Winning bids contain clear, concise language. They are easy to review, they are credible. Credibility comes in many forms. One of the easiest ways to sabotage an otherwise strong bid is to use wordy language, peppered with clichés and trite phrases.

During 2011, we used VisibleThread to scan more than 120 separate bids (yes, we’ve been counting). The scanned bids included RFPs (Request for Proposal), Task Orders and commercial RFIs (Request for Information). We scanned bid responses from some of the largest integrators around the beltway, and smaller 8A companies too.

I spoke on Fed News Radio in March about the results we were seeing. I spoke again in October at the APMP NCA (Association of Proposal Management Professionals - National Capital Area) chapter conference with updated statistics. You should grab the full slide deck here which covers examples and metrics on our findings.

Despite this, we continued to see technically competent, well-priced bids, shot in the foot due to poor language.

So in this post, I wanted to share some more real examples that will help highlight this issue. At the end of this post, you’ll see a full cliché checklist. Feel free to copy this for use on your own bids. I also wanted to outline why I think this is a difficult issue and what we can do about it. I address this towards the end of this post.

Some Examples

Let me give a couple of simple examples from one Task Order.

Example 1: The following text appeared in section 1 of a technical volume, immediately following the table of contents.

“Our team is diverse with expertise in IT support unmatched by other small business consortiums.”

Introductory sections are read first. From the reviewer’s point of view, these summary areas set the tone for the rest of the response. You are basically saying upfront; I am responding to your need by using fluffy and marketing language. I will not bore you with actual facts to back up my claims.

So in this example, we claim that our company XXX is ‘unmatched’ in some capacity.

Put yourself in the reviewer’s position. If you saw this, what would you think? It is either not credible or lacks sufficient evidence. When VisibleThread encounters a term such as unmatched, it offers this guidance in the review report. I hope you see why it makes sense.

Likely a trite claim & ‘market-ese’, remove it, otherwise state the evidence and drop the ‘unmatched’ word. It simply comes across as not being credible.

As a side note, you may wonder why expertise is also flagged above in maroon color. VisibleThread flags this as a liability issue, as it is hard to defend. From a legal standpoint, it is easy to attack should an issue arise post bid win.

Example 2: In the same Task Order, the next paragraph contained:

“We demonstrate our diversity as a team by illuminating the fact that over seventy percent of Team XXX members are socio-economically disadvantaged companies.”

This long sentence needs to go on a diet. The first half of it is pure waste; the second half masks the real information. Try this instead:

“We are diverse because seventy percent of Team XXX members are socio-economically disadvantaged companies.”

This reduces the statement from 23 to 14 words. It emphasizes the metric. If this were a genuine color team review, I would go further and suggest this rewrite:

We are diverse because:

-          seventy percent of Team XXX members are socio-economically disadvantaged companies.

-          (2nd point that supports the claim)

-          (3rd point that supports the claim)

Lists drive concise responses. Secondly, lists are really easy to review. Our studies in website content analysis show that lists are way more effective way to communicate. Thirdly, lists put written text on a diet. Any fear of increasing page count is more than offset by a lowered word count.

I should point out that lists have an interesting side effect; they force you to group similar concepts and reduce repetition. This is a bigger subject than just this point. I’ll pen a separate post on this topic in the next while.

All told, lists are a good thing. Don’t be afraid to put them into your summary sections and emphasize metrics & numbers. You’ll be amazed at how better the result is.

Takeaways – why is it so hard?

Amid all the scans, what stood out was a continued problem with wordy and trite language in bids. I asked myself, why is it so hard?

The issue I think comes down to these points:

1. Time Constraint: Who the heck has time to properly scrub a doc when trying to meet incredibly tight delivery deadlines?
2. Review Process too late: If your process only allows for language review at red team review phase, then it’s invariably too late to fix amid all the other conflicting challenges.
3. Editing Content is hard: In many organisations especially tecnical heavy ones, ‘fixing the language’ is considered almost easy and an afterthought. This viewpoint needs to change. Editing content out is a skilled task and takes time.
4. Lack of Automation: If you try to scrub docs manually using search in word, it’s way too manual. You need some form of automated approach, be it MS Word macros or tooling designed for the job like VisibleThread.

Poor langauge kills bids, if reviews are left too close to the end, it is extremely hard to fix. So, we need to monitor the response using automation tools and eliminate language issues much earlier in the development cycle.

The full cliché Check List

So, I did promise I would share our list of ‘baddie’ words. Below you will find the full list we check for. It continues to expand.

