Discriminators

Discriminators are the concrete, verifiable, and customer-relevant attributes that set a government contractor apart from its likely competitors in ways that directly address the evaluation criteria in a specific solicitation, the real reasons why a well-informed evaluator would score the contractor's proposal higher than a competitor's on the same factor.

What are Discriminators?

A discriminator is not a feature that the contractor is proud of, it is a feature that the competitor cannot credibly match and that the customer cares about. "Experienced team" is not a discriminator if every competitor also has experienced teams. "The only team with three CPARS Exceptional ratings specifically for network operations at this installation" is a discriminator if verified and if the evaluators are scoring past performance.

The Shipley process defines discriminators by asking: "Is this true? Is it relevant to the evaluation? Can competitors say the same thing?" If all three questions yield yes-yes-no, it is likely a discriminator. Features that fail any of these tests are either false claims, irrelevant, or table stakes, attributes every qualified offeror possesses.

Discriminators are developed during capture through direct customer engagement (learning what the program office values most), competitor analysis (identifying what competitors lack), and self-assessment (honestly evaluating what the firm can prove). They are documented in the capture plan and become the evidence base that supports win themes. In the proposal, discriminators appear as specific claims backed by documented past performance, contract references, metrics, and certifications, not generic assertions.

Common categories of government contracting discriminators include: incumbent technical knowledge and staff continuity; specific platform or technology certifications that are scarce; past performance ratings at the exact agency or installation; unique methodology with documented, measurable results; pricing efficiency derived from proprietary tools or scale; and specialized personnel (clearances, rare certifications, specific language skills).

Why Discriminators Matter for Government Contractors

Proposals filled with generic claims lose to proposals filled with specific, credible discriminators. Evaluators are trained to look for evidence, not assertions. A proposal that says "our experienced team will deliver superior results" scores lower than a proposal that says "our Program Manager, [Name], has managed this exact program for four years, holds the required TS/SCI clearance, and was rated Exceptional in three consecutive CPARS evaluations specifically for this type of work." The second statement is a discriminator; the first is noise.

Example

A cybersecurity firm's discriminator for a DHS SOC support competition is its proprietary threat intelligence platform that integrates with EINSTEIN 3A, which no competitor has documented in publicly available contract references. The capture team verifies this by reviewing competitor past performance CPARS records and proposal samples obtained through FOIA. The discriminator is true, customer-relevant (DHS operates EINSTEIN 3A), and unique to this firm. It becomes the basis for the technical volume's core differentiating claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many discriminators should a proposal have?

A proposal should have enough discriminators to support each major evaluation factor but typically no more than three to five primary discriminators. Presenting 15 claimed discriminators dilutes each one's impact and raises evaluator skepticism. Fewer, stronger discriminators with specific evidence score better than a long list of vague distinctions.

Can a discriminator be price-based?

Yes. A price discriminator means the contractor can credibly deliver the required performance at a lower cost than competitors, demonstrated through lower wrap rates, proprietary tools that reduce labor hours, or economies of scale. In LPTA evaluations, price is the sole differentiator among technically acceptable offerors, making a price discriminator the only one that matters. In best-value trade-off evaluations, price discriminators may be worth less than technical or past performance discriminators depending on Section M weighting.

What if a competitor has the same potential discriminator?

If a competitor can make the same claim with equal credibility, the attribute is not a discriminator, it is a requirement threshold that both firms meet. The team should either identify evidence that their version of the attribute is measurably superior (e.g., "our transition methodology has zero incidents versus the industry average of 1.3") or deprioritize that attribute and identify a different genuine differentiator. A proposal that claims discriminators the evaluator knows both finalists possess loses credibility throughout.

How do you validate a discriminator before writing it into the proposal?

Validation requires checking: that the claim is factually accurate (supported by contract records, certifications, or verifiable metrics); that it is relevant to this specific evaluation (matched to a scored factor in Section M); and that competitors cannot make the same claim (verified through past performance records, FOIA requests, GSA contractor profiles, and competitive intelligence gathered during capture). Unvalidated discriminators create legal risk if the government challenges proposal claims or discovers inaccuracies during evaluation.