Another invitation to bid
An enquiry comes in for cost management on a mixed-use scheme, with a return date at the end of next week. A partner finds a proposal from a similar job, saves a copy and starts editing. The scope of services needs rewriting for this job's procurement route. CVs need updating. The fee needs working out, which means estimating resource per stage in a spreadsheet that lives on the partner's desktop.
The finished proposal goes out on the deadline. A week later someone notices it still mentions the previous client's name in the appendix.
What makes proposals so laborious
- Scope descriptions are rewritten each time instead of drawn from a set of approved wording.
- The resourcing assumptions behind fees sit in personal spreadsheets, so fees are calculated differently by different partners.
- CVs and project experience are out of date and scattered.
- Framework and public sector bids ask for the same information in different formats.
- There is no record of which proposals won, at what fee, and why.
What the current way costs you
Partner time goes on assembly rather than on the parts that win work, such as understanding the client's concerns and pricing the risk properly. Inconsistent scopes lead to fee disputes when the client thinks something was included. Errors in submitted documents look careless. And without a record of wins and losses, pricing is based on instinct.
| Part of the proposal | Today | With the builder |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of services | Edited from an old proposal | Selected from approved wording per service and stage |
| Fee | Personal spreadsheet | Calculated from your resourcing assumptions, then adjusted |
| Team and CVs | Searched for and updated by hand | Current CVs and project sheets chosen from a library |
| Checks before issue | Proofread under pressure | Leftover names and missing sections flagged |
| Win and loss record | None | Outcome and fee recorded per proposal |
The proposal builder
- We gather your best recent proposals and turn their scope wording into a library, organised by service, such as cost planning, tender, post-contract, employer's agent, and by RIBA stage.
- A partner picks the services and stages for this enquiry, and the builder assembles the scope, with notes on what is typically excluded.
- A fee calculator estimates resource per stage from your own assumptions, by project type and value, which the partner then adjusts with their judgement.
- Team members, CVs and relevant project sheets are chosen from a maintained library.
- For framework returns, the same content is mapped into the client's required format or question structure.
- Before issue, the builder checks for names from other clients, missing sections and inconsistent figures between the fee table and the letter.
- Each proposal's outcome and final fee is recorded, so partners can see what has won before.
A language model can help draft a first version of the understanding-of-the-project section from the enquiry documents, for the partner to rewrite. The fee and the scope are never set by the tool.
Proposals after the build
A partner can put together a sound first draft in far less of their evening. Scope wording is consistent across the practice, which makes later fee conversations easier. Fees rest on shared assumptions. The practice builds up a record of what it bid, what it won and at what level, which makes the next pricing decision better informed.
The approved scope also carries through into the appointment. When the proposal is accepted, the services and stages it listed become the fee budget for the job, so the project lead knows from the first day what was promised and what would count as additional. That closes the gap between what sales said and what delivery does.
Does this sound familiar?
- Every proposal starts by copying an old one.
- A proposal has gone out with another client's name in it.
- Partners calculate fees in their own spreadsheets.
- CVs in proposals are out of date.
- Nobody can say what fee level has been winning work.