A proposal is a scored document. We write to the evaluation factors, in plain language, with the evidence contracting officers actually look for. The result reads like the person who wrote it understands the solicitation — because they do.
Not because the company can't do the work. Because the proposal doesn't map to how evaluators score it.
Every proposal starts from the solicitation, not from a template. Here's what that looks like in practice.
We read the RFP or RFQ line by line — every evaluation factor, every compliance requirement, every page limit. We build a compliance matrix before a single word is written. If a requirement can't be met, we tell you before you spend money on a proposal that was going to be eliminated.
Before drafting, we define the one thing the evaluator should remember about your submission. The win theme runs through every section — technical, management, past performance, price. It's what makes a proposal feel coherent instead of assembled.
We write each section against its specific evaluation factor. Technical approach maps to the SOW. Past performance highlights engagements with matching scope, agency, and contract type. Management plan addresses the actual risks in this solicitation — not generic risk matrices copied from the last bid.
We pull the specific proof: contract numbers, dollar values, period of performance, agency names, outcomes. "Relevant experience" without numbers is a claim. With numbers, it's evidence. Evaluators score evidence.
Final pass against the compliance matrix — every requirement, every page limit, every formatting rule. Then a red-team read: if we were the evaluator, would this proposal score well? If not, we fix it before it goes out, not after.
We help with the final assembly, SAM.gov validation, and submission mechanics. The best proposal can still lose if the submission is late or rejected for a formatting error. We close that gap.
Every RFP requirement mapped to where it's addressed in the proposal. Your proof that nothing was missed.
Technical, management, past performance, and price volumes — written against the evaluation factors, in plain language.
The through-line that makes your proposal memorable. One page. The evaluator should be able to repeat it after one read.
Specific contract data — numbers, agencies, scope, outcomes — formatted for the past performance volume.
A candid evaluation-read of the draft. What scores well, what doesn't, what to fix before submission.
Final formatting, SAM.gov validation, and submission window management. The last mile, handled.
No. Anyone who does is lying. We guarantee a compliant, evaluator-responsive proposal that gives you the best chance your capability earns. The rest depends on the competition, the agency, and factors no consultant controls.
RFPs, RFQs, and task orders under IDIQ and GSA Schedule vehicles. We do not write grant proposals — that's a different discipline with different evaluators.
It depends on the solicitation — complexity, number of volumes, page count, deadline. After we review the RFP, we give you a fixed price. No hourly billing, no surprise invoices. If the scope changes materially, we renegotiate before the work changes — never after.
The ideal window is 3–4 weeks before the submission deadline. We can work faster, but proposals written under extreme time pressure lose the strategy and evidence-assembly steps that make the difference. If you have less than a week, call us — we'll tell you honestly whether it's doable.
We'll tell you during the fit assessment. Some solicitations allow teaming arrangements or subcontracting to build a past performance volume. Others don't. We won't take your money to write a proposal we know will score poorly.
A 45-minute fit assessment. No cost, no obligation, no follow-up drip.
Book a Fit Assessment