A 30-person architecture firm with strong reputation in healthcare and education projects. Proposals were taking 80-120 hours of senior staff time per submission. The firm was selective about which RFPs to pursue purely because of capacity. After a Treetop Implementation engagement, that constraint dissolved. Here is what happened.
Composite case study: a synthesis of patterns we have seen repeatedly across similar engagements. Specific names, numbers, and details are illustrative; the patterns and outcomes reflect real client results.
Firm: 30-person architecture firm, $9M revenue, mixed healthcare and education projects.
Volume: Responded to ~12 RFPs per year. Project sizes $500K-$8M in fees.
Pain: Each RFP response took 80-120 hours of senior architect time over 2-3 weeks. The firm passed on at least 8 promising RFPs annually due to capacity.
Existing AI usage: Marketing coordinator used ChatGPT for first-draft narrative. No structured workflow, no firm-wide adoption.
Week 1: Audit of last 2 years of RFP responses — wins, losses, and themes. Cataloged the standard content blocks that recurred across submissions.
Week 2: Built an RFP Response Project loaded with: firm history and qualifications, all past project descriptions with photos and metrics, signature design philosophy, principal bios, references.
Week 3: Built a Project Description Project to generate consistent, well-written project sheets in firm voice from raw project data.
Week 4: Trained the principal, marketing coordinator, and 2 senior architects on the workflow. Built a checklist for the parts that still required senior thinking — design narrative, fee strategy, team selection.
Old workflow: Marketing coordinator pulls past content → senior architects write design narrative → principal reviews everything → multiple revision rounds. 80-120 hrs over 2-3 weeks.
New workflow: Marketing coordinator runs RFP through RFP Project for first full draft (3 hrs) → senior architects focus only on the design narrative and team-fit sections (15 hrs) → principal reviews (5 hrs) → one revision round. 30-40 hrs over 5 days.
Quality: Win rate on competitive RFPs held steady at 32%. The team has not noticed a quality drop in submissions; clients have not commented.
Submission volume: Firm went from responding to 12 RFPs/year to 22 in the first year post-engagement.
Pipeline: Doubled submission volume produced 4 incremental wins worth $3.2M in fees over 18 months.
Principal time: Principal recovered ~30 hours per month previously spent on proposal editing.
Senior architect satisfaction: Senior architects reported relief — they now spent proposal time on the parts that required their judgment, not on assembling boilerplate.
Investment: $6,500 Implementation + $400/month Claude Team for 10 seats. Total first-year cost: ~$11,500. Estimated value: $3.2M in incremental fees.