Principal hours per proposal
This is the cost that matters most. Senior time spent assembling proposals is time not spent on billable design or winning the next client.
Architecture firms · Proposal and quote automation
Fee proposals that start from a solid draft, not last year's Word file
In most architecture firms, a fee proposal begins with a principal hunting for the last similar project, copying its scope narrative, adjusting phase percentages for SD, DD, CD and CA, and rebuilding the staffing plan in Excel. A good proposal can take a full day of senior time, and it often happens in the evening.
How it often works today
- A principal or senior PM searches the server for a similar past proposal, then copies and edits its scope narrative by hand, often late in the evening.
- Phase fees are estimated from memory or a percentage-of-construction rule of thumb, rarely checked against actual hours burned on comparable completed projects.
- Marketing coordinators rebuild resumes, project sheets and SF330 sections for each RFQ, chasing staff for updated photos, project descriptions and current license numbers.
- Turnaround slips to a week or more when the principal is on site, and inconsistent exclusions lead to additional services disputes later in the project.
A better approach captures the client meeting in a structured intake, pulls comparable projects and actual hours from Ajera, Vantagepoint or CORE, and drafts the scope, exclusions and fee by phase. A principal still sets the fee and approves every word before it goes to the owner. The draft just stops being the hard part.
The improved workflow
Structured intake after the first meeting
The PM fills a short form covering project type, size, delivery method, consultants needed and schedule. That replaces scattered notes and becomes the single input for the draft proposal and later project setup.
Pull comparable projects and actual hours
The system finds similar completed projects in your project accounting data and shows planned versus actual hours by phase, so fee decisions start from your firm's real history rather than a rule of thumb.
Draft scope, exclusions and phase fees
An approved AI tool drafts the scope narrative and standard exclusions from your own clause library, and proposes a phase fee breakdown and staffing plan in your template for review.
Principal review and approval
A principal adjusts fee, scope and terms, then approves. Nothing is sent to the owner automatically. Changes the principal makes are tracked so the clause library and templates get better over time.
Hand off to project setup
When the proposal is signed, its phases, fee and team flow into project setup in Ajera, Vantagepoint or CORE, so nobody retypes the budget and billing can start on day one.
How we deliver this: AI automation for small business or fractional CTO leadership, scoped in writing and run over 90 days. See pricing or the sample scope.
What we would measure
Turnaround from meeting to proposal sent
Owners often compare firms on responsiveness. A faster, well-scoped proposal signals that the project will be run the same way.
Fee variance against actual hours by phase
Shows whether proposals priced from real history are more accurate, which protects margin on CD and CA phases where overruns usually hide.
Additional services disputes per project
Clearer, consistent exclusions should reduce arguments about what was and was not in the original scope.
Where people stay in control
- A principal sets the final fee and approves scope, exclusions and contract terms. The system drafts; it never sends a proposal to a client.
- Owner budgets, site details and client correspondence stay in approved tools covered by business data terms, not consumer AI accounts.
- Contract language based on AIA documents or your own agreements is reviewed by the principal and, where needed, your attorney or insurer.
Example
Illustrative example: a 20,000 square foot office renovation
For example, a 25-person Denver firm receives a request for a tenant improvement on two floors. The PM completes the intake form the same afternoon. The draft pulls three comparable renovations, shows that CA ran over budget on two of them, and proposes a slightly higher CA fee. The principal edits the scope narrative, removes one exclusion, and approves. The proposal goes out two days after the meeting instead of the usual week. This is illustrative, not a promised result.
Tools typically involved
What the first 30 days look like
In the first 30 days we would review your last 10 to 15 proposals, time how long each took, and compare proposed fees with actual hours by phase. Then we would agree one pilot, usually renovation or a common project type, set acceptance criteria and build the intake form.
Common questions
Can this handle SF330 forms for public work?
Yes, as a drafting aid. The repetitive parts of an SF330, such as resumes, project descriptions and firm data, can be kept current in one place and assembled into the form. Selection on public work is qualifications-based, so the narrative tailored to each agency still needs a person who understands what that client cares about.
Our fees are based on percentage of construction cost. Does that still work?
It does. The draft can show both your usual percentage fee and a bottom-up check from comparable projects' actual hours. Many firms find the comparison useful because it flags jobs where the percentage looks fine but the phase mix, such as heavy CA or many consultants, would quietly erode margin.
Do we need a new proposal software platform?
Often not. Many firms can get most of the benefit using Word templates, a clause library in SharePoint and data already in Ajera, Vantagepoint or CORE. If your marketing team produces many RFQ responses, a dedicated tool may be worth evaluating, and we would compare options against your volume before recommending a purchase.
The business case
Does it pay for itself?
Illustrative defaults for an architecture firm. Replace them with your numbers.
What this workflow costs today
a month in staff time, before any lost sales
Monthly fee + assumed tools +
Break-even: new clients a month (at first-year value)
Or: staff hours recovered and redeployed
Break-even additional revenue
Value of +1 point of win rate
First 90 days, service fee
Worth a closer lookTest the assumptions
Illustration only, not a forecast or guarantee. Recovered staff time becomes a cash saving only if spending actually declines or the time goes into paid work. Tool costs are an assumption; we replace every number here with yours before recommending a scope.
Proposal and quote automation in other industries
Commercial cleaning companiesConstruction and general contractorsConsulting and professional services firmsEngineering firmsEvent and catering companiesHome remodeling companiesIT managed service providersMarketing agencies
Proposal and quote automation: full guide
Related guides
How to hire an AI consultantAcceptance criteria for automation projectsHow to speed up proposals without cutting cornersQuote follow-up best practices that win more work
Terms used here
Next step
Bring one expensive workflow. Leave with a clear next step.
In 30 minutes we look at one recurring workflow, what it costs you today and whether there is a credible case to improve it. If there is not, we will say so.
Book a 30-minute workflow review
Not ready to talk? Take the 3-minute check
30 minutes with Phil or Martin. No technical brief, no pitch deck. Phil or Martin replies personally, usually within one business day.