Proposal due Thursday, and nobody remembers the right example
A prospective client, a regional logistics firm, wants a proposal for a procurement transformation. The proposal team needs three relevant credentials: similar sector, similar problem, evidence of what changed. A manager emails the partners. One remembers a procurement project for a distributor, maybe three years ago. Another thinks there was a warehousing job. Someone finds an old proposal with a credential slide, but is it still accurate, and did that client agree to be named?
The credentials that go in are the ones someone remembered in time, not necessarily the best ones the firm has.
Why credentials are so hard to find
- Engagements are not written up when they finish.
- Credential slides live in old proposals, copied and edited so many times their facts drift.
- Client permissions to be named or referenced are recorded nowhere central.
- Searching by sector or capability means asking people.
- Partners who led the work move on, and their examples go with them.
Proposal deadlines make it worse. Prospects often give a week or two, and the first days go on understanding the brief. By the time the team looks for credentials, there is little time left to find the best ones, so they settle for the nearest.
What weak credentials cost
| Issue | Effect |
|---|---|
| Less relevant examples cited | Proposals score lower on experience |
| Facts drift between versions | Credibility risk if a prospect checks |
| Client named without permission | Damaged relationship, confidentiality breach |
| Hours spent hunting | Less time on the proposal's substance |
Confidentiality matters more in consulting than in most fields. A credential that names a client who expected discretion is a serious mistake.
How we build a credentials library
- Each engagement gets a credentials record when it closes: client, sector, capability, problem, approach and what changed, drafted from engagement documents and checked by the engagement lead.
- Every record carries a permission level: client can be named, sector-only description, or internal only, as agreed with the client.
- Past proposals and case slides are read to seed the library, with each item confirmed before use.
- Proposal writers search in plain words, such as 'procurement cost reduction mid-sized distribution', and filter by sector, capability or date.
- Results show only what the permission allows, and the anonymised wording is ready to use where the client cannot be named.
- Chosen credentials are exported into your proposal template, keeping facts consistent.
- Records are reviewed periodically, and outdated ones are archived.
A language model helps draft records and match search wording to capabilities. It does not add outcomes that are not in the engagement record, and every record is approved by a person before it can be used.
We usually start with the last two or three years of proposals, which contain most of the credentials in use, and work with a partner to confirm facts and permissions for the most requested sectors first. The library grows from there as engagements close.
What proposal writing feels like afterwards
The proposal team finds relevant, cleared credentials in a search rather than an email chain. Facts are consistent across proposals, and nobody has to wonder whether a client can be named.
Partners are asked to confirm a record once, at engagement close, rather than to remember it at every proposal.
Does this sound like your firm?
- Credentials are found by emailing partners.
- Credential slides are copied from old proposals.
- Client naming permissions are unclear.
- Engagements are not written up when they close.
- The best examples are not always the ones used.