Where the marks go
Why a good bid still loses marks
Six places the marks go in a bid that reads perfectly well, and five of them are visible before you submit if somebody looks in the right order.
Or call 07984 845440, or email [email protected].
Bids and tenders lose marks for reasons that have little to do with how well they're written. An evaluator scores each answer against a published criterion and a published weighting, which is the share of the marks that answer carries, so an answer that doesn't address the criterion scores nothing however good the prose is. The six sections below are where that happens.
Where do these come from?
Three of the six were caught in real applications here before they were submitted, and the case study sets that engagement out in full. The other three come from the government's published guidance on writing effective bids, which is free and worth twenty minutes of anyone's time.
One, the answer doesn't answer the question they asked
An evaluator has the criterion in front of them and marks against it. If your answer is about your organisation and the criterion is about how you'll run the service, you can write beautifully and score low.
The government's own advice to suppliers is blunt about this. It tells you to avoid submitting previously successful or generic tender responses, and to tailor your answers to the organisation. More on how a method statement is built around the criterion it is scored on.
Two, the evidence is asserted rather than shown
"We have extensive experience" is not evidence, and an evaluator can do nothing with it. A named project, a date, a number and what changed is something they can mark.
The same guidance asks for measurable outcomes and buyer-specific benefits. That's the difference between a claim an evaluator has to take on trust and one they can mark.
A draft, a review and a clearer answer
Illustrative response teardown based on synthetic public tender question
- Original
- Our organisation is fully committed to delivering high quality service continuity during the transition phase. We have extensive experience in mobilisation and our leadership team will manage all safeguarding responsibilities effectively. Regular team briefings will ensure that risks are monitored and dealt with promptly as they arise.
- Review finding
- General assertions with zero named individuals, no referenced policies, no escalation timetable and no operational evidence to verify claims.
- Revised example
- The mobilisation coordinator owns the daily handover check and records unresolved service risks in the transition log. The safeguarding lead and their qualification must still be named and evidenced before this answer can be submitted.
The revised example makes responsibility clearer. The safeguarding qualification and the remaining requirements still need evidence. This is not a completed submission or an awarded score.
Document Teardown: Response Evolution
Select stage to compare editorial changes:
Our organisation is fully committed to delivering high quality service continuity during the transition phase. We have extensive experience in mobilisation and our leadership team will manage all safeguarding responsibilities effectively. Regular team briefings will ensure that risks are monitored and dealt with promptly as they arise.
General assertions with zero named individuals, no referenced policies, no escalation timetable and no operational evidence to verify claims.
The draft leaves important parts of this illustrative question unanswered. The tender requirement demands: (1) designated safeguarding lead accreditation, (2) defined escalation thresholds, (3) transition risk register mitigations, and (4) business continuity leadership. The draft addresses none of these.
Red-team findings: 1. Missing safeguarding lead accreditation. 2. Missing emergency escalation timeline. 3. Missing operational risk register reference. 4. Missing designated mobilisation officer. These gaps need checking against the actual tender requirements.
The mobilisation coordinator owns the daily handover check and records unresolved service risks in the transition log. The safeguarding lead and their qualification must still be named and evidenced before this answer can be submitted.
The revised example makes responsibility clearer. The safeguarding qualification and the remaining requirements still need evidence. This is not a completed submission or an awarded score.
Three, the numbers in the words and the numbers in the table disagree
This one is quiet, it is arithmetic, and it can be settled in an afternoon. A narrative that asks for one total and a budget table that adds up to another is the commonest form of it, and one application we read did exactly that.
Nobody had written a wrong number. The narrative and the table had simply been edited at different times, by different people, which is how it usually happens, and it is why the check that catches it is not a proofread but somebody adding the columns up again from the beginning without looking at what the last person made them come to.
Four, costs you were entitled to recover are left out
Overheads are the usual place. A rate set once and never revisited leaves real money on the table, and on the same application that is what it did. Asking for less does not buy a single extra mark.
Five, something is in the file that shouldn't be
Attachments carry more than they look like they do. Tracked changes, comments, file properties and the contents of a document somebody pasted in all travel with the file.
Six, nobody read it cold
By the fourth draft the writer is reading what they meant to say, and the evaluator reads what is actually on the page.
The government's guidance says the same thing as a step: before submitting, arrange for a colleague to provide an independent review. If you have no colleague free, that's what a bid review buys.
What to do with this before you submit
- Put the criteria and the weightings in a column beside your answers, and read each answer against its own criterion rather than reading the document through.
- Add the budget, or the prices you are quoting, up independently of the narrative, and check the two totals match.
- Open every attachment as a stranger would, and look at what travels with it.
- Give it to somebody who didn't write it, with the criteria, and ask them to mark it.
Closing these six is how you win more of the bids you enter. If none of those is possible before the deadline, that's what the fixed-fee review is for.
Have somebody read it cold
That is the sixth one, and it is the only one on the list you cannot do for yourself.
Or call 07984 845440, or email [email protected].