The Go/No-Go Decision Framework: Stop Chasing Deals You Can't Win

Every proposal your team develops has a cost. For typical services contracts, that cost might range from 0.2% to 0.8% of contract value. For complex technical solutions requiring detailed designs, the cost climbs to 1-2%—occasionally as high as 3%.

On a $10 million contract, that's potentially $100,000 to $300,000 in proposal development costs.

The question isn't whether you can afford to pursue opportunities. The question is whether you can afford to pursue the wrong ones.

The Hidden Cost of Poor Qualification

When organizations chase every opportunity that matches their NAICS codes, several things happen:

Resources spread thin: Your best technical writers and subject matter experts get pulled in multiple directions. Quality suffers across all pursuits.

Win rates plummet: Industry averages for competitive win rates hover around 20-30%. Organizations without disciplined qualification often perform worse, winning less than one in five pursuits.

Teams burn out: Constant proposal work without wins is demoralizing. Your best people start declining proposal assignments or leave entirely.

Opportunity costs multiply: Every hour spent on a low-probability pursuit is an hour not spent on a high-probability one. The math compounds painfully.

The Shipley Qualification Framework

The Shipley methodology—used by a large portion of Fortune 100 companies—provides a structured approach to opportunity qualification. At its core are three questions:

1. Can we compete? Do we meet the minimum requirements?
2. Should we compete? Does this align with our strategy and resources?
3. Can we win? Are we competitively positioned?

These questions aren't asked once. They're revisited at decision gates throughout the business development lifecycle, with each gate requiring a decision to Advance, Defer, or End the pursuit.

Building Your Qualification Scorecard

A disciplined go/no-go process uses weighted scoring across key factors. Here's how to build an effective scorecard:

Factor 1: Mandatory Requirements (Pass/Fail)

Some criteria are binary. If you can't meet mandatory requirements, it's typically an automatic no-bid:

• Required certifications (CMMI, ISO, etc.)
• Security clearance requirements
• Incumbent contract vehicles
• Geographic restrictions
• Small business set-aside eligibility

There's no point scoring other factors if mandatory requirements aren't met. These are gating criteria.

Factor 2: Technical Capability (Weighted Score)

How well do your capabilities align with the requirement?

Questions to assess:

• Do we have demonstrated experience in this technical domain?
• Can we staff this effort with qualified personnel?
• Do we have relevant past performance to cite?
• Are there technical gaps we cannot close before proposal?

Scoring guidance:

• 5: Strong capability with directly relevant experience
• 4: Good capability with related experience
• 3: Adequate capability, some gaps to address
• 2: Limited capability, significant gaps
• 1: Minimal capability, would require major investment

Factor 3: Customer Relationship (Weighted Score)

Your positioning with the customer dramatically affects win probability.

Questions to assess:

• Have we worked with this customer before?
• Do we have existing relationships with decision-makers?
• Have we shaped this requirement or participated in market research?
• Are we learning about this opportunity for the first time from the RFP?

Scoring guidance:

• 5: Strong incumbent or established relationship
• 4: Recent positive engagement, customer knows us
• 3: Some interaction, customer is aware of us
• 2: No relationship, but no negative history
• 1: Unknown to customer or negative history

Factor 4: Competitive Position (Weighted Score)

Where do you stand against likely competitors?

Questions to assess:

• Who is the incumbent, and what is their performance?
• What competitors are likely to pursue this?
• What are our competitive advantages?
• What are our competitive vulnerabilities?

Scoring guidance:

• 5: Clear competitive advantages, weak incumbent
• 4: Some advantages, competitive with incumbent
• 3: Neutral position, no clear advantages or disadvantages
• 2: Some disadvantages, strong incumbent
• 1: Significant disadvantages, very strong incumbent

Factor 5: Strategic Value (Weighted Score)

Even winnable opportunities may not deserve pursuit if they don't advance strategic goals.

Questions to assess:

• Does this contract align with our strategic direction?
• Will winning position us for future growth?
• Does the contract offer appropriate margin?
• Will this stretch our organization in productive ways?