If you’d like to review your own proposal docs online and see how they rank, contact us or sign up for a 30 day free evaluation of VisibleThread for Docs at: http://www.visiblethread.com/products/evaluate/ Our software can save you a ton of time and dramatically improve submission quality.

let’s call time on the cliché in 2012!

Liability and Contract Risk Unsupportable claims superlatives overly inclusive unnecessarily negative firm guarantees not required in the T&Cs. If in your enthusiasm to secure the contract you inadvertently make a promise or guarantee that you can’t deliver on then you are exposed to legal action or re-negotiation at a later stage. Review all statements that may involve unprovable obligations or over the top assertions. all encompassing Is this measurable? Re-phrase if so otherwise lose it. anywhere Are you sure this applies ‘anywhere’? Look at what you’re saying and figure does it need re-phrasing? Are you open to attack? as may be required Under what conditions? Very open-ended from a legal standpoint. Re-phrase constantly Opens you to attack. Re-state this in measurable terms. If turnaround time state the time. If you cannot re-phrase this then lose it. customary Very loose need stronger definition under what circumstances each and every Re-state this in measurable terms. If you cannot re-phrase this then lose it. This phrase is often superfluous. assure This implies a contractual obligation. What are you ensuring? Are you sure you can stand over it? Re-phrase this if possible. ensure This implies a contractual obligation. What are you ensuring? Are you sure you can stand over it? Re-phrase this if possible. insure Are you insuring something? Using the phrase in the right way? Look to re-phrase if not. everywhere Are you sure this applies ‘everywhere’? Look at what you’re saying and figure does it need re-phrasing? Are you open to attack? fastest Is this defined in a measurable way? Who/what are you comparing with?Need to re-phrase. fully ‘Fully’ can become a guarantee that you may need to stand over. Are you sure the intent of this sentence/statement is the case under all circumstances? Consider re-phrasing. greatest Is this defined in a measurable way? Need to re-phrase. guarantee This implies a contractual obligation. What are you guaranteeing? Are you sure you can stand over it? Re-phrase this if possible. lowest Is this defined in a measurable way? Who/what are you comparing with?Need to re-phrase. highest Is this defined in a measurable way? Who/what are you comparing with?Need to re-phrase. most Is this defined in a measurable way? Who/what are you comparing with?Need to re-phrase. never ‘Never’ can become a guarantee that you may need to stand over. Are you sure the intent of this sentence/statement is the case under all circumstances? Consider re-phrasing. reasonable and Is this defined in a measurable way? Who’s definition of reasonable? Need to re-phrase with a concrete notion and boundaries if possible. reasonable Is this defined in a measurable way? Who’s definition of reasonable? Need to re-phrase with a concrete notion and boundaries if possible. safest Is this defined in a measurable way? Who/what are you comparing with?Need to re-phrase. expert Be careful of ‘expert’. In the context of personnel bios and resumes look to remove this. Re-phrase instead with evidence of expertise qualifications. It is rare that someone can be truly considered a world-expert. That person will be open to attack post bid-win in case of any issues. expertise Be careful of ‘expertise’. In the context of personnel bios and resumes look to re-phrase instead with evidence of expertise qualifications. It is rare that someone can be truly considered a world-expert and that person will be open to attack post bid-win in case of any issues. Clichés and Professionalism Trite statements and claims damage your professionalism. Review all statements and either put hard evidence from past bids to back up your claim or remove the superlatives. seamless Comes across as marketing boilerplate. Damages credibility. Look to either drop or rephrase with evidence. seam-less Comes across as marketing boilerplate. Damages credibility. Look to either drop or rephrase with evidence. turnkey Comes across as marketing boilerplate. Damages credibility. Look to either drop or rephrase with benefit statement of what it is you are really looking to communicate. turn-key Comes across as marketing boilerplate. Damages credibility. Look to either drop or rephrase with benefit statement of what it is you are really looking to communicate. state of the