Key Takeaways
100% of high-win teams (51%+ win rate) have at least one dedicated bid manager, compared to just 44% of low-win teams who run bids as a shared sales/marketing responsibility.
Teams with defined win themes achieve 37% average win rates versus 29% without, an 8 percentage point advantage.
65% of top-performing teams use AI proposal technology, but AI alone shows no independent correlation with wins. Process maturity determines whether technology helps or exposes gaps.
Revenue dependence on bids is the strongest single predictor of win rates in the entire dataset (Spearman correlation = 0.40, p < 0.001).
Another 400-question RFP lands in your inbox with a two-week deadline.
You already know what comes next. Your three-person team scrambles to divide sections. Emails fly across departments begging for SME input. Someone creates version 47 of the Excel tracker. Everyone works nights and weekends copy-pasting from old proposals.
The data reveals why most teams struggle. AutoRFP.ai's 2026 Proposal Win Rate Report surveyed 94 bid and proposal professionals, with 90 providing verified win-rate data for cohort analysis. This guide breaks down exactly what separates high-win teams from everyone else.
Survey Demographics & Sample
1. 94 bid and proposal professionals completed the survey.
90 respondents provided verified win-rate data used for cohort analysis, creating statistically significant insights into what actually drives RFP success.
2. 66% work in small-to-mid-sized organizations with fewer than 300 employees.
This reflects the reality that RFP challenges hit mid-market hardest, where teams lack enterprise resources but face enterprise-level complexity.
3. 40% sell to a mix of public and private sectors.
37% sell mostly to the public sector, and 23% sell mostly to the private sector. Mixed-sector organizations show the highest share of high-win teams.
4. 80% of respondents have 2-10 people directly involved in bids.
The most common team structure, regardless of win rate. What matters more is how those people are organized and what processes they follow.
5. 54% respond to 26-150 bids per year.
32% handle just 1-25 bids annually. Only 12% of high-win teams handle 500+ proposals per year, suggesting quality beats quantity.
High-Win Team Statistics (51%+ Win Rate)
6. 100% of high-win teams have at least one dedicated bid manager.
Not a single high-performing team operates without dedicated bid ownership. This is the clearest structural differentiator in the entire dataset.
7. High-win teams achieve a 63% median shortlist rate.
Compared to just 38% for low-win teams. Getting shortlisted is half the battle, and high-win teams do it at nearly twice the rate.
8. 82% of high-win teams report proposals drive more than 26% of company revenue.
When bids are existential to the business, organizations invest accordingly in structure, process, and people.
9. 53% of high-win teams report proposals drive more than 51% of company revenue.
Revenue dependence on bids is the strongest single predictor of win rates. Organizations that live or die by proposals take them seriously.
10. 71% of high-win teams use defined win themes.
Compared to only 42% of low-win teams. Win themes force strategic thinking before writing starts.
11. 71% of high-win teams conduct formal customer research.
Versus 50% of low-win teams. Knowing your customer before you write beats guessing every time.
12. 88% of high-win teams have a defined customer-insight process.
Compared to 67% of low-win teams. The gap is systematic, not accidental.
13. 94% of high-win teams use collaborative SME models.
Either "joint collaboration" or "proposal team writes, SMEs review." Only 6% use the "SME writes, proposal team reviews" model.
14. 65% of high-win teams use AI proposal technology.
But AI adoption alone does not predict wins. It's what you do with it that matters.
15. 59% of high-win teams use content library automation.
Versus just 36% of low-win teams. Automation enables consistency and speed.
16. 71% of high-win teams have a Go/No-Go qualification step.
Being selective about which bids to pursue concentrates effort on winnable opportunities.
17. 65% of high-win teams have formal review and governance.
Compared to only 42% of low-win teams. Structure creates accountability.
Low-Win Team Statistics (0-25% Win Rate)
18. 14% of low-win teams have no dedicated bid role at all.
Bids get handled by whoever has time. The results speak for themselves.
19. 56% of low-win teams manage bids as a shared responsibility within sales/marketing.
No clear ownership means no clear accountability. Everyone's job becomes no one's job.
20. 61% of low-win teams sit at 0-25% revenue dependence from proposals.
When bids aren't critical to survival, they don't get the investment they need.
21. 51% of teams without content automation are in the low-win cohort.
Lack of automation correlates strongly with poor performance.
22. Only 42% of low-win teams have defined win themes.
Compared to 71% of high-win teams. A 29 percentage point gap that shows up directly in results.