Scoring guidance:

• 5: High strategic value, directly advances key goals
• 4: Good strategic fit, supports growth direction
• 3: Neutral strategic value
• 2: Limited strategic fit, diverts from priorities
• 1: Poor strategic fit, potentially harmful to direction

Factor 6: Resource Availability (Weighted Score)

Can you actually execute both the proposal and the contract?

Questions to assess:

• Do we have proposal team capacity during the response period?
• Can we staff the contract if we win?
• Are key personnel available for both proposal and performance?
• Are there competing proposals that would strain resources?

Scoring guidance:

• 5: Full capacity available for proposal and performance
• 4: Good capacity, minor scheduling adjustments needed
• 3: Adequate capacity with some constraints
• 2: Limited capacity, would strain organization
• 1: Insufficient capacity without major changes

Applying the Framework

Calculate Your Score

Assign weights to each factor based on your organization's priorities. A typical weighting might be:

Factor	Weight
Technical Capability	25%
Customer Relationship	25%
Competitive Position	20%
Strategic Value	15%
Resource Availability	15%

Multiply each factor score (1-5) by its weight and sum for an overall score.

Establish Thresholds

Define what scores trigger which decisions:

• 4.0 - 5.0: Strong Go—commit full resources
• 3.0 - 3.9: Conditional Go—proceed with specific risk mitigation
• 2.5 - 2.9: Defer—continue monitoring but don't commit major resources
• Below 2.5: No-Bid—redirect resources elsewhere

Document the Decision

Whatever you decide, document your reasoning. This creates institutional memory and enables learning:

• What factors drove the decision?
• What would need to change to alter the decision?
• If you proceed, what risks need mitigation?

Decision Gates Through the Lifecycle

According to Shipley methodology, qualification isn't a one-time event. It's revisited at key decision gates:

Gate 1: Opportunity Identification

Initial screening when you first become aware of an opportunity. Light touch—enough to decide whether to invest in further pursuit.

Key question: Is this opportunity worth tracking and learning more about?

Gate 2: Pursuit Decision

Deeper analysis before committing capture resources. You've gathered intelligence and can make a more informed assessment.

Key question: Should we actively pursue this opportunity?

Gate 3: Bid Decision

Final go/no-go before committing proposal resources. The RFP is released or imminent, and you have full visibility into requirements.

Key question: Do we commit to developing a full proposal?

Gate 4: Bid Validation

Mid-proposal checkpoint to verify you're still positioned to win. New information may have emerged that changes your assessment.

Key question: Have any showstoppers emerged that should halt our effort?

At each gate, the disciplined options are: Advance (secure funding, commit staff), Defer (set conditions for re-evaluation), or End (redirect resources).

The Discipline of No

Perhaps the hardest part of qualification is saying no. Organizations with weak qualification discipline find reasons to pursue everything:

• "We might get lucky"
• "We need the revenue"
• "We can't afford to miss this"
• "Let's just see what happens"

But successful business development professionals "qualify more, eliminate low probability deals earlier, and propose less." This discipline—not proposal volume—drives win rates.

Every no-bid decision frees resources for a higher-probability pursuit. Every deferred opportunity reduces strain on your team. Every ended pursuit redirects energy toward opportunities you can actually win.

The Gating Requirement Trap

One critical concept: gating requirements. These are requirements that, if unmet, make winning essentially impossible regardless of other strengths.

Common gating requirements include:

• Required certifications you don't hold
• Past performance thresholds you haven't met
• Security clearances you lack
• Set-aside eligibility you don't qualify for
• Incumbent contract vehicles you're not on

When you identify a gating requirement you cannot meet, the disciplined response is to end pursuit—not to hope the evaluators will overlook it.

From Qualification to Response

Good qualification doesn't just decide whether to bid. It shapes how you bid.

The intelligence gathered during qualification—customer hot buttons, competitive positioning, technical gaps—directly informs your proposal strategy. A qualified opportunity is also a prepared opportunity.

When you've done qualification right, proposal kickoff starts from a position of strength. You know why you're pursuing this. You know what differentiates you. You know what risks to mitigate. The proposal becomes execution of a strategy, not improvisation under pressure.