Most teams still scope deals out of Word docs, ancient PDFs, and 47-message email threads. Discovery2Deal replaces all of it with a single AI-native workflow — and ships a delivery-ready WBS at the end.
The three patterns we hear from agencies, consultancies, and service businesses every week.
Clarifying questions trickle in over weeks across 40+ replies. Half the answers live in someone's inbox. New hires can never reconstruct the picture.
The same 'about us' paragraph, rewritten in 200 slightly-different Word docs. Stale pricing, wrong logos, contradictory legal terms — all one find-and-replace away from going out the door.
Delivery re-keys phases, tasks, and hours into a project plan from scratch. Scope drift starts on day one because nothing in the proposal maps to anything actionable.
Manual / Word-based workflows vs. generic AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude) vs. Discovery2Deal.
| Capability | Traditional / Manual | Generic AI (ChatGPT) | Discovery2Deal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structured discovery questions | Ad-hoc, depends on the BD lead's experience | Generic prompts; no industry awareness | Prioritized, industry-aware, prevents re-asking baseline |
| Industry-aware templates | Whatever you cloned last time | Free-form text; no structure enforced | 30+ templates across 15+ industries, simple → CMM Level 5 |
| Multi-reviewer critique | If you can wrangle a colleague's hour | One model, one perspective | 4 specialized agents: Tech, Finance, Legal, Red Team |
| Real-time client chat with AI follow-ups | Email + Zoom transcripts | No live multi-party context | Live Discovery: answer-aware suggestions from full context |
| Competitor / similar-solution research | An analyst spends hours on Google | Limited to training data; no project context | External Discovery uses your project context to find solutions |
| Live web research | Manual search engine work | Some products offer browsing add-ons | Built-in Perplexity integration with citation URLs |
| Bulk bid triage & fit scoring | Read every brief manually | One-at-a-time prompting; no ranking | Paste 20 briefs, get fit score 0–100 + rationale per bid |
| Round-over-round versioning & diffs | Filename hell: proposal_v17_FINAL_v3.docx | No native versioning | Versioned proposals with side-by-side round comparison |
| Project cloning | Save As + manual cleanup | No project model | Clone with selectable scope (docs, Q&A, proposal) |
| Sales-to-delivery WBS export | PM rebuilds the plan from scratch | Generates prose, not structure | WBS with phases, tasks, hours; CSV for Jira/JSON for n8n |
| Multi-tenant + RLS isolation | Folder permissions if you're lucky | Personal accounts; data leaks across users | Org-level row-level security enforced in the database |
| Client portal with toggleable visibility | Email PDFs and hope for the best | Not applicable | Per-project toggles for discovery and proposal sharing |
| Microsoft Teams notifications | Manual @-mentions | Not applicable | Webhook events for round status, council issues, proposals |
| Per-project feature gating | All-or-nothing toolset | No concept of projects | Org admins toggle Live & External Discovery per project |
Typical end-to-end time from "we got a brief" to "first sendable draft" for a mid-complexity engagement.
Based on internal benchmarks for a 4-phase, ~$80k engagement with one client revision cycle.
The same 40-hour proposal cycle, broken down by activity. Less rewriting, more conversation.
40 hours per proposal — most of it spent rewriting
~6 hours per proposal — most of it spent talking to the client
One pipeline from inbound bid to delivery-ready WBS.
Real questions on data, security, AI behavior, and integrations.
Free to start. No credit card. Approval-based org signup so you know your data is safe from day one.