When the person who understands the work will not write, the writing falls to someone who does not, and the proposal reads generic.
Sit in on a bid debrief for a lost technical contract and you will often hear a variant of the same feedback: the submission did not demonstrate understanding of our environment. The bidder usually did understand it. The submission did not show it.
This happens because technical organisations separate the people who do the work from the people who describe it. The engineer is too busy; the marketing function does not have the vocabulary; the result is capability language that could belong to any competitor.
The remedy is not more marketing. It is a short, structured extraction process: an interviewer who knows the domain well enough to ask the second and third question, a defined format, and an engineer's hour rather than an engineer's week.
Organisations that institutionalise this, at one hour per month per senior technical person, accumulate a library of specific, defensible proof points. Those points win bids, attract engineers and calm regulators, which is a good return on twelve hours a year.