What does it mean to design quality into a proposal?

Designing quality into a proposal means building a process in which defects aren't created. This is far superior to a process that allows defects and then tries to find and fix them. Designing quality in doesn't just mean making sure you get it right the first time, it means eliminating the possibility of defects. It is a very different approach from creating a draft and then inspecting it. 
 
Most existing proposal processes are based on creating a draft, then inspecting it, then re-doing it as needed. Instead of a proposal designed to win, this model results in fixes applied to fixes that only end when the deadline is reached. This kind of approach encourages people to just write something, see how it works out, and if it doesn't just keep writing things.

The entire color team model is based on doing just this. The proposal process that most companies follow is deeply flawed because it is based on a flawed concept of quality.

Creating a proposal process that designs quality in means following a different process and having very different expectations.
First, we have to address what a proposal defect is

If we define proposal quality as reflecting what it will take to win, a defect is something that runs counter to what it will take to win. The magnitude of the defect is directly proportional to how it impacts what it will take to win. Thus, while you might consider a single typo to be a defect it is, in all likelihood, an inconsequential one. However, failing to comply with the RFP requirements, ignoring the evaluation criteria, or scoping the offering wrong and blowing the price are defects that can ensure a loss. To be a defect, it has to lower your win probability. To keep this from being purely subjective, you must define what it will take to win in order to assess the severity of a potential defect.
 
For proposals, designing quality in means building a process that ensures that proposals reflect what it will take to win. You should note that this does not ensure a win. That is not up to us, it is up to the customer, and it occurs in an unpredictable future. What you can do as a company is define what you think it will take to win, and confidently deliver that. 

Designing quality into a proposal starts with how you design your offering 
Building a proposal around what it will take to win and doing that without defects means you need to know what you want to offer before you start writing. Offering design is an engineering process, and designing your offering should not be done by writing about it. You may select any engineering design methodology that fits the nature of what you offer. The goal of offering design is to ensure that what you intend to offer fulfills what it will take to win before you create a narrative draft of the proposal based on it. 
 
You should validate your offering design through whatever testing, reviews, approvals, or stakeholder participation is necessary. This does not mean that you read a description and decide whether it sounds good. It means that you determine that the design is sound, compliant, competitive, and what the company wants to offer. Then you can describe it and determine how to be present it.

As an example, an offering design that is too expensive to win, non-compliant, or doesn’t reflect the evaluation criteria would fail this validation and should never make it into the proposal. Zero time should be spent writing about it. Before you can validate your offering design, you need to be able to articulate what it will take to win in the form of proposal quality criteria. To perform the validation, you need to establish that each criterion related to what it will take to win has been fulfilled. The good news is that much of this can be checklist simple.

Thinking things through instead of writing and re-writing

While the offering is being designed, you should also be designing the proposal, with a separate plan for the proposal content that identifies what you need to say and how you need to say it. This plan should address the structure of the proposal and how you should present the details of your offering. It should explain to proposal writers how to position things against the evaluation criteria, competitive environment, and what you know about the customer. It should explain what points need to be made and how to incorporate your bid strategies and differentiators.  It should explain what proof points you will use to make the conclusions you want the customer to reach credible. The Proposal Content Plan should also be approved before using it to draft the proposal narrative.

Designing quality into the proposal means having thought through the offering and its presentation before you create a narrative draft. This is the only way to create a draft that is without defects, and fully incorporates what it will take to win.

Indecision works against your ability to design quality in

During proposal creation you will face many decisions that need to be made. To design quality in, decisions must be made so that they can be validated or approved. Designing quality in requires a series of validations and approvals with the key stakeholders and decision makers instead of waiting for milestones to have subjective reviews.

Creating a draft for someone to inspect and see what they find means you’ve fallen back on the old model and are not designing quality in from the beginning. The problem with the old model is that when the review and validation of decision waits for a draft, changing the decision requires an entire draft production cycle. This is not only time consuming against a deadline, but it tends to result in the next draft being a kludge instead of something created with the final decision in mind. Designing quality in means making sure you have made the right decision, and then writing it into the proposal.

Poor corporate decision making is the real reason companies stick with the old model of inspection and repair. They can’t decide, so they wait and see how the draft looks. A better approach is to improve your organization's ability to make decisions so that quality can be designed in. If you don’t do this, you are unlikely to be competitive against an organization that does.

Don't fall back on old habits

When you design your offering separately from writing about it, design your proposal content before you create narrative, and validate decisions as you go along, you have the right foundation for designing quality into your proposals.

If you catch yourself correcting the message in writing, then you failed to think it through before writing started and have fallen back on the old model of writing and correcting. The new model is not based on correction at all. It is based on collaboration. Proposal writing, decisions, and validation are all one collaborative process. Reviewers are part of this collaboration and not occasional drive by correction police.

You know the new process is working when you hold reviews, because quality control is needed, and your reviewers are focusing on editing and wording because there aren't any issues to report. You know it is working because you are not relying on reviews to "fix" your proposals.

Don’t fear running out of time

Regarding time management, note that designing quality in takes less time than preparation, inspection, and rework. The types and amount of information that need to be gathered to win a proposal are the same with either model. The time it takes to make decisions is the same with either model. The amount of review time is the same. However, the amount of work product created and wasted effort is less when you design quality in. In addition, there is less risk and likelihood of production costs spiraling out of control. There is less risk of something slipping by, and even less risk that it might hurt your win probability if it does.

The most important consideration is the impact on your probability of winning. Which would you rather submit, a proposal that was designed to win, or a proposal that consists of fixes applied to fixes until the clock ran out? 

Designing quality in through continuous validation enables much better time management than having one or more back-end reviews. Better time management leads to a better proposal, higher win rate, and being more competitive than companies that follow the old model of write and fix.