan for the incumbant). Allow me to explain….let’s say that there is a modest difference in final price, so really not a great reason financially to undergo the “change process”, however, like all good RFP/RFQ/RFI processes, the CLIENT will learn many new aspects of the world of service for what they are bidding, different viewpoints, experiences….free consulting. Now they can’t make a change, but want some of the “new” ideas from their flock of bidders…..so the ideas (like a LEED Accelerator Plan) will get “shared”. So again, the deep trick…how much information is enough information to show plausible capability without giving away the playbook? Now that is tipping point we all wish we could find 100% of the time….