Proposal software for accountants, where the proposal becomes the letter
FigsFlow is proposal software for accountants in the UK. Scope the work from your own service library, let the engine price it from your own rates, and send a proposal the client can compare and accept — then watch the engagement letter assemble from the same record, with the same services, the same fee and the same schedules.
281 reviews from
G2 reviews
Google reviews
Verified reviews
- Annual accounts & corporation taxScope wording from your service library£3,150
- Payroll — 4 employees, monthlyPriced per employee, per run£1,440
- VAT returns, quarterlyStandard scheme£1,620
- Company secretarialConfirmation statement and registers£480
Illustrative. Change the package and the letter and the invoice follow the proposal — the fee is stated once.
Nothing was copied across. The letter assembled from the accepted proposal.
Trusted by the best
Product tour
Watch a proposal become a letter
Ninety seconds: scope three services, let the engine price them, send it, accept it, and watch the engagement letter assemble with the same schedules and the same fee. Nothing is copied across, because nothing was ever apart.
VID-01 · 16:9 · under 2:00Scope · price · send · accept · the letter assembles
Nobody planned the retyping.
It happens because the documents are separate.
The proposal is a Word file. The letter of engagement is a different Word file, rebuilt from last year's. The fee exists in both, typed twice, and by the time anyone notices they disagree the client has already signed one of them. No one chose this. It is simply what happens when two documents describing the same agreement are two documents.
"The proposal said one fee, the letter said another. Neither of us typed it wrong — we typed it twice."
Where it sits
The proposal is the hinge
Everything before it is a conversation. Everything after it is delivery, and in a UK practice that means an engagement letter your professional body expects you to hold, an AML check that has to clear before work starts, and a set of statutory dates that were fixed before you quoted. The proposal is where all three become real.
- Enquiry
- Scope from the service library
- Engine prices it
- Client accepts
- Fee freezes
- Letter assembles
- AML clears
- Jobs open on their statutory dates
That sequence is the localisation
A proposal that does not lead to a letter, a check and a dated job is a US proposal tool with a British spelling. The scope comes from your service library, the number from the pricing engine, the letter from the accepted proposal and the clearance state from the same client record — so the obligations that follow a signature in the UK are already attached to the thing that was signed.
One accepted proposal is the record four other modules read from.
Engagement lettersOne client record
-
Proposal · accepted£6,210
-
Engagement letter£6,210
-
AML clearanceCleared
-
First job · ARD 31 MarOpen
-
Invoice raised£6,210
The build surface
Scope and price, on the same screen
Pick services from your own library and the fee resolves as you build. Proposal software for accountants that makes you price somewhere else and paste a total in has already lost the thing worth having, which is that the number and the scope cannot drift apart.
Every service input is classified as affecting the price, the scope, or both — so a pricing variable can never quietly change what the client agreed to, and a scope variable can never quietly change the fee.
The obligation, not the document
The letter your professional body expects, assembled from the proposal
In the UK the engagement letter is not optional paperwork; it is the document your supervisor asks to see. It should therefore not be a second file somebody rebuilds from the first. The accepted proposal is the record the letter assembles from — same services, same fee, same schedules — and it stays readable long after everyone involved has forgotten the conversation.
Entity types
Does a sole trader get the same paperwork as a family group?
No, and the proposal should know that before anyone starts editing. Sole traders, partnerships, LLPs, limited companies and family groups on one proposal, with a letter per entity where the situation calls for it, and the wording that belongs to each service travelling with it.
On acceptance
The fee that never reconciles
On acceptance the exact selection freezes — the tier chosen, the add-ons toggled, every line and the reason for it, dated and attributed. The letter states that figure. The invoice bills it. Nothing recomputes it, so there is no version of this where three documents disagree and somebody has to work out which one the client actually signed.
A change after acceptance is a variation — separately signed and linked to the original, so the full position is the original plus what has been agreed since.
Seen enough? Bring an engagement you are scoping this week.
Book a demoThe difference
A document, or a record
Most proposal software for accountants is very good at making a document look excellent. The question is not how many templates it ships. It is whether the fee, the scope and the version the client signed are still readable in eighteen months, when somebody asks.
