Loading
Because the proposal is written to win and the plan is written to work. Somebody reads the first and produces the second, losing the assumptions and exclusions on the way.
By month two there is an argument about scope where both sides are reading different documents, and the margin has already gone.
The quotation's priced lines become the project's phases, at the rates that were quoted. Exclusions travel with them.
Delivery in Loop logs against those phases, and Books bills from what was delivered — so the chain from proposal to invoice is one record rather than three retypings.
It will not stop scope creep. It makes each change visible and priceable at the point it is requested, which is the only moment it is cheap to address.
It also does not resource the work — that is Loop's job.
Margin is visible during delivery rather than after, so a job going wrong is a week-three conversation.
Estimating improves because quoted and actual hours sit on the same phases, and the gap is readable by kind of work rather than as a firm-wide average.
Products, not integrations. Each one reads the same record, so a join is a permission rather than a sync job with a mapping screen behind it.
Both, on the same project, billing differently.
Yes, across projects, from delivery cost and invoiced revenue.
Costed on the project at their rate, billable where the contract allows.
Half an hour on your own numbers is usually enough to say whether Flow is the right place to start.