Where does your pursuit process actually lose time?
Sixteen statements across the five places a proposal process leaks: qualification, reuse, drafting and review, the delivery handoff, and the assurance that keeps it all safe to run on client work. Rate each one honestly and you get a scored profile and the gaps worth closing first.
No email wall. Nothing you enter leaves your browser. This is a self-assessment and a conversation starter, not an audit.
Rate each statement: No (not true of us), Partly (inconsistent or informal), Yes (true and reliable).
What the score does and does not mean.
The score is a structured way to see which part of the pursuit process is weakest, not a measurement of your firm. It has no benchmark behind it, because no credible published benchmark exists for pursuit operations at firms of this size. What it is good for is disagreement: run it separately with a partner, your COO, and a pursuit lead, and the places your answers diverge are usually the places worth looking hardest.
The most common and most dangerous profile. The firm is already moving fast on pursuit work with AI in the mix and without the boundaries, approval points, and evidence trail that make it defensible to a client who asks.
Controls exist but the work has not been redesigned, so people experience governance as friction and route around it. The fix is usually workflow, not policy.
Start here regardless of what else is weak. Every hour saved downstream is spent on pursuits you should have declined if the gate does not hold.
The cost is showing up in delivery as early rework and margin, where it is rarely traced back to the proposal that caused it.