This page replaces the downloadable Word facilitator guide — it is the current source of truth for running this session.
1 Session at a glance
Format
Live virtual. Cameras on. Technical-Lead / Marketing-Lead pairs for role-play; breakout rooms.
Length
45 minutes, chunked so something interactive happens every ~8 minutes (Pike 90/20/8).
Pre-work (required)
Learners have read the Week 4 module and the sanitized mock RFP, run it through the Go/No-Go and forecast lens, identified a value frame, and drafted two pre-proposal questions.
You will need
The sanitized mock RFP; the slide deck; breakout rooms; a volunteer or facilitator to play “the client”; a shared doc to capture value frames.
Outcome
Each participant can run a value-focused pre-proposal conversation and carry a lead from raw to logged — closing Module 1.
2 What participants will be able to do
- —Distinguish. Tell price, cost, and value apart — and explain why winning the good work means shifting the client from price to value.
- —Run the move. Lead a short, value-focused pre-proposal conversation that reframes the project before the proposal is written.
- —Close the loop. Carry a raw lead through Go/No-Go, forecast, and reframe to a logged, trustworthy opportunity.
3 Run of show
This is the capstone — participants do most of the talking. You set up, time the rounds, and debrief.
| Start | Time | Segment | What happens | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0:00 | 5 min | Cold open & frame | Ask: “Think of a pursuit we lost on price. Did the client ever understand what they were actually buying?” Reframe: most proposals compete on price because we never changed the conversation. Today we change it before the proposal. | Slides 1–3 |
| 0:05 | 7 min | Price · cost · value | Walk the three numbers with one shared example. Have the room place the mock RFP's likely client mindset on a price↔value line. Land it: value is the only one of the three we can grow. | Slides 4–5 |
| 0:12 | 8 min | The two leads | Clarify Technical-Lead vs. Marketing-Lead ownership using the kickoff meeting as the handshake. Quick poll: which half of a recent pursuit was strongest, which was thin? | Slide 6 |
| 0:20 | 15 min | Skill practice — run the move | Pairs (Technical + Marketing) role-play the pre-proposal conversation on the mock RFP with a “client.” Use the participants’ drafted questions. Rotate the client role. Surface hidden risk + differentiator. | Slides 7–8 |
| 0:35 | 8 min | Close the loop & debrief | Each pair states the value frame in one sentence and what changed because of the conversation. Log the opportunity: clean revenue, honest win probability. | Slide 9 |
| 0:43 | 2 min | Close Module 1 & bridge | Restate the full pursuit arc. Pose the challenge question. Bridge: this pursuit becomes the scope in Module 2. | Slide 10 |
4 Facilitator notes by segment
Cold open (0:00)
Say / ask: “When we lose on price, did the client ever really understand what they were buying?”
Watch for: War stories that drift. Keep it tight — the point is that the value conversation never happened, not that the client was wrong.
Price · cost · value (0:05)
Say / ask: “Which of these three can we actually grow — and which is just a comparison the client runs?”
Watch for: Conflating cost and price. Reinforce cost as the floor (Week 1 rates) and value as the lever. Let the group place the mock RFP on the line (Law 2 — their own data).
The two leads (0:12)
Say / ask: “In your last pursuit, which was stronger — the technical substance or the packaging? Where did the value story live?”
Watch for: A belief that the Technical Lead does everything. Reinforce delegation and the kickoff handshake. Value is mostly the Technical Lead's to initiate, but it's a team sell.
Skill practice — run the move (0:20)
Say / ask: “Ask the outcome question first. What does success look like a year after this is done?”
Watch for: Jumping to our solution before hearing the client. Coach toward listening for the hidden risk and the differentiator. This is the behavior-change rep (Law 4) — protect the time for it.
Close the loop (0:35)
Say / ask: “What changed because of that conversation — and what win probability would you log now?”
Watch for: Value frames that are still about scope. Push for an outcome sentence. Tie back to honest logging from Week 3.
5 Anticipated pushback & responses
| You'll hear… | Respond with… |
|---|---|
| “The client only cares about price.” | Often that's because price is the only thing we gave them to care about. The move surfaces what else matters — before the proposal makes price the whole story. |
| “There's no time for a pre-proposal call.” | It's 20 minutes that can decide a six-figure pursuit. Compare it to the ~35 hours we'll spend writing the proposal either way. |
| “Public RFPs forbid contact.” | Many do limit contact — know the rules. But pre-bid meetings, RFIs, and prior relationships are legitimate channels. The move adapts; it doesn't disappear. |
| “Isn't this Marketing's job?” | Packaging is Marketing's. The value story is technical — it's the Technical Lead who knows what outcome we can deliver that a low bidder can't. |
6 Exercise sheet — the mock RFP role-play (facilitator copy)
Distribute the sanitized mock RFP before the session. Replace bracketed items with the real sanitized RFP from WSE. Below are the role-play setup and the debrief targets.
Exercise A — Carry the lead (pre-work)
- —Go/No-Go. Would this pass? Where does it score, and does it clear a hard gate?
- —Forecast. Honest revenue, effort, and win probability.
- —Value frame. One sentence: the outcome this client really cares about.
- —Two questions. Drafted pre-proposal questions that surface that value.
Exercise B — Run the move (pairs, live)
- —Roles. One Technical Lead, one Marketing Lead; facilitator or volunteer plays the client.
- —Goal. In ~5 minutes, surface the hidden risk and the differentiator using the outcome question first.
- —Rotate. Swap the client role so each pair runs the move at least once.
Debrief targets
- —A strong value frame names an outcome (risk avoided, time saved), not a deliverable.
- —A strong move changed what the proposal will emphasize — and, honestly, the win probability.