Shipley Capture Module

Market Segmentation

Evidence ? Record proof such as customer meetings, funding signals, draft requirements, partner commitments, or review outputs. This justifies the score. Capture artefacts in place. Next action ? Describe the next concrete move clearly enough that someone can execute it after the review. This is the bridge from assessment to action. Advance to next gate review.

Long-Term Positioning

Evidence ? Record proof such as customer meetings, funding signals, draft requirements, partner commitments, or review outputs. This justifies the score. Capture artefacts in place. Next action ? Describe the next concrete move clearly enough that someone can execute it after the review. This is the bridge from assessment to action. Advance to next gate review.

Opportunity Assessment

Evidence ? Record proof such as customer meetings, funding signals, draft requirements, partner commitments, or review outputs. This justifies the score. Capture artefacts in place. Next action ? Describe the next concrete move clearly enough that someone can execute it after the review. This is the bridge from assessment to action. Advance to next gate review.

Capture Planning

Evidence ? Record proof such as customer meetings, funding signals, draft requirements, partner commitments, or review outputs. This justifies the score. Plan in draft. Next action ? Describe the next concrete move clearly enough that someone can execute it after the review. This is the bridge from assessment to action. Advance to next gate review.

Proposal Planning

Evidence ? Record proof such as customer meetings, funding signals, draft requirements, partner commitments, or review outputs. This justifies the score. Plan in draft. Next action ? Describe the next concrete move clearly enough that someone can execute it after the review. This is the bridge from assessment to action. Advance to next gate review.

Proposal Development

Evidence ? Record proof such as customer meetings, funding signals, draft requirements, partner commitments, or review outputs. This justifies the score. Plan in draft. Next action ? Describe the next concrete move clearly enough that someone can execute it after the review. This is the bridge from assessment to action. Advance to next gate review.

Post-Submittal

Evidence ? Record proof such as customer meetings, funding signals, draft requirements, partner commitments, or review outputs. This justifies the score. Next action ? Describe the next concrete move clearly enough that someone can execute it after the review. This is the bridge from assessment to action.

Gate 0: Market Fit

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Strong fit. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review.

Gate 1: Pursuit Decision

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Shaping access and sponsor support are good enough to invest. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review. Need firmer teaming commitments.

Gate 2: Capture Plan Approval

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Capture plan approved pending price-to-win refinement. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review. Commercial model and pricing still need tightening.

Gate 3: Bid / No-Bid

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review.

Gate 4: Proposal Kickoff

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review.

Gate 5: Red Team Readiness

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review.

Gate 6: Submit Approval

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review.

Gate 7: Post-Award Review

Rationale ? Explain why the decision was made using evidence, not hope. Include market position, access, solution fit, evaluation posture, and resource logic. Open risks ? List the issues that could delay, weaken, or reverse the gate outcome. These are the items leadership expects to see managed before the next review.

BAE Systems

Capability gap covered ? Name the exact technical, delivery, security, sovereign, or accreditation gap this partner closes. This is the core reason they belong in the team. Evidence ? Record why you believe this assessment is true: customer feedback, partner meetings, past delivery, framework positioning, or signed teaming signals.

Leidos UK

Capability gap covered ? Name the exact technical, delivery, security, sovereign, or accreditation gap this partner closes. This is the core reason they belong in the team. Evidence ? Record why you believe this assessment is true: customer feedback, partner meetings, past delivery, framework positioning, or signed teaming signals.

Competitor 1

Likely solution ? Describe what they are most likely to offer in this pursuit, not their generic market story. Prime-led secure integration baseline with higher delivery overhead. Likely teaming partners ? List the partners, framework holders, or primes they are most likely to bring in. Hosting provider and radio OEM. Strengths ? Record the advantages the customer is likely to value, even if they are uncomfortable to admit. Weaknesses ? Capture the soft spots you can exploit through positioning, shaping, or evidence. Slow user iteration and higher total integration burden. Incumbent advantage ? Note any installed base, relationship, contract, or process advantage they already hold. Established commercial channels and assurance history. Customer relationship ? Describe the depth and quality of their access into evaluators, users, sponsors, or primes. Probable win theme ? Write the argument they are most likely to sell internally and externally. Delivery confidence, integration control, and low programme risk. Counter-strategy ? State the action you will take to blunt or redirect their advantage. Reframe agility as delivery confidence by showing lower integration drag and faster fielding. Ghosting points ? List the messages or evaluation criteria you want the buyer to internalize before the competitor says them. Make agility look like engineering immaturity.

