Fifty-eight percent of government contractors are now using AI to draft proposal content. Mid-market firms are scaling their bid volume three to four times over without adding headcount. If you're still writing every proposal section from scratch, you're competing against companies that aren't, and they're moving faster than you.
But speed without accuracy is a liability. AI-generated proposals that go out without expert review are getting flagged, scored down, and eliminated. The contractors winning work right now aren't just using AI. They're using it strategically, with the right platforms and the right people checking the output before it reaches an evaluator's desk.
Here's what FEDCON sees working, and what's getting contractors into trouble.
The Regulatory Landscape Is Catching Up
Federal agencies are paying attention to AI in the procurement process. GSA recently released a new contract clause, GSAR 552.239-7001, "Basic Safeguarding of Artificial Intelligence Systems," which would require contractors to disclose all AI systems used in contract performance within 30 days of award. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memos M-25-22 and M-26-04 are adding requirements around data use and model transparency.
The direction is clear: the government wants contractors to use AI, but it also wants to know when and how you're using it. If you're building AI into your proposal process (and you should be), you need to be ready for disclosure requirements that are coming sooner than most people think. FEDCON covered the broader policy shifts in detail in our breakdown of the White House National AI Framework.
Three Platforms Worth Considering
Not all AI tools are created equal, and the right choice depends on what you need. FEDCON has tested the major platforms in real proposal workflows. Here's what stands out.
Claude by Anthropic: FEDCON's Top Recommendation
Claude is the platform FEDCON recommends for proposal work. It handles long, complex documents better than its competitors, follows detailed instructions consistently, and produces writing that reads like a professional wrote it, not a chatbot. Claude for Government holds FedRAMP High authorization, which matters if you're working with sensitive but unclassified information. For contractors who need to process lengthy RFPs and produce structured, nuanced responses, Claude is the strongest option available right now.
ChatGPT by OpenAI
ChatGPT is the most widely adopted AI tool and for good reason. It has a massive plugin ecosystem, integrates with a wide range of business tools, and is strong for brainstorming, outlining, and generating first drafts quickly. It's available through FedRAMP-authorized partners like Microsoft Azure for organizations that need that compliance layer. Where ChatGPT falls short is in following complex, multi-part instructions consistently, which is exactly what proposal writing demands.
Gemini by Google
Google's Gemini holds FedRAMP High authorization and integrates natively with Google Workspace, making it a natural fit for teams already working in Google Docs and Sheets. Its research capabilities are strong, and it's useful for pulling information from large datasets and summarizing source material. For proposal drafting specifically, it's a solid supporting tool, though it doesn't match Claude's depth on long-form, instruction-heavy writing.
A Word of Caution on All Three
None of these general-purpose platforms understand FAR or DFARS natively. They don't know how evaluators score proposals. They can't tell you whether your response is compliant with Section L and M requirements. That's exactly why human expertise matters. These tools are powerful starting points, but the compliance review, win theme alignment, and evaluator-focused editing still require a professional who knows the federal procurement process inside and out.
Where AI Delivers Real Value
When used properly, AI cuts significant time from the proposal development process. FEDCON sees the strongest results in these areas:
- First drafts of technical approach narratives, cutting draft time by 50 to 60 percent
- Past performance write-ups, turning rough notes into structured narratives
- Compliance matrices that parse RFPs to map Section L instructions against Section M evaluation criteria
- Executive summaries and boilerplate including company overviews, management approach sections, and organizational charts
- RFP analysis to extract and organize requirements from lengthy solicitation documents
- Bid/no-bid analysis for quickly assessing opportunity fit during the capture phase
The common thread: AI is strongest when it's handling the heavy lifting of a first draft, not producing the final product.
Where AI Gets It Wrong
The risks are real, and Lohfeld Consulting's 2026 survey confirms it. Forty to 46 percent of proposal professionals say AI output still needs significant improvement. Here's what goes wrong:
- Fabricated content. AI tools will invent past performance details, create fake citations, and generate labor categories that don't exist. In a proposal, fabricated content isn't just embarrassing. It can result in disqualification.
- Non-responsive sections. AI doesn't read evaluation criteria the way an evaluator does. It misses requirements, skips scoring factors, and produces sections that look complete but don't actually answer what was asked.
- Generic language. AI defaults to broad, safe statements that could apply to any company. That's the opposite of what wins. Evaluators are looking for specifics that differentiate your team from the competition.
- Outdated references. FAR and DFARS citations generated by AI are frequently wrong or outdated. Submitting a proposal with incorrect regulatory references signals that you don't know your own compliance requirements.
- Obvious AI formatting. AI-generated text is full of telltale signs that experienced readers spot immediately. Excessive use of em dashes, overly structured bullet points, and phrases like "it's important to note" or "in today's landscape" are dead giveaways. If an evaluator reads your proposal and thinks "a chatbot wrote this," you've already lost credibility before they even score the content.
- Data security risks. Putting CUI, proprietary pricing, or teaming partner information into consumer-grade AI tools is a security violation waiting to happen. Always use enterprise or FedRAMP-authorized tiers for sensitive work.
Best Practices That Actually Work
The contractors getting results from AI aren't winging it. They're following a disciplined process:
- Use AI for first drafts, not final submissions. Let AI do the heavy lifting, then bring in your subject matter experts and proposal professionals to shape the content into a winning response.
- Verify every fact, citation, and data point. If AI wrote it, a human needs to confirm it. This is especially critical for past performance narratives where a single fabricated detail can sink your credibility.
- Run pink and red team reviews on AI-generated content. Your standard review process applies to AI drafts just as much as human-written ones. Arguably more.
- Build a curated knowledge base. Feed AI your past proposals, win themes, and company-specific content. The better the input, the more relevant the output.
- Track what AI touched. With GSA's AI disclosure clause on the horizon, knowing which sections were AI-assisted isn't optional. It's a compliance requirement in the making.
Why Human Review Is Non-Negotiable
AI can draft a proposal section in minutes. But it can't tell you whether that section will score well, whether it meets the evaluation criteria, or whether it positions your company to win. That takes someone who understands how government evaluators actually read and score proposals.
"AI is a powerful drafting tool, but it doesn't understand what evaluators are looking for. It can't read between the lines of an RFP or tailor your response to what a specific agency values. That's where experienced proposal professionals make the difference between a compliant submission and a winning one."
Luke Stick, Proposal Manager, FEDCON (APMP Certified)
FEDCON's Bids & Proposals team works with contractors who are using AI the right way: as a tool to accelerate their process, not replace the expertise that wins contracts. Whether you need a full proposal developed from scratch or an expert review of an AI-assisted draft, FEDCON brings the experience to make sure your submission is compliant, competitive, and ready to score.
Get Your AI-Drafted Proposal Reviewed
Whether you're already using AI to write proposals or you're about to start, don't submit without a professional review. FEDCON offers expert human review for AI-assisted proposals at both the federal and state and local levels.
Upload your draft for review here. FEDCON's team will check your AI-generated content for compliance gaps, scoring risks, and the kind of generic language that costs contractors points they can't afford to lose.
AI is changing how proposals get written. FEDCON makes sure they're still written to win.
Have questions about using AI in your proposal process? Call the FEDCON Help Desk at 1-855-233-3266 or contact us online.