TL;DR: A commercial architecture practice in Manchester was spending 4-6 hours per proposal. Senior architects wrote 3-4 proposals weekly - 15-20 hours that should have gone to design work. We built an agent that analyzes RFPs, matches relevant past projects, assembles team bios, and drafts the approach section. Proposals now take 45 minutes of senior review instead of 4 hours of senior labor. The firm submitted 30% more proposals and won £280K in additional work. The approach sections are often better than what rushed humans were producing.
The Confession
"I became an architect to design buildings. Not write proposals."
Rachel said this during our first call. She's a senior associate at a commercial interiors practice in Manchester. 18 employees, 8 architects, solid reputation across Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Lancashire, and Yorkshire.
She'd been at the firm for nine years. She was good at her job—the design part. But lately, the design part had shrunk.
Three to four proposals per week. Each one taking 4-6 hours. That's 15-20 hours weekly. For one person.
The firm had tried dividing the work. Junior staff could help with assembly, but they didn't know which projects to include or how to position the firm. The principal could write the approach section, but she was already overcommitted. Everything bottlenecked on the seniors.
So Rachel wrote proposals. And proposals. And proposals.
Where the Time Actually Went
When we mapped Rachel's proposal process, we found something interesting.
40% of the time: Assembly. Finding relevant past projects in the firm's archives. Locating team member bios. Pulling project photos. Formatting everything into the template.
30% of the time: Writing. The approach section. How the firm would tackle this specific project. What makes them the right choice.
30% of the time: Review and refinement. Making sure nothing's wrong. Catching errors. Polishing the language.
Here's what stood out: only that middle 30%—the approach section—actually required senior judgment. The assembly was mechanical. The review was catching mistakes that shouldn't have happened in the first place.
But seniors were doing 100% of the work because no one else could do any of it efficiently.
For more on how to calculate what time drains like this actually cost, we've written about the hidden math.
The Error Problem
The proposals weren't just slow. They had mistakes.
15% contained errors. Wrong projects included. Outdated team bios. A team member listed who'd left the firm six months ago. A project photo that didn't match the description.
None of these were fatal. But they were embarrassing. And occasionally, they cost work.
The firm lost two projects the previous year due to slow response. By the time Rachel finished the proposal, the deadline had passed or the client had moved forward with someone else. Not because the firm wasn't capable - because the proposal took too long.
The quality-speed tradeoff was brutal. Rush and make mistakes. Take time and miss deadlines.
The design is next. The design, the build guide, the running costs and the take-away are free to subscribers. Enter your email below and the rest of this Blueprint opens. New ones arrive every Tuesday and Friday.
