Drafting Proposal Sections

Draft proposal section narrative from approved storyboards — narrative that is compliant, responsive, and built to be scored. Federal proposal writing has a specific job: not to describe the offeror, but to make it easy for a tired evaluator to find the requirement, see it answered, recognize the strength, and write down a good rating. This skill drafts to that job.

When to use this skill

Use this skill after outlining-proposals has produced the annotated outline and storyboards, to draft the substantive narrative sections of the technical, management, and similar volumes.

It does not draft the executive summary (writing-executive-summaries), past performance (writing-past-performance), key personnel (developing-key-personnel), or the cost narrative (narrating-cost-volumes) — those have their own conventions and skills. Use this skill for the solution and approach narrative.

Inputs

Required:

• 11-proposal-outline.md: the annotated outline and the storyboard for the section being drafted.
• 10-compliance-matrix.md: the requirements the section must satisfy.

Preferred:

• 05-win-strategy.md: the win themes and proof points.
• The solicitation Sections L, M, and C/SOW/PWS — the source of truth.
• Source material in source/ — past performance, technical facts, resumes.

Without a storyboard, do not free-draft. Run outlining-proposals for the section first, or build at least a minimal storyboard with the user. Drafting without a plan is the failure mode this package exists to prevent.

Read ../../shared/glossary.md and ../../shared/pursuit-workspace.md if not already read this session.

Intake

Ask these as a numbered list, then confirm before drafting.

1. Which section(s). Which outline section(s) is this drafting pass for?
2. Storyboard status. Has the storyboard been reviewed and approved? If not, draft the storyboard or get it approved first.
3. Source material. What factual source material is available for the proof points — past performance data, technical details, named personnel, metrics? What proof points have no source yet?
4. Evaluation approach. Is this a best-value tradeoff or LPTA evaluation? (Tradeoff sections sell value; LPTA sections demonstrate clean acceptability without gold-plating.)
5. Page allocation. What is the section's page budget?

Workflow

Section Drafting:
- [ ] Step 1: Read the storyboard, matrix rows, and source material
- [ ] Step 2: Confirm proof points have real sources
- [ ] Step 3: Draft the section against the storyboard
- [ ] Step 4: Run the compliance self-check
- [ ] Step 5: Run the persuasion self-check
- [ ] Step 6: Write the section file and update the matrix

Step 1: Read. Read the section's storyboard, every compliance-matrix row the section owns, the relevant solicitation language, and the source material.

Step 2: Confirm proof. Check that every proof point in the storyboard has a real source. Where a proof point has no source, do not invent one. Flag it: mark the claim [PROOF NEEDED: <what is required>] in the draft and list it for the user. An unsubstantiated claim is a Red Team finding and a credibility risk.

Step 3: Draft. Draft the section following references/federal-proposal-writing.md and the section-type guidance in references/section-types.md. The essentials:

• Lead with the theme. The section opens with its theme statement, not with a restatement of the requirement.
• Answer the requirement visibly. Use headings that match Section L/M language so the evaluator finds each requirement answered where they expect.
• Convert features to benefits. Every capability is carried through to what the customer gets.
• Weave in proof. Substantiate claims inline with specific evidence.
• Write for the evaluator. Short paragraphs, informative headings, action captions on graphics, no unsupported superlatives.
• Stay in the page budget.

Step 4: Compliance self-check. For every compliance-matrix requirement the section owns, confirm the draft addresses it, in language traceable to the requirement. Tag each addressed requirement inline (e.g., <!-- covers: PWS-4.1-02 -->) so reviewers and the matrix can trace it. Any requirement not yet addressed is named explicitly.

Step 5: Persuasion self-check. Apply the checklist in federal-proposal-writing.md: theme present and threaded, benefits not just features, proof for every claim, customer as the subject, graphics carry an action caption, nothing gold-plated under LPTA.

Step 6: Write and update. Save the section as a file in the workspace's 12-sections/ directory, named for the outline section. Update the corresponding rows of 10-compliance-matrix.md to status "Drafted".

Output

One file per section in 12-sections/, plus updated status in the compliance matrix.

Present the user with: the drafted section, the requirements it covers, any [PROOF NEEDED] flags, and any requirement it could not fully address and why.

References

• references/federal-proposal-writing.md: federal proposal writing conventions: customer focus, theme-first structure, features-to-benefits, substantiation, writing for evaluators, and the persuasion self-check.
• references/section-types.md: drafting guidance for common section types: technical/solution, management, transition, staffing, quality control, and risk.
• templates/section-draft.md: the section draft file template.

Guardrails

• Never invent proof. A claim with no source is flagged [PROOF NEEDED], never fabricated. Invented past performance, metrics, or credentials are a catastrophic integrity failure.
• Draft from a storyboard. No storyboard, no drafting. The plan comes first.
• Compliance is the floor. Every owned requirement is addressed and traceable. Persuasion is built on top of compliance, never instead of it.
• The customer is the subject. Sections are about what the customer gets, not about how good the offeror is.
• Do not gold-plate under LPTA. Where the evaluation is LPTA, demonstrate clean acceptability; exceeding the requirement adds cost and earns nothing.