Will Menkhaus

That makes a proposal evidence of how a team handles risk and tradeoffs, not just a polished account of its experience.

For a treatment-plant project on a small site that had to stay operational, proposers had to present a design concept, detail construction and demolition sequencing, and explain tradeoffs such as shoring costs or reduced plant capacity.

• The owner provided plant drawings and a shutdown-scenario spreadsheet.
• Menkhaus says the resulting proposals offered distinct approaches for the selection committee to assess.

Read original

They say reputation does not replace contracts or oversight; both still matter.

Menkhaus points to project closeout and extended water-quality targets before facility acceptance. In their account, the contract sets requirements, but the firm’s interest in strong future references also gives it a reason to finish punch-list work and address startup problems.

Read original

They say the number of finalists should depend on the project, not follow a fixed rule of three.

On the project, an RFQ narrowed the field to three teams. Menkhaus says teams outside the shortlist avoided spending effort on a low-probability pursuit, while finalists could judge the opportunity knowing their odds and the owner could review a smaller set of proposals.

Read original

They also make the meetings a test of the owner’s instructions: if teams misunderstand the project, the RFP or shared information may need correction. Menkhaus does not call the meetings essential.

Before issuing the RFQ and RFP, the owner asked interested teams through a market sounding and RFI whether to hold proprietary meetings and what they should cover. Menkhaus says every team supported the meetings, helping establish the process before they took place.

Read original

Starting early can prevent rushed decisions and last-minute demands on legal and senior staff.

Menkhaus names performance guarantees, early construction input during design, and reliable cost estimates as provisions owners may want to develop. They also advise tailoring liability limits, off-ramps, and insurance requirements instead of copying a generic template.

Read original

Read it first; later posts build on its premise that proposals should reveal how a team thinks, not just what it has done before.

Menkhaus observes that standard proposal sections on qualifications, safety records and delivery approach tend to converge, and are often written by marketing teams rather than the people who will run the job.

• To break that pattern, the owner treated the request for proposals as an "idea meritocracy."
• Because building a new facility on a small site while keeping the existing plant running was the hardest part of the project, every proposer had to submit a design concept, show detailed construction and demolition sequencing to prove it was buildable, and explain the tradeoffs, with examples such as the cost of shoring or property purchases, or reduced capacity in the existing plant.
• The owner made that possible by supplying detailed plant drawings and a spreadsheet for modeling different shutdown scenarios.
• The result was three detailed proposals with distinct approaches, which the selection committee used to assess each team's mindset.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful material for an owner-facing workshop or talk on writing RFP requirements that force differentiation. The concrete ask—design concept, sequencing and named tradeoffs—is specific enough to adapt directly into a procurement document, and the shutdown-modeling spreadsheet is a tangible example of what an owner must supply.

The owner used a request for qualifications to evaluate every interested team and invited only the top three to submit full proposals.

• Menkhaus acknowledges that shortlisting risks excluding a team with fresh ideas, then lays out its benefits: teams that do not make the cut avoid investing in a proposal they were unlikely to win and can move to the next opportunity; those that do make it can size their pursuit sensibly, knowing the odds; and the owner gets more effort from proposers facing a one-in-three chance instead of a wide-open field, along with a lighter internal review load.
• They state plainly that three is not always the right number and that it varies by project, framing the decision as a balance between the quantity and quality of proposals.
• Skipping shortlisting, they note, implicitly favors quantity.
• The post credits best practices from the Design-Build Institute of America and the Water Collaborative Delivery Association, both of which publish free owner resources, and closes with a Kentucky horse-racing comparison: a bet on a three-horse race versus a twenty-horse race.

For brands planning a campaign

A strong segment for an association or utility audience weighing procurement structure: it makes the case while acknowledging that the right number is project-specific, a more persuasive argument than a fixed rule.

Proprietary meetings—one-on-one sessions between an owner and each competing team—worry public-sector owners who fear procurement challenges.

• Menkhaus argues they lead to better proposals: proposers can test design ideas and check assumptions early, correct course before submitting, and invest more creativity when they know their approach matches the owner's intent.
• On the legal concern, they argue that higher-quality proposals make a process more defensible, not less, and that skipping the meetings may feel safer while actually raising risk.
• The owner issued a market sounding and request for information before the RFQ and RFP, asking potential proposers whether to include proprietary meetings and what they should cover.
• Every team supported holding them, so interested firms also helped set the rules for a sensitive part of the process.
• Menkhaus adds that if meetings reveal teams have misread the owner's goals, the fault may lie in an unclear RFP or inaccurate information from the owner; meetings give the owner a chance to fix that before proposals arrive.
• They stop short of calling the meetings essential, but say they deserve serious consideration.

