Pursuit win-loss review 2021–2026, Kestrel Fork office

Register of 46 decided pursuits from the proposal archive, with our evaluation scores and rank against the selected firm, and our fee where the client scored fee. We were selected for 15. Losses trace back to the approach section more often than to qualifications or fee.

Proposal archive 2021–2026, 46 pursuitsScore sheets, selection notices and debrief notesFees in USDPrepared Nov 5, 2026

Summary

Evaluation criteria

We lose on the approach section, not on qualifications

In 18 of 31 losses, Approach & risk management was the criterion where we trailed the selected firm by the most weighted points. Across all losses we averaged 0.65 below the selected firm on that 1–5 rating, while the other three criteria averaged within 0.1.

Action: a project-specific risk register and owner review milestones in every SOQ approach section.

Selection method

2 wins in 12 best-value pursuits, against 13 of 34 under QBS

Where the client scored fee, our win rate was 17%, compared with 38% under qualifications-based selection. Our fee was higher than the selected firm’s in 8 of the 10 best-value losses. In P‑21‑030 the technical ratings were identical and a fee 27% higher decided it.

Action: test our fee against the expected low fee before submitting best-value proposals to private clients.

Margins

6 pursuits lost by less than 1 point out of 100

Six losses came down to less than one point on a 100-point scale, five of them by half a point or less. All six ranked second. The closest was P‑21‑007, a water main replacement for the City of Kestrel Fork: 0.25 points behind the selected firm.

Pursuits against the selected firm

Filter by year, client, selection method and service line. The QBS chart shows technical score gap and rank; the best-value chart shows fee and technical score against the selected firm, or the runner-up when we won. The criteria view shows where points are lost. Select a pursuit to see the scoring and the panel comment.

Result
Selected Not selected Lost by under 1 point

Sources and method

Sources

  • Pursuit_Log_2019-2026.xlsxCRM export of go/no-go decisions; for 2021–2026, 112 opportunities: 58 no-go, 8 canceled or pending, 46 decided112 rows
  • Pursuit archive 2021–2026One folder per pursuit with the RFQ or RFP, our SOQ or proposal, and the selection notice46 folders
  • <ID> Score Summary (FOIA).pdfPanel score sheets from public clients, obtained through Illinois FOIA requests34 files, 2–6 pp.
  • <ID> Evaluation Summary.pdfScoring summaries shared by private clients at debrief, with fee points12 files, 1–3 pp.
  • <ID> Debrief Notes.docxOur notes from client debriefs22 files, 1–2 pp.
  • Board and council agendasNegotiated fees for QBS selections, where published31 contracts

Method

  1. Pursuits in the log were matched to archive folders. No-go decisions, canceled solicitations and pending selections are excluded.
  2. From each selection notice: number of firms submitting, our rank and the selected firm. When we won, the runner-up is the comparison firm.
  3. From the score sheets: the panel-average rating per criterion and the weights, for our firm and the comparison firm. Client criteria were grouped into four common criteria and ratings converted to a 1–5 scale.
  4. Each total was recalculated. The order between our firm and the comparison firm matches the selection notice in all 46 pursuits.
  5. Score gap = our total minus the comparison firm’s total, in points out of 100. In best-value pursuits the total includes fee points.
  6. Technical score gap in the best-value chart is expressed as a share of the maximum technical score, so that pursuits with different fee weights compare.
  7. Largest gap = the criterion where the difference to the selected firm cost the most weighted points.

Assumptions and limitations

  • Non-home-rule local agencies (counties, townships, road districts, special districts and non-home-rule municipalities) select A/E firms under the Illinois Local Government Professional Services Selection Act (50 ILCS 510), which bars fee information before the top-ranked firm is chosen. Home-rule municipalities are exempt from the Act; the municipal clients in this archive used the same qualifications-based procedure. The 10 federal-aid pursuits follow the Brooks Act procedures in 23 CFR Part 172. In all of them, fee is negotiated with the top-ranked firm and is not scored.
  • The 12 best-value pursuits are private clients, who are not bound by QBS rules and scored fee alongside the technical proposal.
  • Grouping client criteria into four common criteria is an interpretation. Criteria wording varies between solicitations.
  • Scores are available for our firm and the comparison firm only. Other submitting firms are not part of the comparison.
  • Fees are in then-year dollars, not escalated.
  • The register shows patterns in our own archive, not causes. Small groups, such as single years or clients, give uncertain rates.