ProposalOS for engineering and infrastructure consultancies
Engineering tenders are won on comparable references and named experts, not on prose. The projects are in your archive, the registrations are in someone's drawer, and the eligibility threshold turns on whether a scheme you delivered in 2019 was above or below a contract value nobody can immediately confirm. ProposalOS keeps project records, expert credentials and certifications in one governed place, and maps every tender requirement to the evidence that answers it.
The situation
Most infrastructure tenders screen on hard thresholds first: minimum number of comparable assignments, minimum contract value, specific sector or asset class, sometimes country or climate-zone experience. A submission that fails one of those is scored zero regardless of how good the technical approach is. The work that decides the outcome therefore happens in the first two days — establishing what you can actually evidence — and it is usually the least organised part of the process.
The problem
The same scheme appears with different contract values, different completion dates and a different description of your scope depending on which past bid it was copied from. Under a value threshold, that inconsistency is not cosmetic — it decides eligibility, and a client who spot-checks will find it.
The narrative is fine; the assignment list stops two years ago, the professional registration expired last quarter, and the donor's mandatory CV format is not the one you have. Rebuilding a key-expert CV the night before submission is routine, and it is where errors enter.
ISO certificates, professional body memberships, classification grades and insurance certificates all have expiry dates. They are collected per-bid rather than maintained, so each submission re-runs the same scramble and occasionally attaches something that lapsed.
A joint venture or lead-plus-partner submission needs each party's references, staff and documents in one consistent format, gathered by a deadline earlier than your own. Chasing that by email is how partners' material arrives late and inconsistent.
Forms, declarations, powers of attorney, tax and social-security clearances, bid security. Individually trivial, collectively the most common cause of a technically strong bid being ruled non-responsive.
Method
Load the tender and get thresholds, minimum experience, required disciplines and mandatory documents extracted as a checklist. Compare them with the project records you hold before committing a technical director's week.
Client, value, dates, your scope, disciplines, asset type and outcome — recorded once, with an owner and a review date, so the number in the submission is the number the firm stands behind.
Search staff records by discipline, years of experience, registration, language and comparable assignments, then produce the CV in the format this tender demands rather than editing last year's.
Assisted drafting pulls from approved methodologies and past technical narratives, and shows the source of each suggestion. A person decides what goes in, which is what lets a design director defend it in a clarification meeting.
Consortium contributions are assigned as sections with owners and due dates, so what arrives is in the format the submission needs and its absence is visible while there is still time.
Every extracted requirement is mapped to the section or document answering it. Missing forms, expired certificates and unanswered clauses surface as a list, not as a discovery on submission morning.
Where it applies
Roads, water networks, buildings and utilities, where the authority screens on comparable completed schemes and on the availability of registered engineers for the assignment period.
Corporate capability, financial standing, classification, equipment and reference lists requested annually by every authority in a different format — the highest-reuse work an engineering firm does.
Where an international lead needs a local partner's registrations and references, or vice versa, and both sets of evidence must arrive in one consistent submission.
Once on a framework, each call-off reuses the same corporate and staffing content with a new technical annex. The reusable half should not be rewritten each time.
Where the funder imposes its own CV template, expert categories and eligibility rules on top of the client's technical requirements, and both must be satisfied simultaneously.
Fit
Honest limits
Questions
Expert records are held once and exported into the structure a given submission requires, so the underlying assignment history stays a single source rather than being retyped per template.
Partner contributions are assigned as owned sections with due dates, so missing material is visible early and arrives in the structure the submission needs.
Knowledge items carry an owner and a review date, so certificates and registrations are maintained as records rather than rediscovered per bid.
No. ProposalOS covers the technical submission and its supporting documentation. Pricing stays in whatever your firm already uses for it.
Other sectors
Go deeper
Govern approved experience, methods, policies and company facts with owners and versions.
Organizational knowledge repositoryFind relevant evidence by words and meaning, narrowed by type, tag, language and approval state.
Search across company knowledgeSurface missing responses, evidence, attachments and approvals before they become submission risk.
Compliance and completeness checksMove 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.