Why We Recommend Color Team Proposal Reviews

Advancing the industry

PropLIBRARY’s “Why we do not recommend color team proposal reviews” prompted a lively discussion within the team at Salentis International. We have long admired articles and the thought leadership provided by Carl Dickson and PropLIBRARY, and we wanted to respond with our opinion to further the discussion. We strongly believe that with proper scope, definition, and engagement, color team proposal reviews are crucial for the development of a compliant, compelling, and ultimately successful proposal.

Established Perspective

Carl opens his post by admitting he may be “too honest” in saying that all color team proposal reviews are flawed. It’s a view he repeats throughout his PropLIBRARY articles and published materials

In short, he argues that color team reviews make companies less competitive because there’s no industry-wide standard defining the scope of each color review – Blue, Pink, or Red. Without that consistency, he claims, reviews can’t be repeated effectively or deliver reliable results. As he puts it: “The color team review model neither defines proposal quality nor validates its specific attributes. As a result, color team proposal reviews do not deliver quality assurance.”

However, when you look at PropLIBRARY’s own guidance, such as “How to Review a Proposal” and “What Defines Quality Validation”, you’ll find many of the same tools and practices that Salentis and other organisations use in color team reviews. These include structured checklists, clear quality criteria, and defined review roles – all designed to improve consistency and reviewer engagement.

The difference is largely one of terminology. Because we continue to use familiar labels like Pink Team or Red Team, some may view the model as outdated. In reality, color team reviews have long served as a foundational mechanism for ensuring quality and compliance. While no two reviews are identical from company to company or project to project, the shared framework provides a common language and expectation across the proposal profession..

Challenge

I would argue that the proposal industry is so open to change, that we have gone over the edge resulting in the wide variety of definitions for proposal reviews that seem to have sparked this discussion.

But rather than say, “it’s broken, let’s do away with this process,” why not use our existing construct and create change by enhancing processes?

The color team conversation, as well as a large move toward remote work environments, has provided our industry with an opportunity to discuss scalable processes and repeatability. The fundamental idea of Pink, Red, and Gold Teams (in particular) is that they are versions of an agile iterative process. This allows for measurement and demonstration of progress, moving forward with the end in mind. With proper scope, definition, and engagement, these reviews are crucial for the development of a compliant, compelling, and ultimately successful proposal.

What is a Color Team Review?

Fundamentally, a color team review is an iteration review, or gate review – terms used in Agile methodology.

“Agile is an iterative approach to project management and software development that helps teams deliver value to their customers faster and with fewer headaches. Instead of betting everything on a “big bang” launch, an agile team delivers work in small, but consumable, increments. Requirements, plans, and results are evaluated continuously so teams have a natural mechanism for responding to change quickly.” (Source: https://www.atlassian.com/agile)

The purpose of an iteration review is to measure and demonstrate progress. Planning begins when the team decides how to present its information. By starting with the end product in mind, teams build a stronger understanding of both solution design and compliance before execution begins. Using an Agile framework such as Kanban can strengthen the process further, removing chaos and last-minute scramble from color team reviews.

Applying Agile principles makes reviews more transparent, adaptable, and customer-focused. The process highlights the most valuable aspects of the solution, improves engagement, and helps the team adjust quickly to evolving priorities.

Expecting every color team to run in exactly the same way isn’t realistic. Some organisations submit small proposals every week; others submit one major bid every few months. Some have 14 days to respond, others have 90. Teams may include a single writer or 20 contributors. Agile methodology accommodates this variability. Color team reviews add value precisely because they flex to each situation. They provide a critical checkpoint for requirements and quality, and they inform the next steps with clarity and consistency.   

5 Steps to Setting Up a Color Team Review for Success

Every effective process follows a clear series of actions to reach its goal. Before conducting a review—color team or otherwise, Salentis applies five steps to ensure scalability, repeatability, and impact. The result is a structured review that evaluates the quality of your content, how that content is presented, and how well it meets compliance requirements. 

Step 1 – Define the Scope of the Review

Start by facilitating an in-brief meeting to make sure reviewers and writers are aligned. Give clear, detailed instructions that cover:

• The compliance and quality standards the team is working to. At Salentis, we use Red Team Check Sheets. Writers can see them before the review so they know exactly what they’ll be evaluated against. The same sheets help reviewers assess the proposal from the evaluator’s perspective.
• Each reviewer’s responsibilities and time allocation.
• The key issues or elements to focus on.
• How reviewers can best support the proposal team.
• What not to do – for example, editing grammar or formatting if those tasks are handled later. This prevents wasted effort and keeps reviewers focused on what matters most.

