Think like the person marking you
How Tenders Are Scored: Inside the Evaluation
Most bids are not lost on capability. They are lost because the bidder wrote about their company while the evaluator was hunting for specific answers to specific scored questions, under time pressure, against a published rubric.
Understanding the mechanics of evaluation is the single highest-return skill in bidding - because every choice about structure, evidence and emphasis follows from it.
The machinery: criteria, weightings, scales
Above threshold, buyers must publish their award criteria and weightings up front - typically a quality/price split (say 60/40), with quality broken into weighted questions ("Service delivery - 30%", "Social value - 10%"). Each question is scored on a published scale, most commonly 0-5, where each band has a written definition: 5 might be "comprehensive response, fully evidenced, high confidence", 1 "limited response, significant omissions".
Your weighted score is mechanical: a 3/5 on a 30% question contributes 18 of the 30 points. This is why a weak answer on a heavy question is unrecoverable - and why reading the weightings before writing a word is non-negotiable.
How evaluators actually read
Panel members typically score independently and then moderate to a consensus score, with reasons recorded (they know a disappointed bidder may see them in the assessment summary). They read many bids in limited time, scoring strictly against the question asked.
Three behaviours follow that should change how you write. They reward answers that mirror the question's structure - if it asks for (a) through (e), label your answer (a) through (e); an unlabelled essay forces the evaluator to hunt, and hunting evaluators miss things. They discount unevidenced claims - "extensive experience" without a named contract, value and outcome scores as assertion. And they stop reading at the word limit - everything after it does not exist, so a strong point buried at word 1,100 of a 1,000-word answer scores nothing.
What separates a 3 from a 5
The jump from "acceptable" to "strong" is almost always specificity, not eloquence. A 5-scoring answer names people and their qualifications, cites real delivered contracts with values and measurable outcomes, includes numbers where a 3 has adjectives, and addresses the awkward sub-question the 3 quietly skipped.
Before submitting, score yourself against the published scale, question by question, as a hostile reader. Where you cannot point to the sentence that earns the mark, the evaluator will not find it either.
Frequently asked questions
Do evaluators really enforce word limits?
Yes - most ITTs state that content beyond the limit will not be read, and evaluators apply it. Treat the limit as a hard wall and front-load your strongest evidence.
Can I see my scores after losing?
Yes. Under the Procurement Act you receive an assessment summary showing your scores and the winning tender's. Read it carefully - it is your debrief and your early-warning system for anything that looks wrong.
Is the lowest price guaranteed to win?
No - awards go to the most advantageous tender under the published weightings. On a 60/40 quality/price split, a strong quality response routinely beats a cheaper, weaker rival.
Write with the assessor beside you
BidSquirrel's workspace shows you what each criterion rewards while you write, scores each section like a panel would, and flags word-limit breaches before submission - your words, never ours.