Proposal workflow assessment

Fire Inspection Proposal Performance Assessment

Find out where your spreadsheet-based proposal process is leaking time, margin, and accuracy. In less than 10 minutes, you’ll get a score, cost estimates for process inefficiencies, and a shareable summary you can forward to your team.

Step 1 of 5 - Your Proposal Baseline

20%

Section 1 of 4 — Inputs

Your Proposal Baseline

Use your best estimates — these drive your cost and exposure calculations. Directional inputs are fine.

Proposals per month(Required)

How many fire inspection program contract proposals does your team send per month?

Average proposal value ($)(Required)

Average total contract value per proposal.

Time spent on each proposal(Required)

Time spent creating, reviewing, and sending each proposal. Don’t include elapsed calendar days, just active work hours.

% of proposals requiring rework(Required)

Please enter a number from 0 to 100.

Percentage of proposals that need revisions before or after sending.

Fully-burdened hourly labor cost ($)(Required)

Include wages, benefits, and overhead for the person doing proposal work. Use a rough estimate, $75 is a good starting point.

Rework hours per affected proposal(Required)

Average number of hours spent fixing each proposal that requires rework.

% with issue-driven concessions(Required)

Please enter a number from 0 to 100.

Exclude standard or strategic discounts. Include only concessions tied to proposal issues such as scope gaps, errors, or late changes.

Average issue-driven concession (%)(Required)

Please enter a number from 0 to 100.

Average percentage discount given when a concession is needed.

Section 2 of 4 — Assessment

How Does Your Proposal Workflow Perform?

Select the option that best describes your current state.

Section A: Touchpoint Ownership and Control (0–30)

Spreadsheets can hold the data, but they can’t manage who owns each step. How does your team manage the handoffs?

Q1: Before pricing is finalized, is ownership clearly assigned and is the data validated?(Required)

0 — Not clearly assigned. Validation is scattered across people and files.

5 — Assigned informally, but checkpoints and coverage are inconsistent.

10 — Ownership is clearly assigned to a person and data validation is consistent.

Q2: Is there a single source of truth for proposal inputs (scope, pricing, equipment counts)?(Required)

0 — Multiple versions exist. Version drift is frequent.

5 — Usually one main file, but side edits and duplicates happen.

10 — One controlled source of truth. Changes are tracked and reconciled.

Q3: How often do late-stage changes to scope, pricing, or equipment counts delay proposals?(Required)

0 — Late-stage changes are common and regularly delay sending proposals.

5 — Late-stage changes occasionally happen and are usually manageable.

10 — Late-stage changes are rare. Most proposals go out without major revisions.

Section 3 of 4 — Assessment

Pricing and Guardrails

Spreadsheets can calculate pricing, but they can’t enforce pricing rules.

Section B: Pricing and Guardrails (0–30)

How does your team stay consistent?

Q4: Are pricing rules and labor classes standardized across your team?(Required)

0 — Pricing varies by rep. Standards are unclear or optional.

5 — Some standards exist but are applied inconsistently.

10 — Standards are defined and consistently used.

Q5: How clear and consistent are escalation calculations for multi-year contracts?(Required)

0 — Escalations rely on manual math. Errors and confusion are common.

5 — Escalations are possible but time-consuming and hard to explain.

10 — Escalations are clear, consistent, and easy to present and approve.

Q6: Are errors in equipment counts, pricing, or scope gaps caught before proposals are sent?(Required)

0 — Errors are often found late, by ops or the customer. Revisions are frequently needed.

5 — Some errors are caught internally, but late revisions still occur.

10 — Guardrails and QA reliably catch common errors before proposals go out.

Section 4 of 4 — Assessment

Proposal-to-Service Readiness

How well does what sales sells translate into what ops can execute?

Section C: Proposal-to-Service Readiness (0–30)

A spreadsheet can produce a proposal, but it can’t carry enough operational detail into service. How does your team bridge the gap?

Q7: How often does service ops need to re-enter proposal details after a proposal has been signed?(Required)

0 — Ops regularly re-enters proposal details to set up service work.

5 — Some re-entry. Depends on the rep or proposal type.

10 — Minimal re-entry. Proposal info is usable downstream as-is.

Q8: Do proposals consistently include execution-ready detail (assets, inspection frequencies, scope)?(Required)

0 — Ops frequently fills gaps or interprets what sales meant.

5 — Mostly complete, but certain details are often missing.

10 — Consistently includes execution-ready detail.

Q9: Are proposals structured to reduce interpretation by service ops?(Required)

0 — Ops regularly translates narrative text into executable setup steps.

5 — Some proposals are execution-ready. Others require judgment calls.

10 — Proposals consistently capture execution-ready details in a structured format.

Section D: Visibility and Improvement Loop (0–10)

Spreadsheets can capture numbers, but they can’t track whether your proposal process is getting faster or slower. Does your team measure it?

Q10: Does your team track proposal cycle time and rework rate?(Required)

0 — No.

5 — Tracked informally or occasionally.

10 — Tracked consistently and used to improve the process.

Almost There

Get Your Results

Enter your details below to see your score, cost estimates, and biggest improvement opportunities.

Name(Required)

First Last

Work Email(Required)

Company(Required)