Writing for evaluators, not yourself

As someone who has evaluated, and coordinated the evaluation of, hundreds of bids over more than two decades - and more recently worked alongside businesses to help them build their responses, I've seen the same pattern come up time and again.

Most businesses write about themselves. Their processes, their approach, their values. At worst this can read like a standard sales pitch that has little or no relevance to the buyer's actual needs. More often it's clear that the bidder has genuinely tried to demonstrate their competence, but they've got so caught up in their own world that they've lost sight of what it is that actually matters to the buyer.

This is a common reason quality scores are lower than they should be. Not because the business isn't capable of doing the work. Because they didn't frame their response quite right.

What evaluators are actually looking for

When an evaluator reads your response, they need to see two things above everything else. That you understand their needs, their challenges, what they're trying to achieve, who they're serving. And that you have a solution that genuinely meets those needs or solves those problems. Not that you're good at what you do in general. That you get them, specifically.

Before you write anything, you need to do the work of understanding the buyer's world. What does the specification tell you about their priorities? What are they worried about? What would a genuinely good outcome look like for them and for the people they serve? Where does the detail in their documents signal that something really matters to them?

These are the threads that should run through your responses. Not your standard approach, not your usual methodology, but a clear demonstration that you've understood this buyer's specific situation and have thought carefully about how you would address it.

Back up claims with evidence

Every claim you make needs to be backed up with something specific and verifiable. An evaluator can't give you marks for something they can't verify.

'We have extensive experience in this area' tells an evaluator nothing. It's a statement any business could make and most of them do. 'We will do X. We have delivered a similar contract for Y organisation over Z years, achieving A outcome, measured by B, which resulted in C.'. It's specific, it demonstrates capability rather than just claiming it - and really importantly, it gives an evaluator something they can actually score.

The difference between a response that scores 3 out of 5 and one that scores 5 is almost always substantiation. The business that scores 5 isn't necessarily technically stronger or with better experience - but they've documented it better and presented it in a way that connects directly to what the buyer needs to see.

A bid that has stayed with me - a masterclass in writing for the buyer!

I want to tell you about a bid I evaluated about 10 years ago that I still think about. It was a refurbishment related framework for a housing association and several contractors bid, including some significantly larger and more established players in the market. One of the bidders was a smaller (but well established and resourced), local company.

They got full marks on every single quality criterion and ultimately won the multi million pound contract. It was the easiest set of full marks I have ever seen given in my procurement career, and the easiest moderation session I've ever been part of.

The reason wasn't that they had the most impressive processes or the most sophisticated methodology. In fact in some ways, their systems and processes were more 'low tech' than some of their competitors. It was that they completely understood who they would be working with and what that meant in practice.

They didn't just talk about how they would carry out the works - they thought about the specific needs of the demographic, the practicalities of working in someone's home when that person might find disruption particularly difficult. They talked about how they would support those people and how they would engage with the housing association and align with its values and priorities in every aspect of their delivery.

They just got it. They understood the client's world, and they made it completely clear in their response that they understood it. Every element the scoring matrix asked for, they'd addressed it. Not because they'd read the matrix and ticked boxes, but because they'd thought deeply about what this particular client actually needed and written from that understanding. I often think about that bid when working with my own clients - looking back they provided me with a masterclass on how to get it right and I try to help my clients apply the same approaach.

It's not about you, it's about what you can do for the buyer

Stop asking 'how do we describe what we do' and start asking 'what does this buyer need, and how do we demonstrate that we can genuinely deliver it.' Your solution, approach and experience all become more compelling when they're framed around their problem rather than your capability. Lead with the client's need. Describe your solution in terms of the benefit it delivers for them specifically. Back every claim with evidence that's specific and verifiable.

Before you write a word

Understand the buyer's world before you start. Who are they, what do they care about, what problem are they trying to solve, and who are the people affected by this contract? Then write from that understanding outward, not from your business inward. The businesses that win consistently aren't always just the most technically capable. They're the ones who understand that a tender response isn't about them. It's about the buyer.

Everything I share in this series is based on my own experience on both the buyer and the bidder side. I'd love to hear your views too. If something resonates, or if you see it differently, tell me in the comments.