Two moments decide whether a year is a good one here.
The first is winning the mandate. When the specification is fixed and every bidder is pricing the same scope, the bid has to do something a number cannot: show that these are the people who have thought hardest about the job.
The second is executing it. Margin in this business is not lost dramatically. It is lost to issues that surfaced three weeks after they started, to a clash nobody flagged, to a schedule slip that carries a penalty clause. Anything that surfaces problems earlier is worth real money, and the money is measurable.
Which is why the question is competitive rather than technical. A rival who adopts faster and better quotes more accurately, so it can bid closer to the bone without losing money, and it executes with fewer surprises, so it keeps the margin it bid. That rival wins work this company cannot profitably match, and it does not need to be much better to do it. Run the same sentence in the other direction and it describes the upside: get there first and you are the one holding a price nobody else can hold.
So this was never framed as a technology project. It was framed as a question about what kind of company to be by the end of the decade.