Service
Business proposals and company profiles
A proposal wins work; a company profile earns the meeting that comes before it. Both are funding-family documents and both live or die on specifics.
- Tender and proposal documents written to the evaluation criteria
- Company profiles that state capability without inflation
- Consistent with the numbers used in your plan
- English only, remote delivery
Where these documents sit
This site exists for investor and funding documents. Proposals and profiles are companions to that work: they use the same facts about the business, the same numbers and the same voice, which is why they belong here rather than with a general copywriting service.
A company profile that claims capability the plan does not support is a liability. So is a proposal whose pricing contradicts the financial model.
Company profile: what belongs in it
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Firm overview | Legal name, structure, ownership, year established, locations |
| What the firm does | Services, sectors, delivery model |
| Capability | Equipment, certifications, key personnel roles, capacity |
| Track record | Named projects only where the client permits disclosure |
| Commercial terms | How engagements are structured, payment norms |
| Contact | Business contact details and a named responsible person |
The discipline is the same as everywhere else on this site: no invented years of experience, no unnamed "major clients", no certification that cannot be produced on request.
Proposal: written to the scoring sheet
Most formal proposals are evaluated against published criteria. The proposal should mirror those criteria in order, using the same vocabulary, so an evaluator can find the answer without hunting.
A typical structure:
- Understanding of the requirement.
- Proposed approach and methodology.
- Scope, deliverables and exclusions.
- Timeline and milestones.
- Team and responsibilities.
- Relevant experience.
- Commercial offer.
- Assumptions and dependencies.
- Compliance statements.
Where the tender specifies a format, that format wins. Where it does not, the structure above is a reasonable default.
What you must supply
- The tender document or the client's request.
- Your technical approach, methodology and staffing plan.
- Pricing and commercial terms.
- Evidence of past work that may be disclosed.
- Any certifications, registrations or references.
I do not invent methodology, and I do not write technical claims on behalf of an engineer or clinician. The document is assembled from what your team can defend.
Proposals in the funding context
Founders often need a proposal before they need a plan: a lease negotiation pack, a partnership proposal, a supplier agreement. In those cases the document should carry the same numbers as the eventual plan, otherwise the two documents contradict each other in front of the same reader.
If a proposal is the first document and a plan will follow, it is worth building the financial model once and using it for both.
How tender evaluation actually works
Most formal evaluations follow a similar pattern, even when the scoring detail differs:
- Compliance check. Missing documents or late submission can disqualify a proposal before it is scored.
- Technical scoring. Against published criteria, often with weighted sub-criteria.
- Commercial scoring. Price, usually combined with technical score.
- Clarification. Questions to shortlisted bidders.
- Award.
The practical implication is simple: the proposal should make compliance obvious and make each criterion easy to find. Evaluators work through dozens of documents; a proposal that requires hunting loses points by default.
A compliance matrix
For any formal tender, build this before writing:
| Requirement | Where it is addressed | Evidence attached | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
The matrix is not part of the submission. It is the working document that prevents the most common failure: a strong proposal disqualified for a missing attachment.
When to decline a tender
Tenders consume time and sometimes require bid bonds or commitments that are expensive to reverse. It is reasonable to decline when:
- the deadline does not allow a proper submission;
- the technical requirement is outside the firm's capability;
- the commercial terms are unworkable;
- the evaluation is clearly designed around an incumbent.
A polite no is cheaper than a weak bid.