“Hit or miss” accuracy is the bane of pricing analysts. A lack of consistent accuracy can slow bidding processes from days to weeks and put companies at risk of having their proposals rejected – unless they have the right proposal pricing and cost estimating solution in place. When attempting to submit timely and accurate pricing proposals to the federal government, you likely recognize the challenge of developing proposals that are fast, accurate, and consistent across multiple projects.
You aren’t alone; our case study discusses a major aerospace supplier that transformed their cost estimating and pricing practices to achieve:
This leading aerospace contractor to the Department of Defense leveraged PROPRICER to turn their estimating and pricing operations from a slow, cumbersome cost center into a source of competitive advantage.
The following are key areas the case study addresses to demonstrate the power of PROPRICER and the value government contractors receive from having a more robust estimating and pricing solution.
The case study shows the true costs of having an inadequate and inconsistent estimating and pricing solution, including the adverse effect on the speed of proposal development. Also included is the need for having context around data and calculations; the risk of a custom-built tool few people understand; the need to have buy-in for a single solution; the impact on the audit process; and the ways users react to having “hit or miss” accuracy in their estimating and pricing tools.
The aerospace contractor’s pricing analysts recognized the need to improve their bid proposal process via a better estimating and pricing solution – but knowing they needed a new solution wasn’t enough. To choose the right solution, they needed to understand the real drivers of their business and how a solution could reflect those drivers. Their study reveals the major criteria they established for evaluating potential solutions and how PROPRICER satisfied those criteria.
Case study readers will learn how the aerospace company justified their ERP investment based on a wide variety of anticipated benefits. Moreover, the company received benefits it had not anticipated, which are discussed at the conclusion of the case study.