Some argue that color team reviews lack scope and, by definition, can’t deliver actionable outcomes. We disagree. A color team review can absolutely apply defined quality criteria and validate your proposal at the right level – as long as it’s consistent.

When defining scope, consider these external factors:

• Size: Scale your review to match the proposal’s size. A small submission may only need one reviewer, while a large, complex bid benefits from a full team of subject experts. In both cases, give reviewers clear evaluation criteria (see Step 2 – Create a Review from an Evaluator’s Perspective) to ensure accountability and consistency.
• Time: The response window also shapes the scope. With 90 days to respond, you might hold several reviews over multiple days. With 30 days or less, you may only run one or two single-day reviews. Understanding your timeline helps you define what’s realistic and useful for reviewers. 

No two proposals are identical. Each one demands a tailored approach that reflects the project’s size, schedule, and priorities. Consistency in scope, process, and expectations is what keeps color team reviews reliable and valuable – regardless of the parameters.

Step 2 – Create a Review from an Evaluator’s Perspective

Since the aim is to identify gaps and assess how closely the response meets the requirements, you need to put your reviewers in the evaluator’s seat. To do that, you’ve got to make their job as easy as possible. No one wants to work harder than they have to. And let’s be honest, internal resources just aren’t going to do it.

By taking a journalistic approach, we are always looking to answer who, what, when, where, why, and how for the proposed solution in response to requirements. A color team review is an opportunity to show reviewers where you’re at. You want to draw their attention to areas where you lack completeness or a compelling response and allow them to provide further insight into that pursuit of who, what, when, where, why, and how.

This approach allows for an information completeness check against the scope from Step 1 to remove subjectivity. It also supports our pursuit of persuasive detail to supplement a compelling narrative. Most importantly, it provides an opportunity to fill compliance gaps.

By putting the reviewer in the evaluator’s seat, you eliminate the ‘fishing expedition’ that color team reviews have been branded with. Based on our definition of the iterative review, the writers are working with the ‘end in mind’. So their output is designed to be in line with the compliance and evaluation standards of the solicitation. As mentioned, Salentis uses prepared review check sheets that include all solicitation requirements for a given section. This way, the reviewer doesn’t have to spend valuable time digging through solicitation documents they’re not familiar with.

Step 3 – Establish a High-Quality Team

You can’t get a truly unbiased, non-advocate review if your entire panel comes from inside your organisation, or worse, from your proposal team. If possible, bring in reviewers from outside the program or proposal group. Include external consultants, industry specialists, or people who have worked in the customer organization or contracting agency. Do the prep work early: line up NDAs and clearances so they’re ready when you need them.

When color team reviewers come from outside the proposal team, you can bring them in at each iteration to focus on a specific stage of development. They’ll concentrate on enterprise priorities and check that your key messages come through clearly to the evaluator. This approach also keeps everyone with project accountability aligned and informed.

Set clear expectations early to help reviewers stay engaged. Tell them when they’ll be involved, what you need from them, and how much time to set aside. You’re not just collecting opinions – you’re seeking an objective, evaluator-level review. To achieve that, give reviewers the right tools, templates, and guidance from the start.

Step 4 – Provide Review Tools and Instructions

Walk your reviewers through exactly how to submit their feedback. Explain the process and the tool you want them to use, and give clear, practical instructions. If they get stuck, tell them who to contact. The last thing you want is for reviewers to spend half their time fixing IT issues or figuring out how to upload their comments.

Use review tools such as check sheets and directives aligned to the agreed scope. They help the color team review serve as an independent check on the iterative process. The review validates compliance, solutions, win themes, and customer requirements, and you can tailor it to match the maturity of the iteration to keep it effective at every stage.

Step 5 – Use a Dedicated Facilitator

There’s no reason for a color team to operate without guidance, yet it happens often. It’s an easy way to lose reviewers’ attention. Dedicated facilitation keeps the review organized and gives reviewers a clear point of contact for questions. This support prevents the bid or proposal manager from being pulled into problem-solving during the review, giving them a much-needed break from the proposal effort. The facilitator assembles the review team, sends meeting invites, prepares check sheets, enforces cut-off times for input, manages the in- and out-brief materials, and coordinates the entire process from start to finish.

At Salentis, we don’t see color team reviews as “better than nothing.” We believe in a structured, repeatable process that can be scaled to achieve consistent quality and compliance. Investing in this discipline improves your win rate and that’s worth the effort. Our approach gives teams a practical way to make lasting change and set their color reviews up for success.

Author: Camille Kauffman – Proposal Manager

Article published: July 2022