Competitor 2

Likely solution ? Describe what they are most likely to offer in this pursuit, not their generic market story. Managed service wrapper using existing vehicle access. Likely teaming partners ? List the partners, framework holders, or primes they are most likely to bring in. Framework holder plus support SME network. Strengths ? Record the advantages the customer is likely to value, even if they are uncomfortable to admit. Weaknesses ? Capture the soft spots you can exploit through positioning, shaping, or evidence. Weak subsystem ownership and limited operational differentiation. Incumbent advantage ? Note any installed base, relationship, contract, or process advantage they already hold. Framework and buyer-process familiarity. Customer relationship ? Describe the depth and quality of their access into evaluators, users, sponsors, or primes. Probable win theme ? Write the argument they are most likely to sell internally and externally. Accessible route and lower friction procurement. Counter-strategy ? State the action you will take to blunt or redirect their advantage. Show why route access without strong delivery ownership creates programme risk. Ghosting points ? List the messages or evaluation criteria you want the buyer to internalize before the competitor says them. Suggest specialists create commercial complexity.

Competitor 3

Likely solution ? Describe what they are most likely to offer in this pursuit, not their generic market story. Likely teaming partners ? List the partners, framework holders, or primes they are most likely to bring in. Strengths ? Record the advantages the customer is likely to value, even if they are uncomfortable to admit. Weaknesses ? Capture the soft spots you can exploit through positioning, shaping, or evidence. Incumbent advantage ? Note any installed base, relationship, contract, or process advantage they already hold. Customer relationship ? Describe the depth and quality of their access into evaluators, users, sponsors, or primes. Probable win theme ? Write the argument they are most likely to sell internally and externally. Counter-strategy ? State the action you will take to blunt or redirect their advantage. Ghosting points ? List the messages or evaluation criteria you want the buyer to internalize before the competitor says them.

Competitor 4

Likely solution ? Describe what they are most likely to offer in this pursuit, not their generic market story. Likely teaming partners ? List the partners, framework holders, or primes they are most likely to bring in. Strengths ? Record the advantages the customer is likely to value, even if they are uncomfortable to admit. Weaknesses ? Capture the soft spots you can exploit through positioning, shaping, or evidence. Incumbent advantage ? Note any installed base, relationship, contract, or process advantage they already hold. Customer relationship ? Describe the depth and quality of their access into evaluators, users, sponsors, or primes. Probable win theme ? Write the argument they are most likely to sell internally and externally. Counter-strategy ? State the action you will take to blunt or redirect their advantage. Ghosting points ? List the messages or evaluation criteria you want the buyer to internalize before the competitor says them.

Customer problem ? Describe the operational, mission, or business problem the customer is actually trying to solve. Prime-led programmes need edge systems integration that preserves agility, user relevance, and long-term sustainment without turning Rowden into an invisible commodity supplier. Customer required outcome ? Describe the outcome the customer must achieve, not just the features they asked for. Secure a prime route-to-market where Rowden owns meaningful architecture, user engagement, test, and sustainment value rather than low-control workshare. Current customer preference ? Record who or what the customer currently seems to prefer and why. Prime-led low-risk route. Our position ? State where Rowden currently stands in the pursuit: strong, weak, shaping, blocked, or recovering. Promising but control-sensitive. Winning is less important than winning the right role. Unique discriminators ? List the specific reasons Rowden should be preferred over alternatives. Modularity, user-led deployment model, resilient disconnected ops. Proof points ? Capture evidence that makes the discriminators believable: references, deployed results, trials, or technical proof. Operational demos, product maturity, partner coverage.