art Comes across as market-ese. Damages credibility. Look to either drop or rephrase with benefit statement or measurable features. Rephrase. state-of-the-art Comes across as market-ese. Damages credibility. Look to either drop or rephrase with benefit statement or measurable features. Rephrase. uniquely qualified Can you back this up? rarely is somebody uniquely qualified state the actual achievements unique Are you sure you are ‘unique’? Why? This comes across as trite & market-ese in many cases. Remove it & state the evidence that makes you or your offering unique. uniquely Are you sure you are ‘uniquely’ doing something? Why? This comes across as trite & market-ese in many cases. Remove it & state the evidence that makes you or your offering unique. unparalleled Likely a trite claim & market-ese remove it otherwise state the evidence and drop the ‘unparalleled’ word. It simply comes across as not being credible. unmatched Likely a trite claim & market-ese remove it otherwise state the evidence and drop the ‘unmatched’ word. It simply comes across as not being credible. enthusiastically Grovelling tone damages credibility. Rephrase. Just state the facts best of breed Seriously? State facts, appears to reviewers as a lift form a marketing brochure. Damages the tone. best-of-breed Seriously? State facts, appears to reviewers as a lift form a marketing brochure. Damages the tone. best in class Seriously? State facts, appears to reviewers as a lift form a marketing brochure. Damages the tone. best-in-class Seriously? State facts appears to reviewers as a lift form a marketing brochure. Damages the tone. ground breaking Really trite. Re-phrase this and state measurable evidence of what this means. If you can’t state evidence simply lose the statement as it’s waffle. next level Really trite. Re-phrase this and state measurable evidence of what this means. If you can’t state evidence simply lose the statement as it’s waffle. world class Really trite. Re-phrase this and state measurable evidence of what this means. If you can’t state evidence simply lose the statement as it’s waffle. world-class Really trite. Re-phrase this and state measurable evidence of what this means. If you can’t state evidence simply lose the statement as it’s waffle. Deliverability Delivery Cost: Requirement statements that are not testable or measurable may result in unintended consequences to include: product/system defects components built outside acceptable tolerances systems that meet the proposal guidelines but not the intent of the SOW or RFP. as appropriate Under what circumstances. Very loose and non-specific. Need to re-phrase. as necessary Under what circumstances. Very loose and non-specific. Need to re-phrase. countless Most things in life are measurable. Reviewers treat this as fudge and non-specific. Re-phrase with numbers. full service Ensure this is defined in terms of measurable numbers. Re-phrase. quality focussed Rephrase so that you emphasise evidence of this. top quality Trite. Show evidence using numbers. Re-phrase. efficient What measurements to demonstrate this efficiency? Is it clear. Re-phrase if not. such as Is your list fully inclusive? Tighten it by including all aspects and drop ‘such as’ if possible. timely How do you measure timely? Re-phrase with numbers. Credibility Grovelling style statements. Frequently used incorrect English. Statements that can have very poor tone. irregardless Nonsense word that is often used. Use ‘regardless’ in the correct context hopefully Often either means the author is hopeful or the subject of the phrase is hopeful. Re-write this. anxious Implies negative sentiment use ‘eager’ instead eg: ‘we are eager to…’ committed to Reviewers assume you are committed to provide something. Remove it & cut your word count. pleased to Damages your credibility. Whether you are happy to provide something is incidental. Remove it & cut your word count. happy to Damages your credibility. Whether you are happy to provide something is incidental. Remove it & cut your word count. can provide Be definitive. Re-phrase to communicate what it is you will or will not do. may provide Be definitive re-phrase with measurable deliverables in certain timeframes. might deliver Be definitive re-phrase with measurable deliverables in certain timeframes. bells and whistles Market-ese of the worst type. Remove. are confident If you are not confident there’s some serious issues! This is assumed and does nothing to help your case. Remove it and cut your word count. delighted to Eliminate this. It goes without saying. State what you will do.