For brands planning a campaign

Pair this with the shortlisting post when a client is concerned about procedural risk or challenge exposure. Market sounding is a reusable tactic for owners seeking documented support from proposers before adopting a contested practice.

Newcomers need that idea before the step-by-step decisions make sense.

Because progressive design-build projects are awarded on best value rather than low cost, Menkhaus argues that reputation becomes the asset that wins future work.

• Owners hiring a design-builder review its past project experience and call other owners for references; those same owners are later asked to describe the firm's performance, so honest feedback directly affects its chances on later jobs.
• They contrast this with hard-bid work, where a firm can cut corners and still win the next contract because its reputation does not always catch up.
• Menkhaus illustrates the point with two examples from their own project: contract language requiring efficient completion of punch list items at closeout, where their confidence rests less on the clauses than on the fact that shortchanging closeout would be a bad business decision for the firm; and a requirement that the design-builder hit stringent water quality targets for an extended period before the owner accepts the new facility, where they expect the team to fix startup problems without the owner needing to lean on the contract.
• They close by asking whether an owner's selection method rewards great performance.

For brands planning a campaign

A clear framing piece for owners choosing between design-bid-build and collaborative delivery: it ties the delivery method to incentives rather than process preference.

This post offers a practical scheduling warning and identifies the specific clauses that take time.

For owners new to progressive design-build, Menkhaus says the critical path in procurement runs through contract development.

• Issuing the RFQ and RFP and evaluating proposals are familiar tasks; building a contract for a new delivery method is not.
• Starting early, they argue, does three things.
• First, it creates time to write the method's advantages into the contract, including performance guarantees that hold the design-builder to the owner's goals, provisions that bring construction professionals into design review early and often, and expectations for reliable cost estimates through design.
• Second, it lets owners tailor items such as limits of liability, off-ramps and insurance requirements to the project and organization instead of copying a generic template.
• Third, it avoids a last-minute scramble that consumes senior leadership and legal calendars, forces rushed decisions and leaves those colleagues less confident in the project's leadership.
• Menkhaus reports hearing from owner advisors that delaying contract development is one of the most common and painful mistakes owners make.

For brands planning a campaign

Directly relevant to a scheduling conversation with a utility before procurement opens, and a natural bridge to legal and risk colleagues who might otherwise not engage with the procurement plan.

They contrast this with hard-bid, where cutting corners may not catch up with a firm.

• Project closeout and extended water quality targets illustrate how the contractor's long-term interest, not contract language alone, drives performance.
• They still say owners need solid contracts and should not take a laissez-faire approach to oversight.

A numbered Procurement Stage Key Idea post states a principle, contrasts two delivery models, and uses examples from the owner's project to show the reasoning.

The post warns that best-value procurement does not eliminate the need for contracts or oversight: owners should avoid a laissez-faire approach.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand selling procurement advisory, contract tools, or owner-side training can use this framing to position best-value selection as a performance strategy, not just a purchasing preference.

Examples: Source 1

On an owner's project, teams had to propose a design concept, show detailed construction and demolition sequencing, and explain tradeoffs.

• They provided plant drawings and a shutdown-modeling spreadsheet to support the work.
• The proposals became a way to assess each team's thinking on risk, resilience, and tradeoffs.

A decision post names a problem, describes a specific change to the RFP, and asks readers what challenges on their own project could differentiate proposers.

For brands planning a campaign

Relevant for brands that help owners write RFPs or evaluate proposals: the post shows a concrete way to shift proposal content from marketing boilerplate toward technical thinking.

Examples: Source 1

They say the meetings lead to better proposals by letting teams test design ideas and check assumptions early.

• They address fears of procurement challenges by arguing that higher-quality proposals make the process more defensible, not less.
• Before issuing the RFQ/RFP, the project surveyed interested firms, all of whom supported proprietary meetings.
• They also note that the meetings can reveal owner-side issues, such as an unclear RFP.