Win themes ? Write the few memorable messages that should survive into the bid and executive narrative. Reduce integration drag; deliver sovereign resilience faster. Ghosting strategy ? Describe how you will shape customer expectations and evaluation language before the competition does. Force trade-off discussion around cost and lock-in. Compliance risks ? List requirements, policies, accreditations, or instructions that could make the response non-compliant or weak. Need updated accreditation path. Solution gaps ? Record the technical or delivery gaps that still need to be closed before bid stage. Manufacturing scale-up plan. Commercial gaps ? Record pricing, terms, partner, contract, or delivery-model issues that still weaken the pursuit. Need agreed prime commercials. Price-to-win view ? Summarize your current view of the likely winning commercial position and how confident you are. Need to stay inside the incumbent's mid-tier option. Value position ? Explain how you want the customer to perceive value beyond simple price. Rowden can de-risk COTS-centric edge integration through user-led shaping, faster iteration, and practical architecture discipline that primes often struggle to maintain at subsystem level.

Blue Team

Capture · Strategy Review
Can we realistically win?

Focus: Customer understanding • Stakeholders and influence • Win strategy • Discriminators • Teaming • PWin • Capture plan

Typical attendees: Capture Manager • Sales Lead • Technical Lead • Product Manager • Executive Sponsor

Chair ? Name the review lead or chair responsible for running the session and closing the actions. Participants ? List the functions or named people who joined the review so the findings have context and credibility. Use one line per participant or role. Capture Manager Sales Lead Technical Lead Product Manager Executive Sponsor Findings ? Capture the key observations from the review, especially the issues that materially affect win probability or score. Use one line per finding. The customer problem and operational value case are strong enough to justify continued capture spend. The route-to-market is viable but depends on partner discipline and better price-to-win clarity. Strengths identified ? List the strengths reviewers saw in the current capture or bid position. Use one line per strength. Strong mission fit and differentiated operational story. Useful partner coverage for delivery and assurance. Significant strengths ? Use this for strengths likely to materially improve evaluator confidence or scoring. This is especially important for Red Team. Weaknesses identified ? List weaknesses that reduce win probability, score quality, or reviewer confidence. Use one line per weakness. Stakeholder map still needs tighter buying-authority coverage. Commercial assumptions are not yet fully stabilised. Deficiencies ? Record gaps that could make the response uncompetitive, non-compliant, or unready for approval. This is especially important for Red and Green reviews. Moderation risks ? List the issues most likely to weaken scoring during evaluator moderation, such as weak proof, unclear value, pricing exposure, or inconsistent response logic. Actions ? List the corrective actions that came out of the review. Good reviews create changes, not just notes. Use one line per action. Refine price-to-win position. Close stakeholder-access gaps before the next gate.

Black Hat

Capture · Competitor Review
How will competitors beat us?

Focus: Likely competitor offer • Teaming and partner posture • Likely price position • Customer choice logic • Counter-strategy

Typical attendees: Capture Manager • Competitive Intelligence Lead • Sales Lead • Technical Lead • Executive Sponsor

Chair ? Name the review lead or chair responsible for running the session and closing the actions. Participants ? List the functions or named people who joined the review so the findings have context and credibility. Use one line per participant or role. Capture Manager Competitive Intelligence Lead Partner Lead Technical Lead Findings ? Capture the key observations from the review, especially the issues that materially affect win probability or score. Use one line per finding. The prime-integrator route will likely emphasise continuity and programme assurance. Competitors remain vulnerable on agility, user fit, and integration burden. Strengths identified ? List the strengths reviewers saw in the current capture or bid position. Use one line per strength. Clear counter-story around deployment speed and lower lock-in. Significant strengths ? Use this for strengths likely to materially improve evaluator confidence or scoring. This is especially important for Red Team. Weaknesses identified ? List weaknesses that reduce win probability, score quality, or reviewer confidence. Use one line per weakness. Competitor pricing assumptions still need moderation with finance. Deficiencies ? Record gaps that could make the response uncompetitive, non-compliant, or unready for approval. This is especially important for Red and Green reviews. Moderation risks ? List the issues most likely to weaken scoring during evaluator moderation, such as weak proof, unclear value, pricing exposure, or inconsistent response logic. If evaluator language stays generic, incumbent low-risk messaging could dominate. Actions ? List the corrective actions that came out of the review. Good reviews create changes, not just notes. Use one line per action. Inject agility and deployment-speed language into customer shaping and win themes.