From Aol Government. By Deanna Glick
Published: November 30, 2011

Though federal agencies are often criticized for convoluted verbiage and processes, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have defeated that stereotype with top rankings for the clarity of their web site content.

VisibleThread, a developer of document content analysis solutions and clear reports has released a ranking of 30 U.S. federal agency web sites for clarity of written content. The rankings coincide with the October 2011 implementation deadline of the Plain Writing Act of 2010, requiring federal agencies to use “clear Government communication that the public can understand and use.”

“Clarity in documents and websites means citizens are more likely to achieve their goals,” said Fergal McGovern, CEO of VisibleThread. “Whether you are filing a tax return or trying to understand labor rights, clear instructions mean we have a better chance of completing a task.”

He added: “If federal agencies make it easier for people to engage, it means lower cost for government due to fewer follow-up calls, letters and less time spent chasing. This index provides clear points of focus for agencies looking to improve, and that can only be a good thing.”

The so-called VisibleThread Website Index, U.S. Government ranks websites on four criteria, including readability, passive language, sentence length and word complexity. Low levels of long sentences, low levels of passive language, combined with easy to understand terminology were the winning traits found on the BLS and CDC sites.

According to VisibleThread, readability levels are impacted directly by these factors. Both the US Geological Survey (rank 4) and the National Cancer Institute (rank 5) scored well but were let down by a single metric: readability and passive language respectively.

The Federal Railroad Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation received the lowest rankings due to a high proportion of long sentences, high levels of passive language, a high degree of complex language and poor readability ratings.

Complete Agency Rankings

View original article: Aol Government

From Federal Computer Week, Nov 25, 2011. By Alice Lipowicz

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ website scored highest in readability, transparency and clarity, while the Federal Railroad Administration’s website scored lowest, according to a new index created by Visible Thread, a provider of content analysis solutions.

The first-ever Visible Thread index ranked 30 federal agencies based on an analysis of their websites’ compliance with plain language and transparency requirements in the Plain Writing Act of 2010.

Visible Thread created an index based on four positive atrributes of plain writing: readability; use of active, rather than passive, sentence structures; avoidance of sentences that are too long; and sparing use of complex words.

“Collectively, these metrics tell us how clear or complex website content is,” said the report, which was published on Nov. 15.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics ranked first, followed by the Centers for Disease Control &U Prevention, Bureau of the Census, US Geological Survey and National Cancer Institute.

At the bottom of the index were the Federal Railroad Adminsitration, along with the National Highway Safety Adminsitration and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

“Factors making these the worst performers are a high proportion of long sentences, high levels of passive language, a high degree of complex language and poor readability ratings,” the study said.

View original article: Federal Computer Week

From Federal News Radio, November 14, 2011

Interview with Fergal McGovern, CEO VisibleThread on The Federal Drive.

Which agency has the most read-able website?

Agency websites can sometimes be overly complex with technical language, which can make it difficult for a visitor to comprehend the information the agency is trying to convey. To address this problem, the VisibleThread Website Index recently used four criteria to measure complexity and readability of government websites.

Fergal McGovern, Visible Thread’s CEO, spoke to Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Amy Morris about which agencies lead the pack and which ones have room to improve in the clarity of their websites.

The VisibleThread Website Index employed four criteria — readability, passive language, long sentences and word complexity density — to determine how complex and clear a website is.

Topping Visible Thread’s index were the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Both sites had low levels of long sentences and passive language. They also used easy to understand terminology, which positively impacted readability levels. Both the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Cancer Institute also scored well, but they were marked down in readability and passive language, respectively.

At the bottom of the index were the Federal Railroad Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. A high proportion of long sentences, high levels of passive language, a high degree of complex language and poor readability ratings made these agency websites the worst performers on the index.

Tags: Fergal McGovern, Visible Thread, BLS, CDC, USGS, NCI, Federal Railroad Administration, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Internet, Federal Drive

From FED TECH BISNOW, November 9, 2011

VisibleThread CEO Fergal McGovern is trying to clean up government language. We’re not talkin’ 4-letter words (or else the FCC would have nothing to write on its site.) Fergal says there’s plenty of passive language and wordy sentences. His software firm analyzes document content and recently studied 100 pages belonging to 30 government sites for clarity and transparency. The top three best written websites are Bureau of Labor Statistics, CDC, and Census. The bottom three were the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., and the Federal Railroad Administration. (No Department of Education. Sorry, irony.)

The top 10 best sites.

Fergal and his Baltimore team studied several readability factors including the sentence length (over 25 is a no-no), clarity of consumer info, and how many words had a high number of syllables. VisibleThread was inspired to undertake the study based on the Plain Writing Act passed last year. Agencies had until last month to make their sites more readable by consumers. Fergal says he’s working with one particular agency to help get clearer content into agency websites.

From FED TECH BISNOW, November 9, 2011

US Gov Index, Q4, 2011

Download the full report. See how US Gov sites rank for Plain Writing.

Report and Index Highlight Significant Gaps between Best and Worst U.S. Government Websites and their Compliance with the Plain Writing Act

Baltimore, MD – November 8, 2011— VisibleThread, a developer of document content analysis solutions and clear reports, today announced the availability of its first VisibleThread Website Index, U.S. Government – Q4, 2011. This ranks 30 U.S. federal agency websites for clarity of written content. The rankings coincide with the October 2011 implementation deadline of the Plain Writing Act of 2010, requiring federal agencies to use “clear Government communication that the public can understand and use”. VisibleThread will release rankings on a quarterly basis to monitor agency progress.

