What Is a Go/No-Go Decision?
A go/no-go decision is the process of evaluating whether your firm should pursue a specific opportunity — an RFP, RFQ, or SOQ request — before committing time and resources to preparing a submittal. In AEC firms, this decision typically weighs the firm's relevant experience, staff availability, client relationship, competitive position, and the strategic value of the project against the cost of pursuing it.
Firms with a disciplined go/no-go process report win rates 15-25% higher than firms that respond to every solicitation they find, according to the Association of Proposal Management Professionals (APMP).
Why Most AEC Firms Chase Too Many Pursuits
The instinct to respond to everything is understandable. Each RFP feels like it might be the one you win. Saying no feels like leaving money on the table.
But the math works against you.
A mid-size firm that responds to 50 solicitations per year at an average of 20 hours per submittal spends roughly 1,000 hours annually on proposal production. If the firm's win rate is 20% — about average for the industry — that means 800 of those hours produced nothing. No shortlist. No contract. No revenue.
Now consider what happens if that same firm is more selective. If they respond to 30 solicitations instead of 50, and their win rate rises to 35% because they are only chasing opportunities where they are genuinely competitive, they win 10.5 contracts instead of 10 — with 400 fewer hours of proposal work.
Fewer pursuits. More wins. Less burnout.
According to a 2026 industry survey of nearly 300 proposal professionals, 44% of AEC firms report that they cannot complete 20-29% of incoming RFPs due to capacity constraints. That means nearly half of all firms are already overcommitted — and still chasing work they cannot properly respond to.
The Go/No-Go Criteria That Actually Matter
Generic go/no-go checklists ask questions like "Is this a good opportunity?" That is not useful. Here are the specific criteria that predict whether a pursuit is worth your time.
1. Do you have directly relevant experience?
Not "related" experience. Directly relevant. If the solicitation is for a wastewater treatment plant upgrade and your firm's water experience is limited to stormwater drainage, that is a different discipline. Evaluators in qualifications-based selection score based on how closely your past projects match the scope of the current solicitation.
Go signal: You have 3-5 completed projects of similar scope, scale, and complexity within the last 5-7 years.
No-go signal: You would need to stretch your project descriptions to make them feel relevant.
2. Are your key personnel available?
The proposal names specific people. If your best project manager for this type of work is already committed to two other active projects and three other pursuits, you are either going to propose someone less qualified or propose someone you cannot actually deliver.
Agencies verify availability. If you win and your proposed PM is unavailable, you risk losing the contract before it starts.
Go signal: Your top candidates for each key role can commit to the project if you win.
No-go signal: You would need to propose staff who have not done this type of work, or propose people who are overcommitted.
3. Do you have a client relationship?
In AEC, relationships matter enormously. Winning work from a new client where you have no prior relationship and no local presence is significantly harder than winning a re-compete or follow-on from a client who knows your work.
This does not mean you should never pursue new clients. It means you should be realistic about the extra effort required and the lower probability of winning.
Go signal: You have worked with this client before, or you have a strong introduction through a teaming partner or subconsultant.
No-go signal: You have never met the client, have no local office, and learned about the solicitation from a public posting.
4. Can you differentiate from the likely competition?
Before deciding to pursue, think about who else will respond. In most markets, you know who your competitors are. If two or three firms have deeper relationships, more relevant experience, and stronger local presence, your chances of winning are low regardless of how good your proposal is.
Go signal: You have a credible win theme — something specific that sets your team apart for this particular project.
No-go signal: You would be submitting a solid but undifferentiated package into a field of equally qualified firms.
5. Is the timeline realistic?
Some solicitations are released with a two-week response deadline. If you do not have current staff resumes, relevant project experience sheets, and a clear technical approach ready to go, two weeks is not enough time to produce a quality submittal.
Go signal: You can produce a fully tailored submittal within the deadline without pulling staff off other critical work.
No-go signal: You would need to work nights and weekends and still submit something that feels rushed.
6. Does this align with your firm's strategic direction?
Not every project you can win is a project you should win. A structural engineering firm that takes on an environmental remediation project because it was available may win the contract and regret it for two years.
Go signal: The project type, client, and geography align with where your firm wants to grow.
No-go signal: Winning this would pull resources away from the markets you are trying to build.