Pink Team

Early Proposal · Structure Review
Are we answering the right things before we write?

Focus: Outline • Storyboards • Compliance matrix • Win themes • Graphics plan

Typical attendees: Proposal Lead • Capture Manager • Solution Lead • Compliance Lead • Reviewer

Chair ? Name the review lead or chair responsible for running the session and closing the actions. Participants ? List the functions or named people who joined the review so the findings have context and credibility. Use one line per participant or role. Proposal Lead Capture Manager Compliance Lead Solution Lead Findings ? Capture the key observations from the review, especially the issues that materially affect win probability or score. Use one line per finding. Storyboard and compliance matrix are structurally sound but need tighter quantified proof placement. Strengths identified ? List the strengths reviewers saw in the current capture or bid position. Use one line per strength. Win themes are clear and map to likely evaluator logic. Significant strengths ? Use this for strengths likely to materially improve evaluator confidence or scoring. This is especially important for Red Team. Weaknesses identified ? List weaknesses that reduce win probability, score quality, or reviewer confidence. Use one line per weakness. Some outline sections still rely on generic evidence references. Deficiencies ? Record gaps that could make the response uncompetitive, non-compliant, or unready for approval. This is especially important for Red and Green reviews. Moderation risks ? List the issues most likely to weaken scoring during evaluator moderation, such as weak proof, unclear value, pricing exposure, or inconsistent response logic. Actions ? List the corrective actions that came out of the review. Good reviews create changes, not just notes. Use one line per action. Tighten outline and evidence mapping before drafting starts.

Red Team

Proposal · Evaluator Review
Would the customer score this highly?

Focus: Requirement coverage • Proof and evidence • Strength visibility • Evaluation alignment • Score realism

Typical attendees: Independent Reviewer • Proposal Lead • Capture Manager • Technical Evaluator • Customer-facing SME

Chair ? Name the review lead or chair responsible for running the session and closing the actions. Participants ? List the functions or named people who joined the review so the findings have context and credibility. Use one line per participant or role. Independent Reviewer Proposal Lead Capture Manager Technical Evaluator Findings ? Capture the key observations from the review, especially the issues that materially affect win probability or score. Use one line per finding. Strengths identified ? List the strengths reviewers saw in the current capture or bid position. Use one line per strength. Significant strengths ? Use this for strengths likely to materially improve evaluator confidence or scoring. This is especially important for Red Team. Weaknesses identified ? List weaknesses that reduce win probability, score quality, or reviewer confidence. Use one line per weakness. Deficiencies ? Record gaps that could make the response uncompetitive, non-compliant, or unready for approval. This is especially important for Red and Green reviews. Moderation risks ? List the issues most likely to weaken scoring during evaluator moderation, such as weak proof, unclear value, pricing exposure, or inconsistent response logic. Need clearer significant-strength proof before evaluator simulation. Actions ? List the corrective actions that came out of the review. Good reviews create changes, not just notes. Use one line per action. Prepare evaluator-style scoring pack and traceability matrix before Red Team.

Green Team

Proposal · Pricing Review
Is the commercial offer competitive and profitable?

