.jpg?h=400&iar=0&w=1380&hash=2EB3403E1F527214602B63A68DC84BCA)
Our solutions are tailored to each client’s strategic business drivers, technologies, corporate structure, and culture.
04/17/2026
AI and proposals: Why the tool you pick matters less than how you use it
Learn how to evaluate AI tools for proposal development and improve efficiency and win rates.
A methodology-first framework for government contractors integrating AI into proposal development
According to the 2025 GAUGE Report published by CohnReznick and Unanet, 54% of government contractors are now using AI in some capacity, with the sharpest growth among small and midsize firms. Business development cost has climbed to the second-highest indirect (other than labor) category for most contractors, and the pressure to improve win rates while controlling overhead is not letting up.
Most of the industry discussion focuses on: Which tool to buy? Which platform has the best interface? Which one integrates with your existing systems? Which one exports in the right formats? While those are reasonable questions, they are the wrong starting point.
The companies that are actually winning more work with AI are doing so not because they picked a better tool but because they built a better methodology around the tool they chose.
The question most contractors are getting wrong
When executives evaluate AI for proposals, they tend to focus on the tool itself. They look at the user interface, security features, collaboration capabilities, and analytics dashboards. They run demos, compare pricing tiers, and check integration requirements. This is the same way organizations evaluate any enterprise software, and it does make sense on the surface.
However, proposals are not a standard business process. A proposal is not a form to fill out or a report to generate. It is an argument – a persuasive document built from verified facts, arranged in a structure that matches how evaluators actually score, and sharpened to emphasize specific competitive advantages over certain competitors. That is fundamentally different from drafting a memo or summarizing a meeting.
Therefore, the real question is not which AI tool should we buy? The real question is do we have a methodology that makes AI actually useful for winning proposals?
What AI does and what humans do
One of the most common mistakes in AI-assisted proposals is misunderstanding which tasks should go to AI and which should stay with people. The division is not about simple versus complex. It is about what requires judgment and what requires processing.
AI is genuinely excellent at eliminating the blank page, organizing structured data into draft content, cross-referencing for consistency across volumes, and scaling production capacity so a small team can compete with a large one. Those are processing tasks, and AI handles them faster and more reliably than people.
In this methodology, the ratio of human effort to AI effort shifts across four phases. In Phase 1, AI does most of the heavy lifting. In Phase 2, it is roughly balanced between human efforts and AI. In Phase 3, humans do most of the work. In Phase 4, AI is back in the lead for validation while humans make final calls. Understanding this shift is critical to staffing the effort correctly and setting realistic timelines.
The typical approach to using AI to try to win work is to dump the RFP into an AI tool and ask it to produce a draft. While this approach produces content fast, it usually gives you the wrong content, resulting in your team spending more time rewriting than they would have spent writing from scratch.
The approach that consistently produces competitive, compliant AI-assisted proposals follows a principle that sounds simple but runs directly against how most teams typically use AI: make all the strategic decisions before AI writes any narrative. This methodology works in four phases, and each phase depends on the one before it.
A methodology that actually works
The typical approach to using AI to try to win work is to dump the RFP into an AI tool and ask it to produce a draft. While this approach produces content fast, it usually gives you the wrong content, resulting in your team spending more time rewriting than they would have spent writing from scratch.
The approach that consistently produces competitive, compliant AI-assisted proposals follows a principle that sounds simple but runs directly against how most teams typically use AI: make all the strategic decisions before AI writes any narrative. This methodology works in four phases, and each phase depends on the one before it.
-
Before any writing begins, AI is used to break the solicitation apart into its component requirements. This produces three outputs: a compliance matrix that maps every requirement to a specific location in the proposal, a scoring guide that translates evaluation criteria into concrete evidence requirements for each rating level, and a data call that tells the team exactly what information needs to be assembled. This is where AI adds enormous value. It can process a 200-page solicitation in minutes and identify cross-references, implicit requirements, and conflicts between sections that a human reader might miss on the first pass. The key is that the output of this phase is not a draft. It is a blueprint.
