<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8216;The Murrayfield Test&#8217; for proposal collateral</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theproposalguys.com/2007/05/31/the-murrayfield-test-for-proposal-collateral/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theproposalguys.com/2007/05/31/the-murrayfield-test-for-proposal-collateral/</link>
	<description>Jon and B.J.&#039;s Proposal Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:30:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.theproposalguys.com/2007/05/31/the-murrayfield-test-for-proposal-collateral/comment-page-1/#comment-429</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:50:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theproposalguys.com/2007/05/23/the-murrayfield-test-for-proposal-collateral/#comment-429</guid>
		<description>Michelle - ring binders are fine, if they&#039;re good quality ones! The problem here was that the team had clearly used the economy range from their local stationey store - and then made the fundamental error of using inappropriate packaging. Why some bid teams persist in shoving their proposals into that old box that used to hold copier paper, or the one that&#039;s been kicking around the mail room for the past few weeks, rather than using packaging that&#039;s designed for the purpose (e.g. those retailed by shipping companies such as DHL) is beyond me. 

BTW other that ring binders, we see people using a whole range of other options - book binding, heat binding, good-quality spiral binding,...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michelle &#8211; ring binders are fine, if they&#8217;re good quality ones! The problem here was that the team had clearly used the economy range from their local stationey store &#8211; and then made the fundamental error of using inappropriate packaging. Why some bid teams persist in shoving their proposals into that old box that used to hold copier paper, or the one that&#8217;s been kicking around the mail room for the past few weeks, rather than using packaging that&#8217;s designed for the purpose (e.g. those retailed by shipping companies such as DHL) is beyond me. </p>
<p>BTW other that ring binders, we see people using a whole range of other options &#8211; book binding, heat binding, good-quality spiral binding,&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michelle Forsythe</title>
		<link>http://www.theproposalguys.com/2007/05/31/the-murrayfield-test-for-proposal-collateral/comment-page-1/#comment-423</link>
		<dc:creator>Michelle Forsythe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theproposalguys.com/2007/05/23/the-murrayfield-test-for-proposal-collateral/#comment-423</guid>
		<description>If not a three-ring binder, what do you propose using in its place?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If not a three-ring binder, what do you propose using in its place?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