A Scoring Matrix You Can Actually Use
Gut-feel decisions are inconsistent. Different partners weigh different factors. A scoring matrix makes the evaluation repeatable and transparent.
Here is a framework you can adapt. Score each criterion on a 1-5 scale, with weights reflecting your firm's priorities.
| Criterion | Weight | Score (1-5) | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevant project experience | 25% | ___ | ___ |
| Key personnel availability | 20% | ___ | ___ |
| Client relationship | 20% | ___ | ___ |
| Competitive differentiation | 15% | ___ | ___ |
| Timeline feasibility | 10% | ___ | ___ |
| Strategic alignment | 10% | ___ | ___ |
| Total | 100% | ___ |
How to interpret the score:
| Total Weighted Score | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| 4.0 - 5.0 | Strong go. Pursue with full effort. |
| 3.0 - 3.9 | Conditional go. Pursue only if capacity allows and you can identify a clear win theme. |
| 2.0 - 2.9 | Lean no-go. The odds are against you. Consider whether the pursuit has strategic value beyond winning (e.g., getting on a new client's radar). |
| Below 2.0 | No-go. Do not pursue. Redirect the effort to stronger opportunities. |
Adjust the weights based on what matters most to your firm. A firm trying to break into a new market might weight "strategic alignment" higher and "client relationship" lower. A capacity-constrained firm might weight "timeline feasibility" and "key personnel availability" higher.
Adjusting Criteria When Pivoting Markets
When external conditions shift — federal budget cuts, a major program expiring, an agency reducing procurement volume — your go/no-go criteria need to shift with them.
Consider a firm that has spent five years primarily chasing USACE work. DoD budgets are declining and the firm decides to pursue VA healthcare facility projects and state DOT work instead. The go/no-go matrix doesn't change, but the scoring does:
- Relevant project experience drops from a 4 to a 2. Your MILCON portfolio doesn't directly translate to healthcare facility design or highway projects. VA evaluators want infection control and patient safety experience. State DOTs want transportation-specific credentials.
- Client relationship drops from a 4 to a 1. You have no VA or DOT contacts. You are starting cold.
- Competitive differentiation drops because firms already established with these agencies have years of past performance you lack.
If you run the same go/no-go matrix you used for USACE pursuits, every new-agency opportunity scores as a no-go. That is not wrong — it is telling you that you cannot compete head-to-head with established firms. Not yet.
The adjustment: temporarily increase the weight on strategic alignment (because building a new agency track record is a stated firm priority) and decrease the weight on client relationship (because every new-agency pursuit will score low here by definition). Accept that your first two or three pursuits in a new market are strategic investments — pursue them with realistic expectations and minimum viable effort rather than full proposal production.
Pair this with teaming. If you lack VA healthcare design experience, team as a subconsultant with a firm that has it. Your go/no-go score for a teaming pursuit in a new market should be evaluated differently than a prime pursuit — lower investment, lower risk, and the primary goal is building relevant past performance, not winning a contract outright.
When to Make the Decision
Timing matters as much as the criteria.
First pass: within 48 hours of the solicitation. As soon as the RFP or RFQ drops, do a quick evaluation. This is not a deep analysis — it is a 15-minute gut check using the criteria above. If the opportunity clearly fails on 2-3 criteria, stop here. Do not waste a week "thinking about it" before deciding no.
Second pass: after reading the full solicitation. If the first pass is a tentative go, assign someone to read the full solicitation in detail. Look for hidden requirements, page limits, DBE/MBE participation goals, specific certifications required, and evaluation criteria weights. These details often change the calculus.
Final decision: no later than 50% of the response window. If you have a 30-day response window, make the final go/no-go by day 15. Starting a proposal at 50% of the timeline is already late. Starting at 75% almost guarantees a rushed, low-quality submittal.
Common Go/No-Go Traps
The "we might as well" trap
"We have most of the content from a previous submittal, so we might as well respond." This logic leads to generic proposals built from recycled content that was not tailored to this solicitation. A half-effort pursuit that scores a 60 is worse than no pursuit at all — it burns hours and damages your reputation with the evaluators.
The "the principal wants it" trap
A partner or principal hears about an opportunity through a golf buddy and says "let's go after this." The marketing team scrambles to respond, even though the firm's experience is marginal and the timeline is tight. If your go/no-go process does not apply equally to principal-driven pursuits and open solicitations, it is not a process — it is a suggestion.
