Hit rate on pursuits submitted
Better go/no-go decisions should raise the share of submissions that win, even if total submissions fall.
Engineering firms · Proposal and quote automation
Qualifications packages that take hours to assemble, not a week of senior time
For most civil and structural firms, the proposal is really a qualifications package. Municipal, county and CDOT clients select on experience, team and approach, then negotiate fee. So each RFQ means pulling relevant project sheets, updating resumes, writing an approach narrative and filling an SF330 or agency form. Senior engineers do much of it at night.
How it often works today
- RFQs are pursued without a clear go/no-go discussion, so the firm spends unbillable hours on work where a competitor already holds the relationship.
- Project descriptions and resumes are copied from the last proposal and edited by hand, so outdated hours, roles or license details slip through.
- SF330 Part I and Part II sections are rebuilt for each federal or agency pursuit, often by a marketing coordinator chasing engineers for details.
- After selection, fee proposals are built from scratch in Excel by task and labor category, with little reference to actual hours on similar past projects.
A better workflow starts with a quick, structured go/no-go decision, then assembles a first draft from a maintained library of project descriptions, resumes and approach language. The pursuit lead tailors the approach and team, and a principal approves before submission. The library improves with every pursuit instead of being rebuilt.
The improved workflow
Structured go/no-go in 15 minutes
A short scoring form covers client relationship, past performance with that agency, team availability, competition and fit. The principal decides quickly, and the record helps refine pursuit strategy over time.
Maintain one pursuit library
Project sheets, resumes, photos, references and approach paragraphs live in one place, tagged by service, client type and agency, with an owner responsible for keeping each current.
Assemble a first draft
For each pursuit, the system pulls the most relevant projects and resumes, fills required agency forms, and drafts an approach outline from past winning language for the pursuit lead to rewrite.
Tailor and approve
The pursuit lead writes the client-specific approach and confirms the team. A principal reviews and approves the package. Nothing is submitted without that approval.
Price from real history after selection
When selected, the fee proposal draws on actual hours by task and labor category from similar completed projects in Vantagepoint, Ajera or Unanet, giving the PM a grounded starting point for negotiation.
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
Unbillable hours per pursuit
Pursuit time is overhead. Reducing it per package protects utilization for the people who also deliver projects.
Fee negotiation variance against actual hours
Shows whether fees priced from history hold up once the project is delivered.
Where people stay in control
- A principal makes the go/no-go call and approves every package and fee before submission. The system drafts and assembles only.
- Resumes and license details are confirmed by the named engineer, since misstating qualifications to a public agency carries real consequences.
- Agency documents and client information are processed only in approved tools with business data terms that exclude training on your files.
Example
Illustrative example: a county drainage improvements RFQ
For example, a 45-person civil firm sees a county RFQ for drainage improvements. The go/no-go form takes ten minutes and the principal approves pursuit based on past work for the county. The draft pulls four relevant stormwater projects and current resumes, and fills the required forms. The pursuit lead spends her time on the approach section instead of formatting. The package is ready three days before the deadline. This example is illustrative, not a reported result.
Tools typically involved
What the first 30 days look like
In the first 30 days we would review your last year of pursuits, wins and losses, estimate hours spent on each, and audit the state of resumes and project sheets. Then we would agree a go/no-go form and pick the pursuit type for a pilot library.
Common questions
Is AI-written approach language risky for qualifications-based selection?
Generic approach language is risky whether a person or a tool writes it, because selection committees look for understanding of their specific project. The draft gives a starting structure and relevant past language. The pursuit lead must still write about the site, the agency's concerns and the team's plan. That part should not be automated.
Can this help with DBE participation and subconsultant information?
Yes, as a records task. Subconsultant details, certifications and past participation can be kept in the library and pulled into forms. The commitments themselves are decisions for the pursuit lead and principal. We would check each agency's current forms rather than assume a standard layout.
We are a small structural firm. Is this overkill?
Maybe. If you submit a few proposals a year, a tidy folder of current resumes and project sheets, plus a go/no-go checklist, may be enough. Automation pays back when pursuit volume is steady and the same people keep rebuilding the same content. We would say so in the diagnostic.
The business case
Does it pay for itself?
Illustrative defaults for an engineering 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
Architecture firmsCommercial cleaning companiesConstruction and general contractorsConsulting and professional services 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.