Why the best proposals are scored, not read. The Shipley method and the BLUF principle explain why the order of your project plan makes all the difference.
"Proposals are scored, not read."
That statement comes from the Lohfeld Consulting Group (2022), one of the most respected advisory firms in the field of procurement. And it is a statement that should fundamentally change the way you write your project plan.
Most project plans begin with an introduction. A sketch of the context. A description of the company. Perhaps a bit about the approach "in general." Only after a page or two does the actual proposal appear.
That is exactly the wrong order.
The Shipley method, used worldwide by Fortune 100 companies, employs the BLUF principle: Bottom Line Up Front. Start each section with your most important point. Not with background, not with context, but with your conclusion (Shipley Associates, 2019).
Why? Because evaluators do not read the way you read a novel. They scan. They search for answers to their questions. And if they do not find those answers quickly, they score lower, regardless of how good those answers may be further along in your text.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) explains why this works. Evaluators with extensive expertise and involvement process information via the central route: they analyze argument quality, evidence, and logic. But even this group has limited attention. BLUF respects that limitation by presenting the most important point first.
The APMP Body of Knowledge, the international standard for proposal management, prescribes a specific microstructure within project plans: Feature, Benefit, Proof.
Feature: what do you offer? Describe concretely what you will do.
Benefit: why does it matter to the client? Link each feature to a measurable advantage for the specific client.
Proof: how does the client know it works? Provide evidence in the form of numbers, case studies, or references.
Most proposals do not get beyond the feature. "We will conduct an analysis." Full stop. No benefit ("saving you €47,000 per year"), no proof ("as we achieved for [comparable company]").
The Lohfeld Strength-Based Winning methodology goes a step further. They state that every strength in your proposal should contain five elements: the specific solution feature, the link to evaluation criteria, an explanation of how it exceeds requirements, quantitative substantiation, and customer-valued benefits (Lohfeld Consulting Group, 2022).
Ta et al. (2022) investigated which language characteristics make text persuasive. One of their key findings: persuasive text contains few self-references. Fewer "we" and more "you" makes your project plan more powerful.
Compare these two opening sentences:
"In phase 1, we will conduct an extensive analysis of your current processes, deploying our proven methodology."
"Your current proposal process takes 14 days per proposal. After phase 1 of this project, that will be reduced to 5 days, resulting in an estimated saving of €240,000 per quarter."
The first sentence is about you. The second sentence is about the client. The second sentence is more concrete, more specific, and more persuasive. And the science confirms this: concrete language persuades more than abstract descriptions (Ahmad & Laroche, 2015).
A common mistake in project plans is ignoring risks. The thinking goes: "if I mention risks, I will scare the client away." The opposite is true.
The trust model by Mayer et al. (1995) posits that integrity is one of the three pillars of trust. By naming risks and describing mitigation strategies, you demonstrate integrity. You show that you think realistically and that you do not want to subject the client to surprises.
Moreover, naming risks activates Cialdini's (2001) commitment principle. When you name a risk and then explain how you address it, the reader feels as though you have already tackled that risk together. That creates psychological commitment.
Score 9 opens with: "Your challenge: the current turnaround time for proposal processes is 14 days, resulting in estimated missed revenue of €240,000 per quarter. Our approach reduces this to 5 days." Each phase describes concrete deliverables, responsible parties, measurable goals, and the link to the client's problem. Risks are named with mitigation strategies.
Score 3 only describes its own process: "In phase 1, we conduct an analysis. In phase 2, we design the solution. In phase 3, we implement." No reference to the client, no measurable goals, no risks.
Read your project plan and ask these questions:
The difference between a good and an excellent project plan is not the volume of text. It is the structure, the client-centricity, and the concreteness. And those are precisely the things you can improve once you know what to look for.
Ahmad, N., & Laroche, M. (2015). How do expressed emotions affect the helpfulness of a product review? International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 20(1), 76–111.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Lohfeld Consulting Group. (2022). Strength-Based Winning: A methodology for government proposal evaluation. Lohfeld Consulting Group.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1
Shipley Associates. (2019). The Shipley proposal guide: Best practices for winning business (4th ed.). Shipley Associates.
Ta, V. P., Griffith, C., Boatfield, C., Wang, X., Civitello, M., Bader, H., & Loggarakis, A. (2022). The language of persuasion. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(1), 371–397.