A post names a challenging best practice, makes the case for it, addresses the main objection, and supports it with a market-sounding step from the owner's project.

Menkhaus stops short of calling proprietary meetings essential, recommending serious consideration rather than a blanket rule.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for brands working on procurement process design, public-sector risk, or owner education: the post offers language for defending proprietary meetings against challenge concerns.

Examples: Source 1

They list benefits for teams that miss the cut, teams that make it, and the owner.

• The core argument is that proposers invest more when the odds are one in three rather than an open field, raising quality and streamlining internal review.
• They credit the Design-Build Institute of America and the Water Collaborative Delivery Association for best practices and use a horse-racing analogy about bet sizing.

A decision post explains a choice, breaks out consequences by stakeholder, and closes with a quantity-versus-quality framing.

Menkhaus says a shortlist of three is not always right; the number may vary by project.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand can use this as an example of a concrete procurement lever that changes proposer behavior, relevant to training, playbooks, or advisory content for utility owners.

Examples: Source 1

Early work lets owners build delivery advantages into the contract, such as performance guarantees, early construction involvement, and reliable cost estimates; tailor details like liability limits, off-ramps, and insurance instead of copying a template; and avoid a last-minute scramble that strains legal and leadership calendars. They cite owner advisors who say delaying contract development is a common and painful mistake.

A numbered Contracting Key Decision post lists three reasons, supports each with practical detail, and ends with a direct instruction to start today.

For brands planning a campaign

Good fit for brands offering contract-development support, templates, or owner training on alternative delivery: the post identifies a specific failure mode and its costs.

Examples: Source 1

Recurring themes include contrasting progressive design-build with traditional delivery, crediting industry bodies such as DBIA and the Water Collaborative Delivery Association, and addressing common fears directly. The series moves from procurement choices to contracting.

Each post stands alone while signaling a sequence, letting readers follow one decision at a time.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand can assess this as a repeatable content format for sponsored series, co-branded owner guides, or webinars built around single decisions.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

View example

View example

Menkhaus and Andrew S. both see the procurement document—not the vendor pool—as the lever that shapes outcomes. They describe how legacy assumptions in an RFP can filter out better proposals before competition begins.

Andrew S. approaches parking and mobility management, challenging municipal agencies' outdated assumptions in RFPs across a program area.

• Menkhaus writes from inside a single owner-side water project, tracing progressive design-build decisions stage by stage and citing named industry best practices.
• For marketers choosing between them, Andrew S. offers a broad critique of procurement language, while Menkhaus provides a step-by-step account of rebuilding one process.

Read original · Original 2

That aligns with Menkhaus's emphasis on structuring procurement to reward improvement rather than replication. Both use cost and time comparisons from real projects to make their case.

Chad Smeltzer focuses on technology adoption and asset management, with examples such as manhole inspection methods and proprietary diagnostics.

• They write in part for engineering firms looking to sell that value before procurement starts.
• Menkhaus stays on the owner's side of the table, focused on how a public agency awards and contracts the work rather than which tools a firm brings.

Read original · Original 2

Menkhaus and Nate Stoltenow both use short first-person accounts, bulleted reasoning, and a closing instruction. Both argue that the process around the document matters more than the document alone.

Nate Stoltenow addresses sales teams, agencies, and B2B service businesses on closing deals and revenue operations in a commercial setting. Menkhaus addresses public water utility owners on procurement and contracting rules, where defensibility and process design matter more than closing speed.

Read original · Original 2

In posts about municipal parking procurement, Andrew argues that legacy RFP language can rule out modernization before proposals arrive.

• They recommend asking vendors to improve results rather than simply perform a task list.
• That perspective could help the utility assess whether its facility procurement invites better solutions or reproduces its existing approach.

The examples concern parking management, not water treatment or progressive design-build. The posts do not cover shortlisting, best-value evaluation, or proprietary meetings, so they offer limited guidance for the utility’s procurement decisions.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

One post compares manual manhole inspection with optical scanning, gives a cost example, and explains how a reusable digital record can support later review and maintenance decisions. That can help frame the value of innovation in infrastructure work.

The examples focus on sewer inspection and engineering business models, not procuring a treatment facility through progressive design-build.

• The posts offer little guidance on owner-side proposal evaluation, shortlisting, or proprietary meetings.
• Ask for examples addressing those procurement steps.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2