The moment a response team sits down to draft, most of the bid's outcome is already decided.
Yet in practice, I see the pattern repeat across every organisation I've worked with: the hard decisions get deferred. Who are we actually writing for? What matters most to the client? Where can we genuinely differentiate? What evidence proves it?
These questions stay open until people start typing, and once they do, drafting becomes a scramble to figure out strategy in real time.
This collapsed process costs more than bad writing ever could. When strategy and drafting happen together, clarity comes too late. The team gathers unsure of the actual solution being pursued. Senior specialists spend hours reworking sections that were drafted before anyone agreed on what should be said.
The proposal that ships is weaker, not because the writing is poor, but because the thinking was incomplete. On a bid of any real size, that's not a stylistic problem. It's marks left on the table with the evaluator, and on some tenders a handful of marks is the whole difference between winning and coming a close second.
A few years ago, I worked on a large, complex offshore wind bid that required the development of an integrated energy system. This included various energy solutions such as hydrogen, mobility and batteries, but also PPAs for heat and electricity with users of the industrial port.
We had to propose a range of solutions within a tight page limit. The fatal move was mixing the two steps: we spent so much time crafting the solutions as strategy and then drafting that strategy into the proposal at the same time.
We should have done the upfront research and strategy work properly first, so the win themes were clear early. Instead, the team coordinated while still genuinely unclear on the solution we were pursuing. Strategy and drafting collapsed into one step, and clarity came when it was too late to act on it.
The sequence is restored: think first, write second.
The strongest bid teams I've worked with made the hardest decisions before drafting started. By the time the response team opens a document, the big questions have already been answered: customer positioning, evaluation criteria, differentiation points, supporting evidence, response architecture and ownership.
This isn't about planning more. It's about sequencing differently: separate the thinking from the writing, so each can be done well.
This is where an agentic workflow reshapes the game. Once the strategy is locked, an AI-augmented team doesn't scramble to invent solutions while drafting. Instead, the team interprets the requirement properly upfront, dedicates subject matter experts and leads to the actual solution work, then feeds those clear decisions into a structured process where AI helps capture, structure and draft those solutions.
Humans review at each stage. The sequence is restored: think first, write second. For whoever carries the win-rate number, that sequencing is also the difference between senior time spent deciding and senior time spent firefighting a draft that's already three weeks in.
Where does strategy arrive too late?
This one's been stuck in my head for a while because I see the cost of it so clearly. Have you run a bid where strategy and drafting got tangled together, and clarity came too late to matter? I'd be curious to hear how your strongest teams handle the separation.
Tell me how you separate them →
About the author
Yorik Tisseau (MBA) is the founder of Ignis Leadership and a bid strategist with more than 15 years of experience, from estimator to Bid Director. He has led complex international bids across energy, infrastructure and construction, including offshore wind development at bp and RWE.
Today, he helps organisations build AI-augmented bid capabilities that strengthen decision-making, reuse knowledge and improve win rates. His focus is simple: helping bid teams bid more, win more, and do it systematically.