How to Spot a Seagull Reviewer (and What You Can Do About It)

The word “teamwork” was almost created for the RFP process. Great alignment and collaboration make winning word so much easier. The Bid process sits in the middle of so many other functions. All which are required to lead a satisfactory response. This is often core functions such as operations, marketing, HR, finance, legal & more.

Successful proposals rely on input from multiple stakeholders. Sadly not all input is helpful. Often contributions can be well-meaning, but it becomes just another opinion which can impact both the quality and timeline available. One of the most common culprits is — The Seagull Reviewer. This leads on from my previous article detailing why Leadership needs to be involved in this process.

What is a Seagull Reviewer?

Named after the bird because they typically swoop in at the last minute, make a lot of noise, leave a mess and disappear. No real value is added by their presence. When you recognise these contribuors but also how they can be better managed to add a great input to the process. That can really help to change the narrative within your bid response.

This often looks like:

• not being involved in the bid until very late (or not at all)

• lacks understanding around the RFP or client need

• vague feedback which is more opinion than fact

• low-value changes rather than strategic improvement

• undermining team decisions creating frustration/delays

How to Spot a Seagull Reviewer?

Learn how to spot a seagull reviewer and save your organisation from last-minute chaos. Some of the most common traits and behaviours include:

Late Entry

They are often not part of the kick-off, storyboard or development phases of the bid opportunity (despite being asked). Their first and only interaction within the process is usually within the last 24 hours before submission. Not ideal for anyone.

Lack of Context

Their lack of context and understanding shows. Asking basic questions, which they would know the answers too if they had attended previous bid development sessions. They tend not to have read the RFP, strategy or earlier drafts which would answer all questions.

Narrow Mindset

They tend to focus on the small stuff like formatting, font size or minor wording. When the real input needed is in relation to strategy, value add or the scoring criteria. We often want them to tell us something we don’t already know or add to the current information to improve and enhance.

Contradictory Feedback

Opinions are offered which clash with the agreed strategy, tone or client insight. This usually comes from personal opinion instead of client focus or understanding.

No Accountability

The critique usually offers no resource for implementation, review cycles or follow-up actions. And when the input comes in the final hours before submission, this becomes an issue.

The Helper

They act as a volunteer to “help” often a senior manger or such like who thinks they know best. Their input often comes after key messaging and content has been signed off.

The Impact of Seagull Reviewing

The intent of a seagull reviewer is usually always positive, despite this it can still negatively impact the bid in a number of ways. This often includes disrupting momentum, undermining the team morale, weakened strategic message, wasted time and more re-works necessary without adding value.

Why Seagull Reviewing Happens

Seagull reviewing can happen because other stakeholders don’t always know how to get involved in the process. Either they don’t understand the bid process or simply think they do. Once you understand the reasons why it happens, it becomes easier to address and improve upon.

The seagull reviewer is usually a senior member of the team. I often find that explaining to senior leaders, exactly what I need from them helps because expectations are made clear from the outset.

Some of the problems which exist can include poor communication, no structured review process and sometimes a lack of trust in the team. By involving themselves late in this way doesn’t actually help of these issues, so clear communication up front can be the best approach.

Manage Seagull Reviewing

There will be little progress within the bid process, unless you deal with these problems head on. Usually this means having some fairly frank conversations. Instead of blaming, use examples of poor input in order to improve the process. Some practical steps might include:

1. Involve Reviewers Early

If your process dictates that certain stakeholders must review the bid, engage with them early during the kick-off stage in order to explain fully what you need from them. Make sure they are invited to all meetings. If they choose not to attend, this becomes a further point to pick up on. Often the senior team only wants to get involved at the end, but as discussed in this article, this is where the problems occur.

When you engage early you also get to motivate early. This is where the focus on the client comes in, bid win strategy and themes, as well as a wider content development plan. This improves buy-in from all stakeholders with less likelihood of those last minute changes.

