A design-build team needed to assemble qualifications, coordinate partner input, and make a credible case for public-sector work. Propagent supported the pursuit with drafting, evidence-backed review, and specific recommendations the team could act on. The team was shortlisted.
An initial draft in 30 minutes, compared with the team’s five-day drafting process.
Across an 11-category gap register, including personnel, references, capacity, and submission requirements.
A revision returned with a scored assessment, action list, and supporting evidence in 43 minutes, 42 seconds.
The proposed reference package would occupy three pages against a two-page limit. The review identified the conflict, and the team consolidated all six leads into two pages. The correction survived into the submitted response.
The draft promised completion alongside or ahead of an adjacent development without supporting schedule evidence. The review flagged the commitment, and the team removed it. The unsupported promise stayed out of the submitted response.
The review distinguished additional leads from eligible completed work, identifying an unbuilt project and a completion date outside the required window. The team could see the remaining qualification gap.
Across five assessment passes, the team received specific findings, supplied missing information, and revised its response. Of 40 recommendations whose outcomes could be assessed, 14 were fully implemented and 15 partly implemented in later client drafts.
The supplied draft scored 59/100 on the internal review rubric. Integrating fuller team information raised the score to 66; further collaboration brought the last reviewed version to 72.
One September 2026 engagement. First-draft timing covers the initial draft; research, evidence preparation, and later reviews were separate. Review turnaround runs from receipt of a client revision to delivery of the review package.
Scores are internal assessments using the procurement’s category weights, not official evaluator scores. New information and team edits contributed. The 72-point version was the last reviewed version, not the final submitted file. Two restored personnel profiles were lost in later editing; 12 of the 14 fully implemented recommendations remained in the submitted response.
Risk areas count distinct categories in the delivered gap report. This case covers the qualifications submission and confirmed shortlisting. The customer and project are anonymized.
