ProposalOS for architecture and multidisciplinary design firms
Half a design submission is images, and images are the part with the least governance. Which projects may be shown, which photographs you hold the rights to, who is credited, what the built area actually was — these questions get answered from memory under deadline. ProposalOS holds project records, credits and team credentials as governed content, and maps the written requirements to the sections that answer them, so the portfolio you submit is one the practice can stand behind.
The situation
A design submission asks for comparable completed projects with areas, values, dates, your role and the disciplines you provided — the same evidential rigour an engineering tender demands — plus imagery. Practices generally maintain the imagery well and the underlying record badly. When an evaluator asks whether the practice or a former employer delivered a scheme, or whether the stated area is gross or net, the answer usually has to be reconstructed.
The problem
The images are organised by project folder; the areas, values, dates and roles are in a spreadsheet that stopped being updated, or in whichever bid last used them. The two disagree more often than anyone expects.
Whether a project may be published, whether a photographer must be credited, whether work was done at a previous practice or in association — these are recorded informally if at all, and getting one wrong in a public submission is a professional problem, not just a scoring one.
Anonymous stages forbid practice names, logos and identifiable imagery in the design submission while requiring full identification in a separate envelope. Material assembled from ordinary marketing content carries identifiers nobody checked for.
Architecture, interiors, landscape, structural and MEP contributions each keep their own team records and formats, and the submission needs them in one shape.
Method
Number of comparable projects, sector, scale, dates, format limits, anonymity rules and mandatory forms, recorded as a checklist linked to the brief.
One governed entry per scheme carrying client, role, area, value, dates, disciplines and publication permission, so the selection is defensible before it is designed.
Registrations, roles and project histories held once and exported into the format this submission requires, whichever discipline the person sits in.
Design process, sustainability approach, BIM and coordination arrangements drafted from approved practice content rather than assembled from prior bids of uncertain currency.
Every requirement mapped to what answers it, and every mandatory form accounted for, before the submission is packaged.
Where it applies
Where identification rules differ between envelopes and a single stray logo can disqualify an otherwise strong entry.
Screened on comparable completed buildings by type, area and value before the design approach is assessed at all.
Where architecture leads and interiors, landscape and engineering disciplines contribute to one submission under one page limit.
Recurring requests for practice profile, insurance, registrations and reference projects in a new format each year.
Fit
Honest limits
Questions
No. It governs the project record — areas, values, dates, role, disciplines and publication permission — which is the part that has to be accurate and usually is not. Images stay where you keep them.
Format and identification rules are extracted alongside content requirements, so an anonymity constraint appears in the same checklist as everything else rather than being remembered.
Role and attribution are attributes of the project record, so the distinction is stored rather than reconstructed when an evaluator asks.
Yes — team and project records are held in one pool across disciplines, which is what makes a combined submission consistent.
Other sectors
Go deeper
Govern approved experience, methods, policies and company facts with owners and versions.
Organizational knowledge repositoryBreak complex tenders into source-linked requirements, criteria, deadlines and risks your team can track.
Tender and RFP document analysisCoordinate section owners, tasks, comments and versions in one accountable workspace.
Collaboration and review workflowMove approved content into organization-branded Microsoft Word templates with a final readiness check.
Export to Microsoft WordA clearer proposal operating model
Tell us how your organization handles opportunities, evidence and review. We’ll tailor the conversation to that context.