2. Define Roles and Responsibilities

Become as process led as possible, so there is something of a set formula which your wider team gets used too with each put together. One way to do this is to incorporate the RASCI model (Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Consulted, Informed) which clarifies the owner of individual action points over the course of the bid lifecycle. Always best to document who is a core contributor, a subject matter expert, final approver and bid lead. Reaffirming these standards also helps to set the correct approach.

3. Set Clear Review Timelines

Setting a very clear review schedule is essential with clear escalation routes set up when stakeholders fail to respond. It is imperative that this schedule is adhered too. Bid response times are tight at the best of times. This is why firm project and proposal management timescales are always prioritised.

4. Structured Review Templates

Having a separate form to get answers as part of the review process can be a good idea. Using an interactive platform such as Typeform or similar can be a great idea. It makes for a more user friendly experience. And is just a little bit more fun!

When you use a review matrix or separate form, it doesn’t give your reviewer free reign over your 99% completed proposal ready to submission. Trying to unpick comments across a lengthy document in the final hour is almost always a nightmare. So consider this an additional safeguard which just makes sense.

This way you can ask specific questions where they can comment overall or you can ask for specific details in certain areas. This way you are more likely to get the review you need, and always try to allocate more time than you need for this.

You might consider areas of context such as messaging, the completeness in answering the questions, glaring gaps of knowledge or detail needed, communication of value, factual inaccuracies etc. The benefit of this approach comes from narrowing the focus to what really matters.

5. Brief Reviewers on Context

Hopefully, the reviewers have been involved in all meetings, but before sending any drafts for review, it is always a good idea to share the following:

• The RFP summary

• Evaluation criteria

• Win themes and differentiators

• Target client outcomes

This reminds reviewers the what and the why they are working towards. They are then able to provide relevant and strategic feedback which is actually useful. In comparison to opinion which is often based on incomplete knowledge or guess work.

6. Learn to Say No

Unhelpful feedback late in the game is never useful. Learn to say no. It will be helpful in the long run. Practice a few useful yet professional phrases such as:

“Thanks for the input — given where we are in the timeline and client requirements, we’ve chosen to maintain the current messaging.”

“We appreciate your input, but this was based on previously agreed win themes and client insight.”

This level of pushback is much easier to facilitate when you have set expectations early. And also made it clear who is the owner of the bid project. This prevents it being sidelined by others throughout this process.

7. Internal Post-Bid Review

Review from the client — good or bad is always essential but an internal review closely after submission is possibly more useful. Especially on the timeline you might need to wait for. We all know where a submission could have been improved with more time, resource or understanding. Collate your own views to share with the wider team as well as their input. It is important to share how unstructured or late-stage feedback affected the process. Both good and bad. Honesty is important for progress to happen.

Building a Healthy Review Culture

The review process is as important as any other part of the bid process. The goal is always to work better together, to learn from mistakes and make those improvements for the better. We always want to build a culture where feedback is timely, relevant and value-driven.

There are many ways in which this can be executed. Training is a good place to start. Communicate the value which the senior team offer, to demonstrate the value add to the bid process. Give feedback when you think an idea is useful. Provide regular updates so leaders can see the progress being made against the timescale available. Less worry and micro managing from the senior team should come as a result. And finally — always be sure to celebrate success of all contributors. This makes people feel part of the wider team and success which will no doubt come.

In contrast, when teams don’t collaborate, work productively or offer any support, the results are obvious as are the reasons why. I have worked with many teams over the years, and those that pull together without ego and importance, always get those wins.

Next Steps

Seagull reviewing occurs when there is unclear bid management and process. When boundaries and expectations are set, this becomes less likely to happen. Where there is a bid process which all stakeholders become familiar with every opportunity, this formula and input becomes easier over time.

The bid game is always about winning high value and complex work. It is not easy and is not meant to be. Equally there is no winning formula only best practice and continuous learning.

Bids represent the highest value of new business it is possible to win. But also the greatest amount of work to win such a high value opportunity. To do this you will need leadership alignment as you would with any other major business initiative. The more deliberate and aligned your approach to the bid winning practice, the fewer “seagulls” you will need to manage and the greater your win rate will become.