The VisibleThread Website Index, U.S. Government ranks websites on four criteria. (1) Readability – How readable is the content? (2) Passive Language – active language communicates clearly. What percent of sentences are passive? (3) Long Sentences – what percent of all sentences are considered too long? And (4) Word Complexity Density – complex words make Web pages hard to understand. Collectively, these metrics tell us how clear or complex website content is.

Leaders

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (rank 1) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (rank 2) are the leaders. Low levels of long sentences, low levels of passive language, combined with easy to understand terminology were the winning traits. Readability levels are impacted directly by these factors. Both the US Geological Survey (rank 4) and the National Cancer Institute (rank 5) scored well but were let down by a single metric: readability and passive language respectively. The top five ranking Websites are:

Room for Improvement

At the bottom of the index is the Federal Railroad Administration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Transportation) and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ranked jointly in 28th place. Factors making these the worst performers are a high proportion of long sentences, high levels of passive language, a high degree of complex language and poor readability ratings. The bottom ranking sites are:

“There are two very important reasons that underpin the Plain Writing Act of 2010 – one impacting citizens and one the agencies,” said Fergal McGovern, CEO of VisibleThread. “Clarity in documents and websites means citizens are more likely to achieve their goals. Whether you are filing a tax return or trying to understand labor rights, clear instructions mean we have a better chance of completing a task. When people know what the government asks of them, there’s a better chance they’ll comply. Secondly, if federal agencies make it easier for people to engage, it means lower cost for government due to fewer follow-up calls, letters and less time spent chasing. This index provides clear points of focus for agencies looking to improve, and that can only be a good thing.”

Complete Agency Rankings

US Government – Q4, 2011 Plain Writing Index 1 Bureau of Labor Statistics (Labor) www.bls.gov 3.75 2 Centers for Disease Control (Health and Human Services) www.cdc.gov 6 3 Bureau of the Census (Commerce) www.census.gov 6.25 4 U.S. Geological Survey (the Interior) www.usgs.gov 7 5 National Cancer Institute (Health and Human Services) www.cancer.gov 7.75 6 Smithsonian Institution www.si.edu 9 7 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) www.archives.gov 11.75 7 National Aeronautics and Space Administration www.nasa.gov 11.75 9 State www.state.gov 12.25 10 Federal Aviation Administration (Transportation) www.faa.gov 13 10 Veteran Affairs www.vba.va.gov 13 12 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Agriculture) www.nrcs.usda.gov 13.75 13 the Interior www.doi.gov 14 14 U.S. Mint (the Treasury) www.usmint.gov 14.5 15 Social Security administration (Health and Human Services) www.ssa.gov 15 16 Health Resources and Services Administration (Health and Human Services) www.hrsa.gov 16.25 17 Federal Bureau of Investigation (Justice) www.fbi.gov 16.5 17 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (Justice) www.uscis.gov 16.5 19 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Health and Human Services) www.samhsa.gov 16.75 20 General Services Administration www.gsa.gov 17 21 Community Oriented Policing Services (Justice) www.cops.usdoj.gov 17.5 22 Small Business Administration (Labor) www.sba.gov 18 23 Homeland Security www.dhs.gov 18.5 24 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation www.fdic.gov 18.75 25 Federal Highway Administration (Transportation) www.fhwa.dot.gov 22.75 25 Program Support Center (Health and Human Services) www.psc.gov 22.75 27 Transportation www.dot.gov 23.75 28 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Transportation) www.nhtsa.gov 24.5 28 Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation www.pbgc.gov 24.5 30 Federal Railroad Administration (Transportation) www.fra.dot.gov 28.5

About VisibleThread

VisibleThread provides document content analysis software solutions and Website reports. The company flags poor quality and complex language for documents and Websites to eliminate tedious manual review cycles, saving organizations time and cost. VisibleThread solutions and reports allow customers to scan documents and Websites in minutes, identify risky and complex language with objective metrics and benchmark Websites against sector peers. For proposal managers, government agencies and IT delivery teams VisibleThread solutions increase the likelihood of winning bids, drive plain language audits and make review teams 40 percent more efficient. For more information, visit www.visiblethread.com

###

To obtain a copy of the complete report go to: www.visiblethread.com or mail: gov-index@visiblethread.com

For media inquiries contact: Evan Weisel Welz & Weisel Communications for VisibleThread P: 703-218-3555 C: 703-628-5754 evan@w2comm.com