By: Brenda Crist & Beth Wingate
The first evaluator of your proposal may no longer be human. Federal agencies are deploying artificial intelligence tools that conduct compliance evaluations in minutes, verifying that required forms are included, proposals meet solicitation requirements and instructions, and clauses and terms are adhered to. If an AI tool finds your proposal is non-compliant, and the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) confirms this, your proposal will likely be eliminated from the competition before a human evaluator reviews your approach.
As more agencies adopt AI tools, their tolerance for errors and omissions decreases. That said, the SSEB and source selection authority (SSA) remain firmly in control of the ratings and award decisions, but AI will continue to shape how they record, analyze and report their findings.
Who’s using AI and how
From the General Services Administration (GSA) to the Defense Department (DoD), AI tools are already integrated into acquisition workflows, and the list of agencies adopting or expanding their use continues to grow. Additionally, some agencies are using commercial and enterprise large language models (LLMs) to support acquisition lifecycle functions, including drafting evaluation narratives and documenting findings.
For contractors, the implication is direct. Proposals that are not structured for AI-assisted review are increasingly at risk before a human evaluator ever engages.
How to develop proposals differently
If AI tools, rather than humans, are likely to review proposals first and SSEB members use AI tools to perform evaluation functions, what should you do differently when preparing proposals?
- Treat the compliance matrix as a navigation document and not a checklist. Submit a compliance matrix whenever allowed by the solicitation. When it isn’t, make sure each requirement maps explicitly to a section heading, page number or paragraph, giving both AI tools and human evaluators a precise roadmap to your responses. The more precise the mapping, the lower the chance a reviewer will think a requirement was left unaddressed.
- Structure for extraction, not just readability. AI tools parse proposals looking for explicit responses aligned with requirements. Each section should start with a clear, one-sentence response to the evaluation criterion, followed by supporting details.
- Use the solicitation’s terminology and section headings. Develop style guides that mirror the solicitation’s headings, numbering conventions and terminology. The more your language aligns with the solicitation’s language, the easier it is for both AI and human evaluators to verify that your proposal addresses each requirement.
- Make proposal strengths clear and easy to verify. In best-value competitions, strengths are currency. They should be easy to identify and impossible to dispute. Every strength statement must include three elements: a specific feature, a beneficial outcome and a verifiable proof point. For example, instead of “We have extensive cybersecurity experience,” a verifiable strength reads: “Our zero-trust architecture reduced client network intrusions by 40% on Contract ABC, earning Exceptional contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS) ratings for five years.” Before submitting, use your AI audit tool to confirm each strength meets this standard.
- Include critical information in text, not just graphics. AI tools process text more reliably than they extract text from graphics, complex tables or figures. If an important strength is only shown in a graphic, it might not be recognized.
- Audit your proposals before submission. Run your proposal through an internal audit during reviews and before submission. Ask your AI tool to flag unaddressed requirements, unmitigated risks and “AI speak” (vague, unsubstantiated language). If your tools detect these issues, the government’s tools will likely find them too.
- Pay attention to forms and attachments. Compliance tools first verify the presence and completeness of forms, certifications and attachments. A brilliant technical volume doesn’t matter if the required offer form is missing or a representation is unsigned. Create a submission checklist that maps every required form, certification and attachment to its corresponding proposal section.
The first reviewer of your proposal might no longer be human, but the last one still is. The SSEB and SSA retain full authority over every rating and award decision, and a thorough understanding of customer requirements, clear strengths supported by proof and compelling narratives still win contracts. AI doesn’t change that. What it does change is whether your proposal stays in the competition long enough for human evaluators to review it. Structure your proposals for the machine and write them for the human evaluator. That is the new standard for winning proposals.