| When… | A proposal documentBeautiful, sent, accepted, filed | A generic proposal toolBuilt for agencies, not practices | FigsFlowThe proposal is the record |
|---|---|---|---|
| The engagement letter is written | ✕Rebuilt by hand from last year's file. | !A second template, filled in again. | ✓Assembles from the accepted proposal. |
| You ask what the fee is | ✕Typed twice. Two answers, eventually. | !One answer, until somebody edits a document. | ✓Stated once and inherited by both. |
| The client accepts | ✕A PDF somebody has to go and find. | !A status change on the document. | ✓The selection freezes, dated and attributed. |
| One proposal covers three entities | ✕Three documents, built separately. | ✕One document. Entities are your problem. | ✓A letter per entity, on the right body template. |
| AML has to clear before work starts | ✕Tracked somewhere else entirely. | ✕Not the tool's concern. | ✓Clearance sits on the same client record. |
| The fee changes after signature | ✕Someone edits the file. | !A new version supersedes the old one. | ✓A signed variation, linked to the original. |
| Somebody asks, eighteen months later | ✕Find the PDF. Hope it is the signed one. | !An export, if the account is still open. | ✓The record reconstructs — scope, fee and version. |
One is a file somebody has to go and find. The other is a structure the letter, the check and the job all read from.
Who uses it
What this looks like at your size
Pick the shape of your practice.
You write the proposal and you write the letter, so you are the person who retypes the fee. The record removes a job you never agreed to take on.
Poster · Sole practitionerFilm in production
What you’ll see0:00 / 1:48
- 0:00 You wrote both documents, so you typed the fee twice
- 0:26 Scope three services from your own library
- 0:59 Accept it, and the letter assembles itself The retyping was never a task you chose
- 1:24 One record, and nothing left to reconcile
Preview clock — no video source set
Two people quoting means two versions of the wording within a month. The service library ends that without anyone having to police it.
Poster · Small practice · 2–10Film in production
What you’ll see0:00 / 2:02
- 0:00 Two people quoting the same service, two ways
- 0:31 The wording lives in the service library, once
- 1:02 Both proposals carry the same scope and the same rate Nobody had to police it
- 1:36 The letters match, because the proposals did
Preview clock — no video source set
At this size the proposal is where new revenue is either scoped properly or quietly under-scoped, and nobody finds out until the job runs over.
Poster · Growing · 10–50Film in production
What you’ll see0:00 / 2:14
- 0:00 New revenue is won or lost at the scoping stage
- 0:29 Under-scoped work does not announce itself
- 1:05 The scope on the proposal is the scope on the letter And the scope the job opens against
- 1:44 Overruns trace back to what was actually agreed
Preview clock — no video source set
Consistency of wording across offices, per-entity letters for group clients, and an accepted record that still reconstructs eighteen months later.
Poster · Larger firm · 50+Film in production
What you’ll see0:00 / 2:26
- 0:00 Four offices, one set of service wording
- 0:34 A group client, and a letter per entity
- 1:12 The accepted version, pinned and attributed Reconstructable at file review
- 1:52 Variations linked to the original, not replacing it
Preview clock — no video source set
Your stack
Works with what you already run
Signed documents land in your own SharePoint tenancy. Invoices raise in your ledger on signature. Companies House supplies the entity data so nobody types a company number twice.
- Microsoft 365
- Outlook
- SharePoint
- Xero
- QuickBooks Online
- Stripe
- GoCardless
- Companies House
What this does not do yet
Proof
Built inside a working UK practice
Built by a UK practice that had sent a proposal and a letter carrying different fees, to the same client, in the same week.
Reel 01Film in production
Reel 02Film in production
Reel 03Film in production
Reel 04Film in production
What it costs
No setup fee, no implementation fee, no minimum seat count.
Related modules
Where the proposal connects
Four modules sit against a proposal directly. The rest of the platform sits around them on the same shared record.
Pricing and quoting
Where the number comes from — your own rates, resolved as you build.
See the pricing moduleEngagement letters
What it becomes — assembled from the accepted proposal, not rebuilt.
See the letters moduleE-signature and approvals
How it gets agreed — one signature, and the selection freezes.
See the signature moduleAML and due diligence
What has to clear before work starts — on the same client record.
See the AML moduleResources
See it in practice
Case studies, short films and writing on scoping an engagement once rather than twice.
Case study 1
Two documents, two fees, one client
How one practice found the discrepancy, and what it changed about how they quote.
Read the case studyCase study 2
A family group, and five letters
What per-entity letters did to the time between acceptance and the first job opening.
Read the case studyCase study 3
Reconstructing a proposal at file review
Eighteen months on, with the scope, the fee and the signed version still readable.
Read the case studyArticle 1
Why the letter should never be a second file
Read the articleArticle 2
Scope variables and price variables are not the same thing
Read the articleArticle 3
What your supervisor actually asks to see
Read the articleQuestions
Asked before every rollout
Bring an engagement you are scoping this week
A real one, ideally a group or anything with more than one entity in it. We will scope it, price it and generate the letter in front of you — which is the only honest test of proposal software for accountants. Then check whether the fee on the second document matches the first.
Want to see how the number is computed?