23. 22% of low-win teams use the "SMEs write, proposal team reviews" model.
Nearly 4x the rate of high-win teams. SMEs write for precision, not persuasion, creating strategic voice breakdown.
24. Only 36% of low-win teams use content library automation.
Teams with automation are half as likely to be in the low-win cohort.
25. 39% of low-win teams respond to only 1-25 proposals per year.
Low volume often means low investment in process improvement.
Performance Driver Statistics
26. Teams with defined win themes: 37% average win rate vs. 29% without.
An 8 percentage point advantage. Win themes also correlate with a 56% shortlist rate versus 44% without.
27. Teams with formal governance: 37% win rate vs. 30% without.
A 7 percentage point advantage from structured review processes.
28. Teams with customer research: 37% win rate vs. 30% without.
Another 7 percentage point advantage. Knowing your customer pays off.
29. Teams using 5-7 structured process steps report win rates 9-10 percentage points higher.
Compared to those using 0-2 steps. Process maturity compounds.
30. Revenue dependence on bids shows Spearman correlation of 0.40 with win rates (p < 0.001).
The strongest single predictor in the entire dataset. When bids matter, performance follows.
31. Bid volume shows significant positive association with win rates.
+4 percentage points per volume band (p = 0.019). Practice makes better.
SME Involvement Statistics
32. SME-led drafting is one of the strongest predictors of low performance.
SMEs write for technical accuracy. Proposal professionals write for persuasion. The difference matters.
33. Only 6% of high-win teams use "SME writes, proposal team reviews."
High performers flip the model: proposal teams write, SMEs validate.
34. 22% of low-win teams rely on SME-led drafting.
Nearly 4x the rate of high-win teams. This single process choice correlates strongly with poor outcomes.
35. 94% of high-win teams use collaborative SME models.
Joint collaboration or proposal-led drafting with SME review. Collaboration beats handoff.
36. 3% of low-win teams report SMEs are not involved at all.
No SME involvement is rare, but when it happens, it shows up in the low-win cohort.
Content Automation & Reuse Statistics
37. 59% of high-win teams use content library automation vs. 36% of low-win.
A 23 percentage point gap. Automation enables consistency at speed.
38. Teams with automation are half as likely to be in the low-win cohort.
29% of automated teams are low-win versus 51% of non-automated teams.
39. Teams reusing more content (50% or less bespoke) are nearly twice as likely to be high-win.
23% versus 12%. Strategic reuse beats reinventing the wheel.
40. 45% of respondents produce 50-80% custom material for each bid.
The sweet spot appears to be strategic reuse with targeted customization.
41. "Triple Threat" teams (automation + high reuse + insight processes) are 3x less likely to be low-win.
Only 16% of Triple Threat teams sit in low-win bands, compared to 47% of other teams.
42. 63% of Triple Threat teams report shortlist rates of 51%+.
Compared to 45% for other teams. The combination compounds.
AI Adoption Statistics
43. 49% of all respondents use AI proposal technology.
Adoption is approaching majority, but implementation quality varies wildly.
44. 65% of top-win-rate cohort use AI vs. 46% of non-top performers.
AI adoption skews toward high performers, but correlation is not causation.
45. Spearman correlation between AI adoption and win rate = 0.00 (p = 0.98).
AI alone does not predict wins. Process maturity determines whether technology helps.
46. AI shows no independent predictive power once structural variables are introduced.
Multivariate logistic regression confirms: AI magnifies your structural gaps rather than closing them.
47. Only 50% report formal review structures.
Governance remains uneven across the industry. Process maturity sits in midrange for most teams.
Conclusion
Most teams lose RFPs because their system is perfectly designed to produce the results they currently achieve."
Small improvements in win rate create outsized revenue impact, especially where RFPs drive 30-50%+ of total revenue. Even a single percentage point shift can mean millions.
Your operating model determines your win rate. Fix the structure, and execution can follow.
Download the full 2026 Proposal Win Rate Report to see the complete analysis and benchmarking data.
About the Author
Jasper Cooper
CEO & Co-Founder
After watching his team's weekends disappear to repetitive RFP work despite investing in expensive legacy software, Jasper set out to solve RFP headaches with AI, starting AutoRFP.ai. With over 10 years of enterprise sales and RFP process experience, Jasper has won everything from $1m contracts to managing a global RFP response.
Read more from our blog
Product Demo
See it in Action
Find 30 minutes to learn more about AutoRFP.ai and what the ROI might be for you.