-
This is where most methodologies fail and where this approach diverges from the rest of the market. Instead of writing section drafts directly, the process first builds the individual components that will go into those drafts:
- Strengths and discriminators the proposal will claim
- Scoring answers that directly address evaluation criteria
- A proof inventory of verified past performance metrics and contract references
The distinction matters because it eliminates the two most expensive failure modes at once. There are no fabricated specifics because everything traces back to verified source material. And there is no generic filler because the content was built from discriminators, not from the AI's general knowledge of what proposals are supposed to sound like. -
Subject matter experts and leadership review the draft, but their job is fundamentally different from the traditional proposal review cycle. They are not starting from a blank page or rebuilding sections from scratch. They are refining content that is already structured around the evaluation criteria and already grounded in verified data. Their job is to verify accuracy, sharpen specificity, validate the technical approach, and strengthen competitive positioning. This is where human judgment is irreplaceable, and it is also where human time is most efficiently spent.
-
The final phase uses AI to solve a problem that plagues almost every proposal team: internal consistency. AI cross-references every claim, number, and commitment across all volumes to ensure the technical approach, management plan, staffing model, and cost-volume all tell the same story. It also verifies that every discriminator appears in high-visibility positions where evaluators will actually find it, and it runs a final compliance check against solicitation requirements.
If significant content work is still happening in Phase 4, something went wrong in Phase 2 or Phase 3. This phase should be about consistency and polish, not about creation.
Six ways AI-generated proposals fail
Before addressing what works, it is worth understanding what does not. These are not theoretical risks, these are patterns that show up repeatedly when organizations hand a solicitation to an AI tool and expect a proposal back.-
AI will invent contract names, performance metrics, and dollar figures that sound perfectly plausible but are entirely fictional. A proposal that cites a contract that does not exist is worse than one that cites no contract at all, because it tells the evaluator you either did not check your own work or you are being deliberately misleading.
-
Summarizing the Performance Work Statement back to the agency does not demonstrate understanding. The evaluator already knows what they wrote. They want to see evidence that you understand why they need this work done, what constraints they are operating under, and what success actually looks like from their perspective. AI defaults to summarization because it is easier than insight, but evaluators catch it immediately.
-
When AI generates content section by section, staffing counts, timelines, pricing assumptions, and performance commitments frequently contradict each other across volumes. An evaluator who finds that your technical volume promises twelve FTEs while your cost volume prices eight will assign a deficiency, and rightly so.
-
"Our team of highly qualified professionals leverages industry-leading best practices to deliver mission-critical solutions." Every evaluator in the federal government has read that sentence hundreds of times. It says nothing. It scores nothing. AI generates this kind of content by default because it has been trained on thousands of proposals that contain it. Without active intervention, your AI-assisted proposal will read exactly like every other AI-assisted proposal.
-
AI has no sense of what your organization can actually deliver. It will make commitments that exceed your capacity, promise SLA levels you cannot sustain, and describe capabilities you do not have. In a best-effort commercial environment, this might be survivable. In a federal contract with enforceable terms, it is a liability.
-
Your best competitive advantages get lost in dense paragraphs of AI-generated narrative. Evaluators typically spend seven to 12 minutes on an initial read of a section. If they cannot find your discriminators because they are hidden in the middle of paragraph six on page nine, those discriminators might as well not exist.
About Red Team Consulting
Red Team Consulting is a trusted growth advisor within the government contracting community. For more than two decades, they have helped businesses compete, grow, and win government contracts.
Close
Contact
Let’s start a conversation about your company’s strategic goals and vision for the future.
Please fill all required fields*
Please verify your information and check to see if all require fields have been filled in.
Related services
Receive CohnReznick insights and event invitations on topics relevant to your business and role.
This has been prepared for information purposes and general guidance only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and CohnReznick, its partners, employees and agents accept no liability, and disclaim all responsibility, for the consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.