Focus: Pricing • Cost model • Profitability • Price-to-win • Commercial risk

Typical attendees: Finance Lead • Commercial Lead • Proposal Lead • Capture Manager • Executive Sponsor

Chair ? Name the review lead or chair responsible for running the session and closing the actions. Participants ? List the functions or named people who joined the review so the findings have context and credibility. Use one line per participant or role. Finance Lead Commercial Lead Capture Manager Findings ? Capture the key observations from the review, especially the issues that materially affect win probability or score. Use one line per finding. Strengths identified ? List the strengths reviewers saw in the current capture or bid position. Use one line per strength. Significant strengths ? Use this for strengths likely to materially improve evaluator confidence or scoring. This is especially important for Red Team. Weaknesses identified ? List weaknesses that reduce win probability, score quality, or reviewer confidence. Use one line per weakness. Deficiencies ? Record gaps that could make the response uncompetitive, non-compliant, or unready for approval. This is especially important for Red and Green reviews. Moderation risks ? List the issues most likely to weaken scoring during evaluator moderation, such as weak proof, unclear value, pricing exposure, or inconsistent response logic. Actions ? List the corrective actions that came out of the review. Good reviews create changes, not just notes. Use one line per action. Review price-to-win assumptions, partner margin, and commercial exposure.

Gold Team

Executive · Final Approval
Should we submit this bid?

Focus: Submission readiness • Strategic fit • Executive risk acceptance • Bid quality • Final decision

Typical attendees: CRO • CEO • VP Sales • Business Unit Director • Executive Sponsor

Chair ? Name the review lead or chair responsible for running the session and closing the actions. Participants ? List the functions or named people who joined the review so the findings have context and credibility. Use one line per participant or role. Business Unit Director Executive Sponsor Capture Manager Findings ? Capture the key observations from the review, especially the issues that materially affect win probability or score. Use one line per finding. Strengths identified ? List the strengths reviewers saw in the current capture or bid position. Use one line per strength. Significant strengths ? Use this for strengths likely to materially improve evaluator confidence or scoring. This is especially important for Red Team. Weaknesses identified ? List weaknesses that reduce win probability, score quality, or reviewer confidence. Use one line per weakness. Deficiencies ? Record gaps that could make the response uncompetitive, non-compliant, or unready for approval. This is especially important for Red and Green reviews. Moderation risks ? List the issues most likely to weaken scoring during evaluator moderation, such as weak proof, unclear value, pricing exposure, or inconsistent response logic. Actions ? List the corrective actions that came out of the review. Good reviews create changes, not just notes. Use one line per action. Prepare final executive recommendation and risk acceptance summary.

White Team

Post-Award · Lessons Learned
What should we improve next time?

Focus: Win/loss reasons • Reusable assets • Gaps to correct • Institutional learning • Next-cycle changes

Typical attendees: Capture Manager • Proposal Manager • Sales Lead • Delivery Lead • Executive Sponsor

Chair ? Name the review lead or chair responsible for running the session and closing the actions. Participants ? List the functions or named people who joined the review so the findings have context and credibility. Use one line per participant or role. Findings ? Capture the key observations from the review, especially the issues that materially affect win probability or score. Use one line per finding. Strengths identified ? List the strengths reviewers saw in the current capture or bid position. Use one line per strength. Significant strengths ? Use this for strengths likely to materially improve evaluator confidence or scoring. This is especially important for Red Team. Weaknesses identified ? List weaknesses that reduce win probability, score quality, or reviewer confidence. Use one line per weakness. Deficiencies ? Record gaps that could make the response uncompetitive, non-compliant, or unready for approval. This is especially important for Red and Green reviews. Moderation risks ? List the issues most likely to weaken scoring during evaluator moderation, such as weak proof, unclear value, pricing exposure, or inconsistent response logic. Actions ? List the corrective actions that came out of the review. Good reviews create changes, not just notes. Use one line per action.

Evaluation Traceability Matrix 1

Requirement text ? Paste or summarize the actual requirement text so reviewers can see what must be answered without opening the source document. Demonstrate sovereign resilient comms integration. Evidence & proof ? List the proof that makes the response credible: references, trial results, diagrams, certifications, test data, or delivery evidence. Reference architecture and partner delivery model. Quantified benefit ? Write the measurable result or proof point such as time saved, detection rate, deployment speed, support reduction, or mission-effect metric. Deployment schedule reduced by 20%. Evaluation benefit ? Explain why this answer should score well against the criterion, not just why the product is good in general. Strengthens delivery confidence and implementation realism. Submission risk ? Capture what could still make this answer lose marks or become non-compliant, such as missing proof, weak wording, or unclear ownership. Needs final moderator review. Review status ? Use a short status such as drafted, awaiting evidence, reviewer challenged, ready for proposal, or needs rewrite.