The "we need the revenue" trap
Revenue pressure is real. But chasing low-probability pursuits because you need work is the most expensive way to find revenue. The hours spent on three losing proposals could have been invested in one winning proposal — or in business development activities (client visits, teaming conversations, conference attendance) that generate future opportunities.
The "sunk cost" trap
"We already started working on this, so we should finish." If new information emerges — a key competitor has an inside track, your proposed PM just got pulled to another project, the scope changed significantly in an amendment — it is better to stop than to submit a weakened package. The hours already spent are gone regardless.
Tracking Your Decisions Over Time
A go/no-go framework only improves if you measure results.
After every pursuit — win or lose — record:
- The go/no-go score from your initial evaluation
- Whether you won, lost, or were shortlisted
- The actual hours spent on the pursuit
Over 12-18 months, patterns emerge. You may find that you never win pursuits where your client relationship score was below 2. Or that opportunities scored above 4.0 have a 50% win rate versus 10% for those scored 2.5-3.0. This data lets you calibrate your thresholds and tighten your criteria based on your firm's actual performance, not industry averages.
You may also find that your best wins come from a specific project type, client category, or geography. That information should feed back into your strategic planning — not just your pursuit decisions.
How Many Pursuits Should You Be Chasing?
There is no universal number. It depends on your firm size, proposal team capacity, and the types of solicitations you pursue. But here are some benchmarks.
| Firm Size | Typical Pursuit Volume | Sustainable with Dedicated Proposal Staff |
|---|---|---|
| Small (under 20 staff) | 10-20 per year | 1 proposal coordinator can support 15-20 SOQs/year |
| Mid-size (20-100 staff) | 25-50 per year | Requires 1-2 dedicated marketing/proposal staff |
| Large (100+ staff) | 50-100+ per year | Requires a proposal department with multiple coordinators |
If your team is consistently working overtime on proposals, you are either chasing too many or your production process is too manual. Both problems have solutions — the go/no-go framework addresses the first, and better systems for reusable content address the second.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a go/no-go decision in proposals?
A go/no-go decision is the formal evaluation of whether a firm should invest time and resources in responding to a specific RFP, RFQ, or SOQ. It typically weighs relevant experience, staff availability, client relationships, competitive position, and strategic fit against the cost of pursuit. In AEC, where proposals take 15-35 hours each, making disciplined go/no-go decisions prevents wasted effort and improves overall win rates.
Who should be involved in the go/no-go decision?
At minimum: the business development lead, the proposed project manager, and whoever will manage the proposal production. In practice, this usually means a principal or BD director, a senior technical lead, and the marketing coordinator. The decision should not be made by one person alone — it requires both market knowledge (does the client know us?) and technical assessment (do we have the right experience and staff?).
How do you say no to an RFP?
If the solicitation requires a formal response, most agencies accept a brief "no-bid" letter or simply do not require a response. For opportunities brought to you by clients or teaming partners, a direct explanation is best: "We reviewed the solicitation and do not feel our current experience and availability position us to submit a competitive response for this project. We would welcome the opportunity on future pursuits that align more closely with our strengths." Most clients and partners respect honesty over a weak submittal.
What win rate should my firm target?
Industry averages for AEC firms range from 20-40%, depending on market and pursuit type. Firms with disciplined go/no-go processes tend to land in the 30-50% range. A win rate below 20% usually signals that the firm is chasing too many low-probability opportunities. A win rate above 50% may signal that the firm is being too conservative and leaving opportunities on the table. Track your rate over a rolling 12-month period for a meaningful benchmark.
Should we ever pursue an opportunity we know we will probably lose?
Sometimes. There are legitimate strategic reasons to submit on low-probability pursuits: getting your firm's name in front of a new client, building a track record with a specific agency, or positioning for a future re-compete. But these should be conscious decisions — label them as "strategic pursuits" in your tracker, invest minimum viable effort, and do not count them when calculating your win rate. If more than 20% of your pursuits are "strategic," you are using the label to avoid making hard no-go calls.
RFPM.ai automates resume generation and project sheet assembly for engineering and construction firms — so when you do decide to go, your team spends less time reformatting and more time on the technical approach. See how it works