Start With the Decision the Client Needs
A technical offer explains how you would answer the client's question, why that method fits, and what the work will not establish. It is the supplier's reasoned response before selection. The client's terms of reference define the request; an inception note later confirms how an awarded assignment will proceed. Neither replaces the offer.
Use the consultant brief prompt to understand the commissioning side. For employment or tax classification, use the separate working-arrangement brief. Calling a response a consultancy offer does not settle that classification.
A Fictional Brief With a Real Choice
All facts here are invented for practice. A small NGO must decide whether to merge two office purchasing processes next quarter. It has ten staff who use the processes, two purchasing logs and a 20-working-day calendar window. The client can supply redacted logs, arrange eight interviews and provide one consolidated response to the draft. The offer is limited to 16 consultant days. No savings target, staff reduction or preferred conclusion has been agreed.
The useful question is: which arrangement could reduce duplicate handling without weakening approval and receipt checks? A vague promise to review efficiency would leave both the method and the decision unclear.
Build the Method Around What Could Be Wrong
- Translate the decision into questions. Where is the same information entered twice? Which apparent duplication is an independent check? Who would own the combined process? These questions require different evidence.
- Name the evidence and its limits. Logs can show recorded timing and missing fields; they cannot show every conversation or explain why a delay happened. Interviews can explain workarounds but may reflect interests or memory. Comparing both can reveal disagreements to investigate.
- Explain selection. Eight interviews cover purchasing, receipt, finance and requesting roles in both offices. They are deliberately selected perspectives, not a representative staff survey. The two staff not interviewed may experience different barriers.
- Test alternatives. Compare retaining both processes with clearer interfaces, combining only the request stage, and combining the full process while preserving independent authorization. Explain the conditions under which each could work.
- Show how the client can use the result. Deliver an evidence-linked options note, a current/proposed role map and an unresolved-decision list. Walk the responsible staff through the reasoning; do not promise that producing documents will cause savings.
A Complete Offer Section
Proposed approach: We will map both current purchasing processes using the two redacted logs and eight role-based interviews arranged by the client. We will trace three recent purchases per office from request to receipt, selected to include routine and delayed cases where available. The six traces illustrate process behavior; they do not estimate an organization-wide error rate. We will compare three operating options against handling effort, independent checks, access needs and implementation dependencies. Conflicting accounts will remain identified until the relevant owner checks them.
Deliverables and acceptance: The draft options note will state the evidence for each material claim, missing records and the conditions attached to each option. A role map will distinguish requesting, commitment, receipt and payment. One joint review meeting and one consolidated revision are included. Acceptance concerns completeness against these agreed outputs, not agreement with a favored recommendation. The client names the authorized reviewer before work starts.
Inputs and limits: The client provides permitted redacted logs on day 1, interview availability in week 1 and consolidated comments within three working days of the draft. We will not inspect individual personnel files, make employment decisions, certify compliance or quantify savings from incomplete time records. If data access prevents a process trace, we will identify the unanswered question and propose a scope decision rather than invent evidence. The 16-day effort estimate includes preparation, travel, analysis, coordination and one revision.
Compare a Plausible Alternative
A staff survey might reach all ten users quickly, but ten responses would not establish why approval or receipt controls fail. A survey could supplement this assignment if the client needs structured user views. It cannot replace the process evidence simply because it produces an attractive percentage. Conversely, a compliance investigation would need a different mandate, access, expertise and safeguards. State when the client's actual question requires that different assignment.
If asked to guarantee a 15% saving within the same scope, explain that the brief supplies no defensible baseline or implementation evidence. Offer a bounded options appraisal or propose additional baseline work. Do not turn an unsupported target into the promised finding.
Before You Submit
Check that every activity serves the decision, every deliverable has an acceptance route, and dates fit the promised inputs. Separate fees from expenses and client staff time. Declare relevant interests, restrictions on methods and unresolved access or contracting terms. Leave agreement to the authorized parties.
Sources and Scope
The Consultancy Playbook, September 2022, printed pages 13, 20-23 and 34-35, supports clear outcomes, deliverables and client/supplier responsibilities. It is UK government commissioning guidance, not a universal NGO contract rule. INTRAC's OD approach, under Our OD Approach, emphasizes organizational ownership and contextual tailoring. The offer, process traces and choices above are original fictional teaching material, not either source's prescribed method.