Evaluation Traceability Matrix 2

Requirement text ? Paste or summarize the actual requirement text so reviewers can see what must be answered without opening the source document. Evidence user adoption and operational fit. Evidence & proof ? List the proof that makes the response credible: references, trial results, diagrams, certifications, test data, or delivery evidence. Operational demos and user notes. Quantified benefit ? Write the measurable result or proof point such as time saved, detection rate, deployment speed, support reduction, or mission-effect metric. Evaluation benefit ? Explain why this answer should score well against the criterion, not just why the product is good in general. Supports usability and time-to-field scoring. Submission risk ? Capture what could still make this answer lose marks or become non-compliant, such as missing proof, weak wording, or unclear ownership. Need stronger quantified benefit. Review status ? Use a short status such as drafted, awaiting evidence, reviewer challenged, ready for proposal, or needs rewrite.

Evaluation Traceability Matrix 3

Requirement text ? Paste or summarize the actual requirement text so reviewers can see what must be answered without opening the source document. Evidence & proof ? List the proof that makes the response credible: references, trial results, diagrams, certifications, test data, or delivery evidence. Quantified benefit ? Write the measurable result or proof point such as time saved, detection rate, deployment speed, support reduction, or mission-effect metric. Evaluation benefit ? Explain why this answer should score well against the criterion, not just why the product is good in general. Submission risk ? Capture what could still make this answer lose marks or become non-compliant, such as missing proof, weak wording, or unclear ownership. Review status ? Use a short status such as drafted, awaiting evidence, reviewer challenged, ready for proposal, or needs rewrite.

Evaluation Traceability Matrix 4

Requirement text ? Paste or summarize the actual requirement text so reviewers can see what must be answered without opening the source document. Evidence & proof ? List the proof that makes the response credible: references, trial results, diagrams, certifications, test data, or delivery evidence. Quantified benefit ? Write the measurable result or proof point such as time saved, detection rate, deployment speed, support reduction, or mission-effect metric. Evaluation benefit ? Explain why this answer should score well against the criterion, not just why the product is good in general. Submission risk ? Capture what could still make this answer lose marks or become non-compliant, such as missing proof, weak wording, or unclear ownership. Review status ? Use a short status such as drafted, awaiting evidence, reviewer challenged, ready for proposal, or needs rewrite.

Solution baseline ? Summarize the current solution concept that proposal will write against. It should be stable enough to avoid major rework after transition. Reference architecture and delivery model agreed. Price-to-win view ? Summarize the current price-to-win logic, including expected market pressure, margin posture, and confidence level. Price corridor set, pending executive approval.

Proposal manager assigned ? Record the named proposal lead or state the ownership gap. Proposal readiness is weak if nobody owns the handover. Transition notes ? Capture what proposal needs to know on day one: priorities, constraints, risks, reviewers, partner issues, and missing evidence. Proposal bridge depends on locking the prime relationship, commercial model, and strategic role before kickoff.

Priority Actions

Evidence ? Record the proof that the action is complete or materially advanced, such as a meeting outcome, artifact, or approval. Evidence ? Record the proof that the action is complete or materially advanced, such as a meeting outcome, artifact, or approval. Evidence ? Record the proof that the action is complete or materially advanced, such as a meeting outcome, artifact, or approval. Evidence ? Record the proof that the action is complete or materially advanced, such as a meeting outcome, artifact, or approval.

Evidence Log

Open risks ? Summarize the unresolved risks that still threaten score, schedule, partner posture, compliance, or governance. Prime capture may squeeze margin, reduce strategic control, and weaken differentiation unless workshare and win themes are locked early.