Every project that crosses your desk comes with a question most firms answer too casually: should we pursue this? The go/no-go decision is the point where practice management meets risk management head-on. Get it right, and you spend your marketing dollars on winnable projects that fit your firm's strengths. Get it wrong, and you burn resources chasing work that drains your team or exposes you to liability.

But project pursuit rarely happens in isolation. When an RFP demands capabilities your firm doesn't have in-house, teaming arrangements let you assemble the right qualifications without merging companies. The distinction between a teaming agreement and a joint venture matters, both for how you present your team on an SF330 and for how risk flows between partners.

Then there's the ethical dimension. Conflicts of interest, whether direct financial stakes, indirect business relationships, or even the appearance of bias, can disqualify a team before the selection panel ever reads your proposal. Federal regulations under 23 CFR 172 and state licensing boards require architects to identify, disclose, and manage these conflicts. On the ARE, you need to recognize when a project pursuit triggers a conflict and know the proper response: disclosure, mitigation, or walking away entirely.