Home › Foundation Check
Compare win rates against a structured evaluation of the proposal document itself, independent of the underlying offer — if proposals score poorly on clarity, trust-building, and next-step guidance regardless of how strong the underlying offer is, presentation is likely a contributing factor worth addressing.
When RFP win rates are lower than expected, the natural assumption is that the underlying offer — pricing, capabilities, terms — isn't competitive enough, and the response is often to adjust those elements. This may be correct, but it's also possible that a competitive underlying offer is being undermined by how the proposal document itself communicates that offer.
A structured evaluation of the proposal document — using the same behavioral conversion framework applied to websites and other customer-facing assets — assesses whether the document builds trust, addresses likely evaluator concerns, and makes the decision and next steps clear, independent of whether the underlying offer is competitive. This separates "is our offer good" from "does our document communicate that our offer is good" — two different questions that are often conflated.
For organizations submitting RFP responses regularly, this evaluation can be done once at the template level — identifying structural issues that affect every response — rather than evaluating each individual proposal, providing a scalable way to address a systemic pattern.
Yes — the same V7 framework works from an existing proposal or template, identifying specific structural and content issues that can be corrected without starting over.
Tracking win rate before and after template changes, ideally across enough submissions to be statistically meaningful, is the most direct measurement — though this takes time to accumulate.
The behavioral conversion principles — clarity, trust, clear next steps — apply alongside technical or regulatory requirements, not instead of them. The evaluation works within whatever constraints exist.