The contradiction
Most organisations are getting better at bidding. And worse at winning.
That’s not a theory, it’s what the data now shows.
According to the Loopio 2026 RFP Trends Report, teams are responding to more tenders than ever, AI adoption has gone mainstream, and processes are faster and more efficient.
And yet, win rates have dropped. From 45% to 39%.
At the same time, RFPs now influence around 40% of company revenue.
That combination should raise a serious question: Why are organisations investing more effort, using better tools and seeing worse outcomes?
The latest data points to a clear pattern:
- Volume is increasing. Nearly half of teams are responding to more tenders year-on-year
- AI adoption is widespread. 79% of teams now use AI regularly
- Effort is significant. ~30–33 hours per RFP. ~5,000+ hours per team annually
- Bandwidth is under pressure. 50% of teams cite lack of capacity as their biggest challenge
- Win rates are declining. Down from 45% to 39%
Individually, these trends are manageable. Together, they point to something deeper: The system is under strain and performance is not improving.
Most organisations are optimising the wrong part of the process. They are improving how they respond. But not how they win.
AI is increasing activity not improving decisions. AI has reduced the effort required to produce proposals. That is a real gain. But it has also lowered the barrier to responding. So organisations are bidding more. Not necessarily better.
Volume is increasing, selectivity is not. As response becomes easier, volume increases. But qualification discipline has not kept pace. The result:
- more bids
- more competition
- lower win probability
The proposal is carrying the wrong responsibility. Most organisations focus their improvement efforts on the proposal. Because it is visible. Measurable. Tangible. But by the time the RFP is released:
- the client already has a perspective
- competitors are already positioned
- the outcome is already influenced
The proposal does not create that reality. It reflects it.
This gap is not accidental. It is structural. Three shifts are happening at the same time:
The cost of responding has dropped. AI and tools have made it easier to produce high-quality submissions. That increases participation.
Competition has increased. More organisations are bidding for the same opportunities. Which reduces win probability across the board.
Decision-making has not evolved. While execution has improved, most organisations have not significantly improved:
- how they qualify opportunities
- how they position early
- how they structure pursuits
So, effort is increasing. But effectiveness is not.
This is not a bid team issue. It is a revenue performance issue.
Significant effort is being wasted. Thousands of hours are being invested in opportunities with low probability of success.
Conversion is declining. More activity is not translating into more wins. In many cases, it is doing the opposite.
Teams are overloaded but not more effective. Bandwidth is under pressure, but the root cause is not capacity. It is prioritisation.
Revenue is being left to chance. If ~40% of revenue is influenced by bids, inconsistent win performance is a material commercial risk.
This is where many organisations start to see the gap: They are investing heavily in bids but cannot clearly explain why they win or lose.
The Loopio data highlights a clear pattern. Top-performing teams are not simply better at execution. They operate differently.
They are more selective
→ higher use of structured qualification
They invest more time per opportunity
→ greater focus on positioning and differentiation
They are better resourced
→ less constrained by bandwidth
They are seen as strategic contributors
→ involved earlier in the process
The difference is not effort. It is decision quality.
Improving win performance does not come from better proposal production. It comes from better commercial decisions.
The shift required is clear:
- from proposal delivery → win performance
- from execution → decision-making
- from activity → conversion
Until that shift happens, organisations will continue to optimise how they respond rather than how they compete.
Improving win performance requires a different lens. Not just on the proposal but on the system behind it.
At nFold, we focus on:
- understanding why organisations win and lose tenders
- improving opportunity selection and qualification
- strengthening positioning before the bid
- structuring pursuit strategy and decision-making
Because the proposal is only ever the final step.
In most organisations, the root causes of lost tenders sit upstream before the response even begins.
Organisations don’t always have a clear, evidence-based view of where win performance is breaking down. That is usually the first gap.
We typically start with a structured diagnostic to:
- assess how opportunities are selected
- evaluate how pursuits are structured
- identify where win probability is being lost
This quickly surfaces:
- where effort is being wasted
- where decisions are misaligned
- where the biggest performance gains sit
The Loopio data is valuable not because it tells us what is happening, but because it reveals what is not working.
Despite better tools, more structure, and increased effort, outcomes are not improving.
That is not a tooling problem. It is a thinking problem.
Because if you are bidding more, working harder, and using better tools and still not improving win rates then the issue is not execution.
It is how you are competing.
If this reflects what you are seeing, it is worth a conversation.
