I've reviewed enough proposals — my own and ones from subs I'm considering — to start seeing patterns that sink otherwise strong teams. These aren't grammar mistakes. They're structural problems that signal you don't really understand the requirement.
Generic past performance. If your past performance summary could be pasted into any other proposal without changing the agency name, it's too generic. I'm learning to tie every example to a specific outcome and a relevant NAICS code.
Recycled technical approaches. It's so tempting to reuse technical volumes from past bids. But evaluators can spot boilerplate, and it signals a lack of care. I'm forcing myself to customize every approach to the specific language in the PWS. Takes longer, but it matters.
Missing compliance matrices. A compliance matrix isn't busywork — it's your roadmap and the evaluator's comfort blanket. If they can't trace every requirement to a specific section, your score drops. I'm building this habit now.
Ignoring risk and assumptions. Strong proposals acknowledge uncertainty and show how the team will manage it. Weak proposals pretend everything is straightforward. I'm learning to be honest about risk without looking unprepared. It's a balance.
Late teaming decisions. Bringing on a subcontractor in the final week to check a socio-economic box is transparent. I'm building my team early and writing proposals around real relationships.