“Just Change It to Present Tense” — Why That Advice Could Cost You the Win
The most common writing “fix” in proposal development is also one of the most dangerous.
The belief that present tense equals strong writing is one of the most widespread habits in proposal development. It is so deeply embedded that some companies have codified it into their proposal style guides and writing rules. The logic sounds reasonable: present tense feels confident, direct, and active. So the editing pass begins, and every “will provide” becomes “provides,” every “shall deliver” becomes “delivers.”
The result reads like a capabilities brochure, not a proposal. And evaluators notice.
In over 200 proposal efforts we have supported across 14 years, and in years of evaluating proposals from the Government side before that, this pattern shows up more consistently than almost any other writing problem. It persists because it sounds like good advice on the surface, and because the distinction between voice and tense is rarely taught in the context of proposal writing.
The Real Problem: Voice, Not Tense
What most writers actually want when they reach for present tense is active voice. These are not the same thing.
- Active voice means the subject performs the action: “Acme Solutions will deploy a dedicated team of five engineers.”
- Passive voice means the subject receives the action: “A dedicated team of five engineers will be deployed.”
- Present tense is about when: “Acme Solutions deploys a dedicated team of five engineers.”
You can write in active voice and future tense at the same time. In fact, for most proposal responses, that is exactly what you should do.
Why Future Tense Matters in Proposals
An evaluator reading your proposal is scoring what you will do under the terms of the contract being awarded, not what you are doing today. When your response says “we provide 24/7 monitoring,” the evaluator has to make a mental translation:
“Do they mean they provide it now, on a different contract? Or are they committing to provide it here?”
That translation is a problem on multiple levels.
First, it forces the evaluator to spend mental effort interpreting your language instead of engaging with the substance of your response. Every sentence an evaluator has to re-read, reinterpret, or mentally reframe is energy taken away from appreciating the actual merit of your solution. You want the evaluator thinking about how good your approach is, not puzzling over what you actually mean.
Second, what is written in present tense may be grammatically incorrect in the context of a future contract, and potentially factually untrue if read literally. You are not currently performing this work under this contract, because this contract does not exist yet. When the evaluator reads it for what it actually says, they are left trying to document something as a strength (or even as compliant) when the words on the page do not actually commit to anything.
Third, evaluators who are unsure will not give you the benefit of the doubt. Every assumption is a place where your score can silently drop.
The strongest proposal language is active voice, future tense, tied explicitly to the contract being proposed:
“Under this BPA, Acme Solutions will provide 24/7 monitoring through a dedicated Network Operations Center staffed by certified analysts.”
No ambiguity. No translation required. The evaluator checks the box.
The Incumbent Trap — and Why It Is More Dangerous Than You Think
This issue hits incumbents hardest. Teams performing the work today naturally default to describing what they do rather than what they will do. Over the years, we have reviewed countless proposals where the majority of technical sections read as descriptions of current operations rather than commitments to the future contract. It is one of the most common patterns we see, and one of the hardest habits for incumbent teams to break.
But here is what makes it truly dangerous: a response that only describes what a company does today, without committing to perform under the proposed contract, can technically be rated as non-compliant.
Most Government evaluators would not want to assign a non-compliant rating to an incumbent. They know the company is doing the work. But an evaluator’s job is to score what is on the page, not what they believe to be true. And when a contract is being recompeted, the likelihood of a protest is real. There is significant pressure on the evaluation team to get the scoring right, to document their rationale, and to ensure their ratings are defensible. An evaluator cannot justify a “Strength” based on work you are doing on a different contract. They need a clear, future-tense commitment to this contract on the page in front of them.
The irony is painful: the incumbent’s greatest asset (current performance) becomes a liability when the proposal simply describes the status quo instead of making forward-looking commitments.
A Better Formula
For incumbents and non-incumbents alike, strong proposal language follows a simple three-part structure:
The credibility statement earns trust. The understanding step does double duty: it demonstrates that you comprehend the requirement (which is almost always part of the evaluation criteria) and, when done well, it shows the evaluator how your approach reduces risk for the Government. That is the kind of language that earns Strengths. The commitment is what gets scored as compliant.
The Quick Self-Check
Before your next proposal goes to review, run this test on any section:
- Find every verb. Is the subject performing the action (active) or receiving it (passive)?
- Check the tense. Is the verb describing what you do now, or what you will do under the proposed contract?
- Look for “will continue.” Every instance is a missed opportunity to make a specific, scorable commitment. “Will continue” tells the evaluator you plan to maintain the status quo. It does not tell them how you will meet this contract’s requirements.
- Ask the compliance question. If an evaluator could only score what is written on the page, without any outside knowledge of your current performance, would your response be rated compliant?
The Bottom Line
Strong proposal writing is not about picking one tense and applying it everywhere. It is about choosing the right voice and the right tense for the right purpose:
| Purpose | Voice + Tense | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Establishing credibility | Active, past/present | “Our team has supported agency operations since 2019.” |
| Demonstrating understanding | Active, present | “This experience provides direct insight into the agency’s operational tempo and security requirements, reducing transition risk.” |
| Making a commitment | Active, future | “Acme Solutions will deploy a dedicated team within 15 days of award.” |
The goal is precision. Say exactly what you mean, make it easy for the evaluator to score, and never force them to guess whether you are talking about today or tomorrow. Your proposal is a promise about the future. Write it that way.